Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural

Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater

November 1990

OTA-F-418

NTIS order #PB91-129874

Foreword

Agriculture has always been a mainstay of the U.S. economy, and an important component of our

cultural heritage. However, this century has seen an ‘‘environmental revolution’ occur, emerging into

a force of widespread national significance since the late 1960s. The environmental concerns specifically

attributed to agriculture have followed a progression: from recognition of ‘on-site’ problems (e.g., loss

of soil fertility due to erosion), to ‘‘off-site’ (e.g., degradation of surface-water quality due to nutrient

runoff from agricultural fields) and, today, to “out-of-sight” concerns such as groundwater

contamination by agricultural chemicals (’ ‘agrichemicals ”).

Surveys show that public concern over agrichemical contamination of groundwater (as well as other

related issues such as food safety and surface-water quality) is high. Further, this concern extends to

farmers and farm communities-the individuals in closest proximity to potentially contaminated

groundwater. Because of the nature of groundwater contamination-largely out-of-reach of remedial

actions and, thus, essentially irreversible-prevention of groundwater contamination is the only means

currently available for responding to the need to protect essential resources, environmental quality, and

health.

Protection of the Nation’s groundwater resources has become an issue of pressing concern to the

public, to Congress, and to many Federal, State, and local agencies. Agencies and organizations at all

levels are undertaking programs designed to affect a farmer’s choice of technology, and thus the potential

for introduction of agrichemicals into groundwater. Such programs include extensive efforts in data

collection and management, research and development, extension and education, and regulatory actions.

Several primary conclusions derived from the analysis covered in this assessment have clear policy

implications. First, agriculture is a national, strategic resource: options that severely reduce the U.S.

capacity to produce food to feed the domestic population are clearly adverse to the interests of society.

Second, protection of environmental quality is high on the public lists of societal goals. Certain

agricultural technologies—in nutrient and pest management; in crop, sod, and water management

practices; in data analysis and planning; and in design of farming systems-show considerable promise

for reducing the potential for agrichemicals to enter groundwater.

Four congressional committees and five subcommittees requested the Office of Technology

Assessment in 1988 to conduct an assessment of the potentials for agricultural technologies to reduce

groundwater contamination by agricultural chemicals: House Committee on Agriculture, its Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture; House Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology; House Committee on Public Works and Transportation; Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations; Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs; and Senate

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The assessment identifies and discusses in-depth

constraints to and opportunities for agricultural approaches to reduce the potential for agrichemical

contamination of groundwater.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of its advisory panel and authors of commissioned papers.

We are especially grateful for the time and effort donated by the numerous contributors who served as

reviewers and as liaisons from Federal agencies. The information and assistance provided by those

individuals-too numerous to list-proved invaluable to the completion of the assessment. As with all

OTA studies, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of OTA.

.,,

Ill
Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater Advisory Panel

Sandra S. Batie, Chair

Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

John Abernathy

Resident Director of Research

Agricultural Research and Extension Center

Texas A & M University

Donald Duvick

Vice President of Research

Pioneer i-Ii-Bred International

Richard S. Fawcett

Agricultural Consultant

Iowa

Scott Ferguson

Partner, McLeod & Pires

Washington, DC

Roger Gold

Coordinator, Environmental programs

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources

University of Nebraska

George Hallberg

Supervisor, Environmental Geology

Geological Survey Bureau

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Joseph Harkins

Director

Kansas Water Office

Roland Hauck

Senior Scientist

National Fertilizer & Environmental Research

Center

Tennessee Valley Authority

Dennis Keeney

Director

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

Iowa State University

Bobby McKown

Executive Vice President

Florida Citrus Mutual

Robert H. Miller

Dean, College of Natural Resources

University of Rhode Island

Peter Nowak

Professor

Department of Sociology

University of Wisconsin

Donna Pratt

Chairman, Natural Resources

Women Involved in Farm Economics

Carl Pulvermacher

Farmer

Wisconsin

Richard Rominger

Farmer

California

Velma Smith

Project Director

Groundwater Protection

Environmental Policy Institute

Ford West

Vice President

Government Relations

The Fertilizer Institute

L Garth Youngberg

Executive Director

Institute for Alternative Agriculture

NOTE: OTA is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the Advisory Panel and other reviewers. The

reviewers do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the

report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
(OTA Project Staff on Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches

To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Roger Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program Manager

Food and Renewable Resources Program

Alison L. Hess, Project Director

Analytical Staff

Mary A. Bruns, Analyst

Patricia J. Durana, Research Analyst

Laura Dye, Internl

Lyn E. Raue, Intern2

Susan J. Wintsch, Contracted EditorWriter

Clerical Staff

N. Ellis Lewis, Office Administrator

Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, PC Specialist

1

From May 1989 to September 1989.

2

From September 1988 to December 1988.
Contents

Page

Chapter I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 3. Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Chapter 4. Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter 5. Farmer Decisionmaking and Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical

Contamin ation of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Chapter 6. Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:

Findings, Issues, and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Appendix A. Major Federal Programs and Activities Related to Water Quality and

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Appendix B. List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Appendix C. Commissioned Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Point-Source Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonpoint Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

FARMER DECISIONMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Factors Influencing Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Decisionmaking To Protect Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information Sources for Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . ., . . ., ., . . .....

Public-Sector Financial Assistance To Improve Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public-Sector Coordination To Improve Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TAKING A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO REDUCING AGRICHEMICAL

CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STRATEGY: Define and Evaluate Roles, Goals, and Relationships of

Relevant Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STRATEGY: Build the Knowledge Base To Support Improved Decisionmaking . . . .

STRATEGY: Redirect Federal Agricultural Programs To Remove Disincentives

and Create Incentives for Groundwater Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STRATEGY: Foster a National Effort To Reduce Agrichemical Mismanagement

and Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LOOKING IN THE LONGER TERM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

6

6

7

10

10

10

11

13

14

14

14

18

19

20

20

Boxes

Box Page

l-A. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

l-B. Uncertainty and Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

l-C. Hydrogeology and Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

l-D. Aspects of Agrichemical Use and Regulation Potentially Fostering

Agrichemical Mismanagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Figures

Figure Page

1-1. Primary On-Farm Pathways of Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater. . . . . . 4

1-2. Potential Farmstead Point-Source Routes of Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1-3. Sources of Information and Advice to Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1-4. Lost Agrichemicals Are Wasted Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1-5. Major Federal, State, and Local Organizations Influencing Farmer

Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chapter 1

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture has always been an important part of

the economy and cultural heritage of the United

States. Although the number of farmers has declined

over the last 50 years, food and fiber still accounts

for about 18 percent of the gross national product.

Because of the scientific and technological advances

occurring largely since World War II, farms have

become more automated, specialized, productive,

and increasingly dependent on off-farm inputs.

Among these, commercial fertilizers and pesticides

have been widely used to save time and labor.

Agrichernical use increased 15 percent between

1974 and 1985. In 1986, approximately 57 percent

and 75 percent of U.S. farms had pesticide and

fertilizer expenditures, respectively.l

However, environmental concerns about agrichemicals, especially pesticides, are growing. These

concerns revolve around long-term hazards to the

consuming population, to wildlife, and to the

environment generally, including surface and groundwater. Agriculture is one of the most, if not the most,

pervasive contributors to nonpoint-source pollution

of surface- and groundwater. Nonpoint-source pollution derives from multiple sources spread over

wide areas (box l-A; figure l-l).

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) documented the presence of 46 pesticides in

groundwater from 26 States. Approximately 24,000

of 124,000 wells sampled nationwide in 1984

contained nitrate concentrations above 3 milligrams

per liter (mg/L) indicating a likely human source, yet

considerably below the Health Advisory level of 10

mg/L. Reports of groundwater contamination are

increasing with time. Information from the forthcoming EPA National Survey of Pesticides in

. . Drmking Water should clarify the extent of contamination.

Whether the widespread occurrence of agrichemicals in groundwater implies chronic mismanagement of these substances, or reflects the consequences of normal, label-specified field use (or both)

is not clear, nor is the full extent of the problem

known. To date, well monitoring has been patchy

and some data emerging from well-sampling efforts

around the country remain under contention. The

actual or potential human health impacts of agrichemicals in groundwater are also unknown, especially in

the case of very low pesticide concentrations now

easily detectable with modern scientific equipment

and methods. Despite--a perhaps because of—

these uncertainties, public concern over groundBox I-A—Definitions

What is an agrichemical? For the purposes of this assessment an agricultural chemical-agrichemical-is any

chemical compound applied to an agricultural production system with intent to enhance plant productivity or

prevent loss of productivity caused by disease or by pests; or produced as a byproduct of the farm system (e.g.,

byproducts from livestock manures or crop residues).

What is a groundwater contaminant? Groundwater contamination here refers to the measurable presence of

an agrichemical or its breakdown products in groundwater, regardless of the level of concentration or the current

or projected uses of the water. Only nitrate and certain categories of pesticides are believed to be significant

groundwater contaminants. A number of agronomic nitrate sources exist, including commercial fertilizers, livestock

wastes, crop residues, and sewage sludges and wastewater. However, because most commercial fertilizers are highly

soluble and concentrated, concern exists that such fertilizers may have long-term adverse impacts on nitrate leaching

to groundwater—particularly if application rates exceed crop needs.

An agroecosystem refers to the blend of physio-chemical and ecological parameters as modified by agronomic

practices. Areas characterized by similar climatic, hydrogeologic, farming system, and other agroecological features

may be classified as agroecoregions.

—

IF-s not using ~gnchemicals Comon]y Me extcmive livestock Operations, organic f~s, and small hobby f-s

–3–
Figure 1-1—Primary On-Farm Pathways of Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

. . . —

Transpiration

*

Evaporation

H

=

—

Infiltration Sand and gravel aquifer

{

Agrichemical contamination of groundwater can occur from myriad sources and through numerous pathways. In addition, potential contaminants can move considerable

distances prior to deposition on soils or in surface waters and subsequent leaching to groundwater. The direction and speed of contaminant movement within groundwater

depends on the nature of subsoil layers.

SOURCE: Adapted from Soil and Water Conservation Society, “Treasure of Abundance or Pandora’s Box?: A Guide for Safe, Profitable Fertilizer and Pesticide Use,” pamphlet, 1989.
Chapter 1--Summary ● 5

Box l-B—Uncertainty and Risk

Public concern over agrichemical contamination of groundwater illustrates the extent to which perceptions of

risk are changing. Public surveys have shown that contaminated groundwater commonly is believed more risky than

other conditions that some scientists suggest are actually more hazardous to personal health (e.g., indoor air

pollution). People tend to accept risks more readily if they are self-imposed or if they are familiar. Agrichemically

contaminated drinking water involves an involuntary risk, one associated with a resource for which there are no

substitutes (i.e., water), with unfamiliar multisyllabic chemical names, and with uncertain and far distant

consequences.

Moreover, differing values held by different groups in society (e.g., consumers, producers, urban

environmentalists), imply that risk-management and communication decisions must be negotiated. When

organizations are perceived to be ignoring the values voiced in the debate, the public may undertake risk

management on its own, for example by changing consumption patterns. Such unanticipated changes in

consumption could have far more adverse impacts than a gradual shift in production practices in response to public

concerns.

Clearly, the public is unwilling to wait until scientific inquiry provides all the facts necessary to determine an

uncontroversial, measurable level of risk. Instead, it is calling on Congress to meet a challenge ‘‘posed by

policy-related science issues, characterized by uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes, and a need for urgent

decisions. ” 1

IJ.A. Bn&~, “~ePO@ ~lications of Differing Concepts of Rislq” Science, Technology, & Human values, VO1. 14, No. 4,Au1989, pp. 380-399.

water quality has grown significantly in recent years

to become an issue of national importance (box l-B).

Groundwater supplies drinking water to approximately 50 percent of the U.S. population, and to at

least 90 percent of rural residents and is also

essential to agriculture in many regions of the

country. Reliance on groundwater likely will increase as the population grows, per capita use

expands, and contaminated surface and groundwater

supplies are removed from the water supply reserve.

For this reason, and because surface and groundwater are closely linked parts of the hydrologic

cycle, sustaining the supply of relatively pure

groundwater will confer long-term benefits to the

quality of human life and the environment.

Preventing or minimizing groundwater contamination from agricultural sources is not a simple task.

Because most agrichemicals are intentionally and

intermittently applied to the land at multiple sites

distributed over wide areas, contaminants detecte d

in surface and groundwater may have come from

almost anywhere. Little is known about local and

regional patterns of agrichemical use, making it all

the more difficult to assign culpability for groundwater contamination to specific places or practices,

and to identify effective mitigation strategies.

—

Photo credit: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Groundwater supplies drinking water to half of the U.S.

population and 90 percent of the rural population. Reliance

on groundwater supplies for drinking water and other uses

is expected to continue to increase.

Another major obstacle to easy development of

policy approaches is the complexity and variability

inherent to all components of the agroecosystem.

These components include the hydrogeologic environments in which agriculture is conducted (box

l-C), the nature of cropping systems and other

practices related to farm management, the size and

physical layout of farms, and the resources, skills,

attitudes, and motivations of farmers. This complex-
6 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 1-C—Hydrogeology and Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Water is a critical component of agroecosystems. It is also the agent most likely to transport agrichemicals over

the land to surface-water reservoirs and through soil and rock to groundwater aquifers. Water continually cyles

among the atmosphere, oceans, freshwater reservoirs (lakes, rivers), plants, soils, and other materials at and below

the Earth’s surface. The movement and exchange of water among these various components of the geologic and

ecologic environment is referred to as the ‘‘hydrologic cycle.

In devising strategies to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater it is important to understand how

the cycle works, and to appreciate how heterogeneities in the physical components of agroecosystems affect the

hydrologic cycle and the potential for agrichemicals to migrate to groundwater along a loop of that cycle. Climate,

for example, varies regionally. Weather patterns that affect the amount of water moving in and through soils and

the depth to the water table, also change seasonally.

Different distributions of vegetative cover, soil types, and other geologic materials also characterize different

parts of the country and even different parts of the same farm field, The physical texture, mineral and chemistry of

soils and other geologic materials affect the mobility of water and soluble agrichemicals. Soils change in character

vertically as well as laterally. Water thus can flow rapidly through some soil layers and geologic materials, but

slowly or not at all through other adjacent or enclosing layers.

Some regions of the United States are underlain by extensive geologic formations that store considerable

amounts of groundwater. Once in groundwater, contaminants can spread in ways that are not predictable from the

land’s surface topography and drainage patterns. Contaminants introduced to groundwater at one site (where, for

example, downward leaching is facilitated by physical parameters) can migrate considerable distances laterally.

Thus, areas where soils and other materials tend to retard downward leaching may still experience contaminated

well-water because of lateral groundwater movement of contaminants from another part of the aquifer. Such

incidents of contamination may be impossible to trace.

ity and variability, along with regional variations in from continued, yet improved use of agrichemicals

growing season, average farm size and commodities to the use of nonchemical technologies; and can be

grown, rule out simple solutions. Clearly, no set of grouped into four general categories:

‘‘prescriptions’ to reduce potential agrichemical

contamination of groundwater is likely to work ●

everywhere agriculture is practiced, nor is any one

strategy likely to appeal to all farmers.

●

Further, environmental and ecological cycles

affect agrichemical behavior, movement, and fate. ●

Hydrologic, nutrient, and pest cycles may be modi- ●

fied, but cannot be halted. A major obstacle to

mitigating groundwater contamination by agrichemicals is incomplete understanding of how natural

cycles and farming inputs operate as a system. The

fundamental question is how to integrate management of water, crops, soil, nutrients, and pests to

reduce potential agrichemical contamination of groundwater without significantly compromising productivity or profitability, or degrading other natural

resources.

TECHNOLOGIES

Despite the paucity of knowledge of how natural

processes and agronomic practices interact, some

steps can be taken to protect groundwater from

further contamination. These opportunities range

improved agrichemical handling to reduce groundwater contamination from farmstead or dealership point sources;

improved agrichemical efficacy and application to reduce nonpoint-source contamination;

agrichemical use reduction; and

incorporating nonchemical nutrient and pest

management practices into farming systems.

Further opportunities are available through improved crop, soil, and water management techniques

that reduce agrichemical requirements or potential

for leaching. Management practices within each of

these categories can be implemented as individual

practices or as components of integrated farming

systems.

Point-Source Controls

Reducing or eliminating point sources of agrichemical contamination is perhaps the least disruptive

groundwater protection strategy. Common-sense

approaches and simple, low-cost technologies to

reduce and prevent agrichemical spills and other
Chapter 1-Summary ● 7

Figure 1-2—Potential Farmstead Point-Source Routes of Contamination

Silage storage

I

Manure holdingpond

1 .- -<.’. ~ - ~“ ~ .

A number of pathways may exist at the farmstead for point-source contamination of groundwater by pesticides and nitrate. Mismanagement

of agrichemicals, especially near water wells, can result in groundwater contamination even by chemicals unlikely to leach through soils.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

point-source losses on farmsteads and at dealerships

could help prevent groundwater contamination (figure 1-2). For example, areas where agrichemicals are

stored, mixed, and loaded, and where containers are

rinsed, commonly are located close to wells, posing

the risk of direct introduction of contaminants into

groundwater.

Feedlots, manure stockpiles, and poorly designed

treatment and storage lagoons are other potential

point sources of environmental pollution. Improved

storage, handling, and treatment techniques can

reduce potential groundwater contamination from

livestock wastes. Improved management can be

combined with techniques to re-use livestock

wastes. In addition to appropriate agronomic use of

manure and other nutrient-bearing wastes, opportunities lie in comporting, biogas generation, thermochemical conversion, and fiber recovery technologies,

The Farmstead Assessment Program under development in several States, is designed to identify

potential farmstead sources of groundwater contamination, and to educate farmers about management

practices to prevent groundwater contamination.

Further effort could promote development and

adoption of such practices, and also could increase

awareness of the variety of potential farmstead

sources of groundwater contamination.

Nonpoint Sources

Only a small percentage of applied agricultural

pesticides reach the desired target (e.g., insect),

implying that substantial amounts may be distributed in the environment through a variety of

pathways. Thus, improved agrichemical efficacy,

application equipment, and methods for delivery of

the pesticide could contribute to protecting groundwater and other environmental media (atmosphere,

surface waters) and provide cost savings from waste

reduction.

Agrichemical application timed to meet crop

needs more closely may reduce agrichemical use

without reducing expected yield. Pest scouting also

can result in fewer or more pest-specific chemical

applications. Avoiding agrichemical applications

during weather conditions conducive to leaching

offers another opportunity to reduce potential groundwater contamination. These approaches require regular monitoring of soil water, crop nutrients, and

pest populations, and improved weather prediction

capabilities.

A variety of pest-control techniques are not

heavily reliant on agrichemicals. These include crop
8 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

rotations to break pest cycles, cultivation methods

that disrupt weed lifecycles, and use of natural pest

predators. Nutrient management approaches that

may reduce the need for commercial fertilizers

include use of manures and legume-based crop

rotations. However, mismanagement of such approaches also may create conditions for groundwater

contamination.

Improved Agrichemical Efficacy and

Application

Chemicals that are more pest-specific or potentially less toxic to non-target organisms (e.g., some

natural toxins) offer potential for reducing adverse

impacts, as do pest-specific application methods

such as the use of pheromone baits to lure insects to

an insecticide. Effective use of these approaches

requires knowledge of chemical properties and pest

lifecycles and sensitivities.

Changes in pesticide formulations can improve

chemical efficiency such that desired results are

achieved with less active ingredient applied per acre.

However, this poses significant challenges to developers of pesticide application equipment. Little

advantage is gained in developing and using products with greater efficacy if the smaller amounts

applied per acre do not arrive at the target pest. Thus,

improved precision delivery systems should accompany efforts to enhance the intrinsic activity of

pesticides with new formulations. In addition to

improvements in application accuracy, technology

is needed to permit variable amounts of agrichemicals to be applied within a single field to account for

inherent variations in soil nutrients and pest populations.

Recognition of these inherent variations is critical

to improved application schemes. For example, it is

important to understand how certain natural processes affect the availability of plant-usable nitrogen

in determining appropriate fertilizer application

rates. Failure to account for both natural and external

sources of nitrogen can lead to excess fertilizer

application and increased potential for nitrogen loss

from the cropping system. Practitioners must be able

to manipulate a broad array of data in determining

fertilizer application rates; computers may become

valuable tools in making such determinations.

Fertilizers that provide nitrogen to crops in a

time-release fashion and vitrification inhibitors offer

opportunities to enhance fertilizer efficacy. Numerous advantages have been claimed for slow-release

fertilizers, however, these products are expensive

and benefits have not been substantiated in economically viable, productive cropping systems. The

environmental effects of slow-release fertilizers also

need investigation, since potential exists for these

materials to continue releasing nitrogen in the

absence of plant growth (e.g., after harvest).

Reducing nitrification in soils may offer environmental as well as economic benefits. Positive yield

responses to vitrification inhibitors have been demonstrated in the field, generally under conditions

where formation of nitrate would have promoted

nitrogen loss via leaching or denitrification.

Agrichemical Use Reduction

Additional opportunities exist to reduce nonpointsource contamination of groundwater through reduced agrichemical use. The most promising of

these are based on understanding of whole farm

systems, broad knowledge of agroecosystem dynamics, considerable management effort, and a

willingness on the part of farmers to use agrichemicals more carefully, more selectively, or not at all.

More selective use of agrichemicals requires

consideration of whether the goals of use are

economically optimal. For example, weed-free

fields may not be an economically optimal goal.

Identifying thresholds of weed growth that can be

tolerated without significantly compromising soil

nutrient content, soil moisture content, or crop yields

may enable farmers to reduce herbicide and fertilizer

applications.

Timing of agrichemical applications is critical to

use reduction. Premature application of pesticides or

fertilizer can increase the loss of the chemicals to the

environment, thereby necessitating subsequent applications to achieve the desired effect. Decision

aids such as models to predict pest intensities and

calculate crop losses and economic injury associated

with various pest intensities, can improve the basis

for determiningg rates and timing of application.

Some systems integrate nonchemical practices to

reduce agrichemical requirements. Commonly these

‘‘low-input’ systems draw on nutrient management

and pest control practices used prior to the chemical

era, and may require more inputs of information,

management skills, or labor than conventional

systems.
Chapter I-Summary ● 9

For example, Integrated Pest Management (IPM),

a systems approach to pest control that draws from

new and traditional methodologies, demands knowledge of agroecosystem dynamics. It assumes that a

threshold level exists below which pest control is not

economically practical; and that integration of

chemical and nonchemical methods is possible. Pest

scouting-employing visual inspection, pheromone

traps, or other counting or collection methods-is

used to identify and monitor pest infestations, If

action is deemed necessary, a control method is

chosen from a suite of techniques ranging from

traditional cultivation or crop rotation practices to

chemical applications. IPM programs have resulted

in significant decreases in pesticide use in several

crops.

Nonchemical Practices

Many producers, sensitive to public concern over

agrichemicals on foods and in the environment, and

aware of a clientele willing to pay more for food

grown without chemical inputs, exclusively employ

nonchemical practices. Examples include legumebased crop rotations; timing of planting and harvest

to minimize opportunities for pest infestations or to

break pest cycles; and biological pest control.

Biological pest control may involve introductions of

pest predators, rearing and periodic release of natural

pest enemies or parasites, or conservation of those

extant in the agroecosystem.

Crop rotation was a common practice in early U.S.

agriculture that declined with expanded use of

chemical fertilizers and pest-control compounds and

availability of high-yielding crop varieties. Crop

rotation and associated crop diversity may retard

pest buildup by creating conditions that hinder

development of pest populations and enhance the

soil-nutrient content. Certain crops may provide

additional benefits in rotation (e.g., nitrogen-fixing

legume crops can provide nitrogen for following

crops).

Managing Farming Systems

Other choices farmers make in managing crops,

soils, and water offer additional opportunities to

reduce external inputs in agroecosystems without

significantly affecting production. Integrating management of all factors in agricultural production—

crops, soil, water, nutrients, and pest controls-may

provide the greatest promise for reducing adverse

environmental impacts.

Crop, Soil, and Water Management—Some

crops and production practices in certain regions

require intensive agrichemical inputs because of

incompatibilities between crop needs and predominant soil type and climate. Growing a particular crop

in the most suitable environment for that crop, where

fewer inputs are needed to sustain production, makes

intuitive sense.

Crop cultivar improvements have accounted for

50 percent of overall yield increases in U.S. agriculture. Current areas of crop breeding research that

may directly or indirectly affect agrichemical use

include: pest tolerance, herbicide resistance, and

nitrogen self-efficiency. Genetic engineering research has focused on introducing genes that may

enhance tolerance to drought or pests, or provide

nitrogen self-sufficiency. However, no guarantee

exists that development of such cultivars would not

create new problems, such as inadvertent transfer of

tolerance or resistance to pest species. Public

concern over introduction of genetically engineered

or manipulated organisms may constrain development of such new cultivars.

Cropping patterns and tillage practices may also

directly affect intensity of agrichemical use, uptake

by plants, erodability and other attributes of soils,

and movement of water and agrichemicals within

soils. All of these factors can mitigate or promote

agrichemical movement to surface water or leaching

to groundwater. However, the interactive effects of

various practices can be extremely complex, making

it difficult to determine environmental impacts of

management decisions.

Proper water management maintains soil moisture at levels sufficient for crop growth, but below

those promoting deep leaching of agrichemicals.

Producers rely on weather predictions to avoid

application prior to heavy rainfalls or, under dry

conditions, to apply agrichemicals when a light rain

may facilitate plant uptake.

Irrigation offers risks and opportunities with

respect to groundwater quality. Attributes of irrigation systems that may affect agrichemical contamination of groundwater include: scheduling, timing,

rates, drainage, and type of systems (e.g., sprinkler,

drip, furrow). Uniformity of distribution is of major

importance, since uneven distribution across a field

may result in overapplication and thus promote deep

percolation of water and solutes. Advances in
10 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

irrigation technology focus on enhancing uniformity

of distribution and increasing water use efficiency.

Chemigation-applying agrichemicals with water

through an irrigation system-may have potential to

reduce groundwater contamination by agrichemicals. Through effective control of the amount of

water applied and selection of proper agrichemical

formulations, a chemical can be deposited either on

foliage or the soil surface or distributed to a desired

soil depth. However, under certain conditions, such

as heavy precipitation following chemigation, these

techniques have been shown to promote leaching of

chemicals.

Integrated Farm Management Systems—Crop,

soil, water, nutrient, and pest management clearly

should be integrated to achieve the broad goal of

protecting multiple and interlinked environmental

resources (soil, surface water, groundwater, and

atmosphere) without significantly compromising

productivity.

One way of integrating these considerations is

through development of packages of ‘Best Management Practices’ (BMPs). BMPs were originally

designed to meet conservation and quality goals for

a specific resource. The BMP concept may now have

to be expanded as concerns broaden to include

multiple environmental media and cross-media pollution.

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has developed an approach to integrate BMPs, called Resource Management Systems (RMSs). RMSs are

coordinated sets of management practices that

address multiple resource concerns. Some landgrant universities also are conducting research and

demonstration on integrated farm systems with

funding from the Low-Input/Sustainable Agriculture program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA).

FARMER DECISIONMAKING

Adoption of management practices and systems

to reduce groundwater contamination by agrichemicals ultimately depends on decisions made by

individual farmers. Information delivery and technical assistance programs to reduce groundwater

contamination will be more effective if they are

based on an understanding of factors influencing

producers’ decisions and address producers’ constraints to technology adoption.

Factors Influencing Decisionmaking

Programs to reduce agrichemical contamination

of groundwater stand better chances of being effective if they are built on a good understanding of the

farm-level constraints, institutional and economic

policies, and structural trends that influence producers’ decisionmaking. Farmers’ decisions on agrichemical use and groundwater protection will be based on

fundamental objectives for farming. Although other

personal, social, and environmental factors influence objective setting, economic factors define what

is financially possible for farmers, often forcing

them to focus on the short-term. Thus, economic

factors can prevent producers from taking risks,

making the most economically efficient decisions

over a longer term, investing in natural resource

protection measures, or adopting certain technologies.

Because individual producers have been slow to

adopt relatively simple, highly profitable technologies (e.g., hybrid corn), voluntary adoption of more

complex farming practices to reduce groundwater

contamination is likely to require considerable time.

The adoption process is likely to be further slowed

if institutional programs (e.g., commodity support

programs) and information sources generate conflicting incentives and messages.

Economic and structural trends in the agricultural

sector (increasing numbers of large farms, increase

in contract farming, and more vertical integration in

agriculture) will also influence producers’ decisions

and affect their capacity to respond to groundwater

contamination concerns. These trends are likely to

affect economies of scale, financial constraints,

actual and perceived risks, and producers’ available

time and willingness to learn about and adopt new

farming practices or systems.

Decisionmaking To Protect Groundwater

Producers are more likely to adopt farming

practices that: 1) have clear, documented advantages

over other practices (e.g., lower costs, higher crop

yields); 2) are compatible with their current practices

and previous investments; 3) are easy to implement;

4) are capable of being observed or demonstrated;

and 5) are capable of being adopted gradually or

incrementally. The four approaches to reducing

agrichemical contamination differ with respect to

these characteristics.
Chapter 1-Summary ● 11

The first two technology categories, agrichemical

management to reduce point-source contamination

and improved efficacy and application management

to reduce nonpoint-source contamination, assume

continued reliance on agrichemicals as the principal

means of providing crop nutrients and controlling

pests. These approaches are likely to be compatible

with most current farming systems relying on

agrichemicals.

The latter two alternative farming practice approaches, agrichemical use reduction and nonchemical practices, assume a conscious move away from

conventional agrichemical use and require an increased understanding of interactions among nutrient, pest, crop, soil, and water management practices. These approaches will be important components of a groundwater protection strategy, but they

may be perceived as risky, and are more complex

and less compatible with most current agricultural

operations than the first two approaches. Thus, the

majority of farmers currently relying on agrichemicals would be expected to adopt the first two

approaches much more quickly than the latter two.

Convincing a majority of producers to invest in

unfamiliar nonchemical farming practices is likely

to require much more information than currently

exists. Producers also will need time, and possibly

technical assistance and other incentives to plan,

learn about, and gain experience with new practices

during transition periods.

Information Sources for Decisionmaking

The people who will be most directly affected by

groundwater protection policies for agriculture are

people who work and live on farms. Recent and

emerging survey literature on farmers’ concerns and

policy preferences related to agrichemicals and

groundwater quality provide non-generalizable insights into farmer attitudes about groundwater

quality in areas where the media has given the issue

greater attention (i.e., the Midwest).

Farmers represented in these surveys show acute

awareness of agrichemical groundwater contamination, and are concerned about the health implications. The majority would like viable reduced-use or

nonchemical alternatives, but believe that pesticides

remain their best current pest and disease control

method. Most also indicate that they have already

reduced agrichemical use as much as they profitably

can, and prefer voluntary to regulatory approaches to

i!. i ‘

. . *

‘f-, -A. “ “

~,.,

Photo credit: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

When contaminated drinking water wells are closed, water

must be obtained from other sources such as surface water

supplies, new well systems tapping different groundwater

supplies, connections to water distribution systems, or

water transported in from other areas.

reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

A variety of information is needed to assist

producers in reducing agrichemical contamination,

beginning with data on agrichemical contaminant

levels in local groundwater. Producers also need

site-specific economic and agronomic information

on proposed farm practice changes and assistance in

keeping record of the types, amounts, and locations

of agrichemicals used. Data-gathering and information delivery will be critical components of most

technical assistance programs.

Farmers’ sources of information include public

agencies and private-sector sources such as agrichemical manufacturers, dealerships, farm cooperatives,

agricultural magazines and advertising, and one

another (figure 1-3), Farmers interested in usereduction and nonchemical practices note a scarcity

of information on these approaches. Such farmers

have had to seek information from other experienced

farmers, and these ‘‘farmer-to-farmer networks’ are

playing important roles in disseminating information on more complex farming system changes.

Farmer networks conduct on-farm experimentation,

information gathering, and information dissemina-
12 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 1-3-Sources of Information and Advice to Farmers

\ \
Chapter I-Summary ● 1 3

However, advisory firms and independent crop

consultants not associated with agrichemical sales

can provide services without many of these problems, and are playing a substantial role in providing

technical assistance to farmers. Some States have

implemented licensing programs for crop advisors

and consultants that facilitate farmers’ access to

reliable services. The public sector could assist the

private sector in design, development, and delivery

of advisory services by providing agronomic and

economic information on feasibility of reduced

agrichemical applications, and offering training

programs for employees and education and licensing

programs for advisors.

Public-sector sources of information and technical assistance for farmers include: 1) Federal agencies with local offices; 2) State organizations,

primarily the Cooperative Extension Service (CES)

based at the State land-grant university; and 3) local

agencies and organizations, such as soil and water

conservation districts and local conservation committees (see figure 1-5 later). These organizations

play important roles in encouraging farm practice

changes to reduce groundwater contamination.

District conservationists employed by USDA’s

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) help producers

develop soil and water conservation plans and

arrange for cost-share funding for implementation of

conservation practices. USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) provides

financial assistance to farmers by administering

Federal agricultural program payments, including

SCS cost-share payments for implementing conservation practices. Its pilot cost-share project, the

“Integrated Crop Management” program, aims to

achieve a 20 percent reduction in agrichemical use

among participating farmers by improving their

agrichemical management practices.

Information and assistance from State and local

agencies complement Federal Government assistance and can predispose farmers to implement

certain production and conservation practices. The

State Cooperative Extension Service (CES) based at

State land-grant universities plays the most important role in information delivery and assistance to

farmers. CESs respond primarily to State needs but

can also respond to regional and national priorities.

Specific CES activities related to agrichemical

management and groundwater quality include pesticide applicator training, recommendations on pesticide and fertilizer application rates, soil testing

services, and water quality education programs.

State Departments of Agriculture (DOAs) also

play important roles in managing agrichemical use

within their borders, because they are the lead

agencies in most States and territories for pesticide

programs. DOAs can expand or restrict the State’s

range of pesticide uses by granting experimental or

conditional permits for nonregistered pesticides and

by restricting the use of pesticide materials. DOAs

also administer pesticide applicator certification

programs and some departments offer programs that

help farmers try new agricultural practices.

Soil Conservation Districts are special-purpose

units of government that plan and coordinate local

soil and water conservation programs. They are

important interfaces between Federal policy directives and local implementation efforts, and they have

devoted a major share of their workload to helping

farmers meet conservation compliance requirements

of the 1985 Food Security Act. If additional crosscompliance provisions related to groundwater quality are authorized (e.g., agrichemical management

plans), conservation districts will likely play key

roles in program implementation.

County Governments and Local Conservation

Committees also play a role in providing technical

assistance to farmers through county extension

funding. A wide variety of local boards, committees,

or commissions help set priorities for extension and

agricultural conservation programs. Local boards

may have a high degree of influence on the

assistance programs available to farmers and on the

kinds of conservation practices that are supported

technically and financially.

Public-Sector Financial Assistance

To Improve Decisionmaking

Possible sources of public financial assistance to

States for groundwater protection practices include:

Federal grants; State general revenues; and a variety

of ‘‘Alternative Financing Mechanisms’ (AFMs),

such as user fees, permit fees, pollution discharge

fees, environmental taxes, bonds, revolving loan

finds, and compliance penalties. AFMs have become common sources of State capital and revenue

for specific environmental activities.

As Federal contributions to States’ environmental

programs have declined in the last 10 years, many
14 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

States’ general revenues have remained stable or

declined. Since State officials do not foresee substantial increases in AFM funds, they believe that

environmental protection demands will have to be

met through increases in general revenues. Thus,

increases in taxes may be needed to implement new

State-level groundwater protection programs.

Public-Sector Coordination

To Improve Decisionmaking

Producers or landowners who seek assistance for

comprehensive resource management face difficulties in bridging the separate “turfs’ created by

different agencies and their programs and in evaluating conflicting messages from public agencies. If

producers hear consistent messages from public,

private, and informal information sources regarding

the importance of proper agrichemical use and

environmental protection in agriculture, they maybe

likely to implement practices that protect groundwater. Just as producers need to consider all relevant

resource concerns in making farm or ranch management decisions, State and local governments need to

develop mechanisms to review, prioritize, and coordinate their efforts. Whenever possible, publicsector assistance should also support development

of private-sector capacity to provide information and

assistance.

TAKING A STRATEGIC

APPROACH TO REDUCING

AGRICHEMICAL CONTAMINATION

OF GROUNDWATER

Agriculture is a national, strategic resource, and

actions that severely reduce its productive capacity

are clearly adverse to U.S. interests. Agriculture also

is characterized by significant natural and farm

diversity: no technological “black box’ exists that

can be universally adopted to solve agrichemical

contamination of groundwater,

Agrichemical losses to the environment also are

lost farmer investments-wasted resources (figure

1-4). Reducing agrichemical waste or contamination

of groundwater likely will require a combination of

new or modified programs involving education,

incentives, technical assistance, technology research

and development, and regulation to encourage

changes in farming systems.

The question is, what should be changed? Uncertainties about the extent, meaning, and causes of

groundwater contamination imply that policy approaches to reducing agrichemical waste or contamination of groundwater must be designed for high

levels of uncertainty. Further, in some cases it may

be decades before noticeable results—improvements in groundwater quality-can be achieved, due

to the lag time of chemicals already applied and the

time required to develop and encourage adoption of

practices to minimize groundwater contamination.

Policies developed to deal with agrichemical

contamination of groundwater need to consider how

the changes that these policies may foster in U.S.

agriculture will fit into the larger picture of environmental and economic change taking place in this

country. Policymakers can try to strike a balance in

addressing the groundwater contamination issue

using a two-tiered strategic approach: focusing on

the roles and goals of relevant institutions, and then

on the actions of those institutions.

STRATEGY: Define and Evaluate Roles, Goals,

and Relationships of Relevant Organizations

As currently structured, Federal and State agricultural policies and programs provide insufficient

information or incentives for farmers to change their

management strategies significantly and, in fact,

some tend to encourage heavy chemical use. Development and adoption of improved agrichemical

management or less chemical-intensive methods of

production ultimately may depend on new institutional arrangements for policy formation and implementation, and their integration at local, State, and

National levels.

Options relevant to this institution-oriented strategy begin with goal setting and fall into several

additional broad categories. These include:

●

●

●

●

clarification of agency roles in groundwater

protection;

coordination of intra- and inter-agency efforts

to protect groundwater at (and between) Federal and State levels;

provision of a congressional framework for

integrating agricultural and environmental concerns in legislative debate and action; and

removal of legislative and jurisdictional constraints to an integrated Federal response to the

need for groundwater protection.
Chapter 1-Summary ● 15

Congress, USDA, and the agricultural community

in general, have not developed clear-cut agricultural

goals or stated priorities for agricultural research.

The oft-stated mission of agriculture-’ ‘to provide

an ample supply of nutritious food for the consumer

at a reasonable cost with a fair return to the farmer

within an agricultural system that is sustainable in

perpetuity ’’-contains many unquantifiable terms.

What is ‘‘ample, ” “reasonable,” or “fair?” How

much soil erosion or groundwater contamination can

be tolerated by a sustainable system?

How a variety of issues relating to agriculture and

the environment are handled may depend on congressional and Federal agency ability to set welldefined, achievable goals for U.S. agriculture and

the environment; and on how well the roles and

responsibilities of various agencies are defined in

light of these goals. Agency efforts to achieve

congressionally determined goals may be most

effective if they are integrated into a comprehensive

package such that groundwater protection is coordinated with other environmental and agricultural

goals.

Several factors work against such an approach.

The present committee structure of Congress does

not easily handle agricultural bills containing environmental protection provisions, nor is there a

central congressional arena for debating a comprehensive national environmental policy. At present,

water quality concerns are addressed by a number of

distinct pieces of legislation that have not been

integrated into a coordinated set of statutes.

Moreover, a wide range of organizations at all

levels of government confront issues and develop

policy relating to agriculture and the environment

(figure 1-5). Historical precedents, inadequate coordination among and within agencies (Federal and

State), and confusion over roles, responsibilities,

and leadership among and within agricultural and

environmental agencies, hamper comprehensive approaches to groundwater protection. For example, a

socially, economically, and administratively optimal mix of voluntary, regulatory, and crosscompliance approaches to nonpoint-source pollution control has yet to be determined (box l-D).

These problems could be addressed in a variety of

ways. A Joint Committee or other (temporary)

congressional forum could debate goals for agriculture and the environment and review Federal roles in

agriculture and environmental protection. Better

coordination of Federal agency activities could be

realized if the roles, responsibilities, and activities of

each relevant agency were clearly specified in a

special format such as a ‘‘management matrix. ’

Figure 1-4-Lost Agrichemicals Are Wasted Resources

Losses of agrichemicals to the environment represent lost farmer investments as well as potential costs to society.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.
USGS

‘ ‘ ?

EPA

I I I

I I

Regional EPA

Off Ice I

I I

I

I I I

1

USDA T

TVA/ NFERC

I I

I 1 1 1 1 SCS ASCS ES ERS ARS

I

4

I

I

1 r I

I

State

Land-Grant

fUniversity

I

Land owners/manager/communities I

Myriad organizations develop and implement policy related to agrichemicals and groundwater-to agriculture and the environment. The subsequent muttiplioity of actors,

r

m

actions, viewpoints, and approaches make it difficult to generalize-on current or potential roles, evaluabrng extent of success, or defining lines of coordination %d c&operation.

SOURCE: Adapted from National Association of Conservation Districts, “Proposed Strategy for Protecting surface end Groundwater From Agricultural Activities,” June 1989.
Chapter 1--Summary ● 17

Box l-D—Aspects of Agrichemical Use and Regulation Fostering Agrichemical Mismanagement

● The primary current means of encouraging proper use of most agrichemicals is through providing labeling

information and applicators’ voluntary compliance with label directions.

. Proper agrichemical management is extremely difficult to monitor and enforce, because agrichemicals are applied

over wide-ranging areas and often in isolated situations.

● Accurate information on agrichemical mismanagement is difficult to obtain, because agrichemical applicators

may not recognize or are not likely to admit that they are mismanaging agrichemicals.

. Current Federal regulatory authority to ensure minimum standards of applicator competence cannot be applied

to fertilizer application nor to general-use pesticide application in most cases; regulatory authority can be applied

only to applicators of restricted-use pesticides (RUPs), but EPA-designated RUPs constitute only a fraction of

the volume of pesticides used in agriculture (less than 20 percent in 1987).

● The two most prevalent agrichemical contaminants of groundwater are nitrate and atrazine, an herbicide which

had been classified for general-use through January 1990; groundwater contamination by these two agrichemicals

reflects their greater capacity to leach through soils but may also reflect widespread mismanagement which could

be addressed through more rigorous applicator certification and training requirements.

. At least one-half of all agrichemicals in agriculture are applied by private RUP applicators; however, testing and

training requirements for private applicators vary widely among States, often being less rigorous than commercial

applicator requirements; of the 10 highest ranking States in terms of agrichemical use, only 7 required testing or

training for private applicators in 1986.

● One-third to one-half of all agrichemicals in agriculture are applied by commercial applicators, whose testing and

training requirements vary widely by State; of the 10 highest ranking States in terms of agnchemical use, all

required testing (as mandated by Federal law) but only 1 required training for commercial applicators in 1986.

. Commercial employees of agrichemical dealerships also manage agrichemical storage, handling, and disposal

facilities, which are significant potential point sources of groundwater contamination; however, it is difficult to

assess the extent of commercial facilities’ contributions to groundwater contamination, because no national data

exist on the number, locations, and condition of commercial agrichemical facilities, including those which are

currently or no longer in operation.

● States do not document or report the numbers of noncertified RUP applicators, who must be under the direct

supervision of a certified applicator; however, EPA estimates that noncertified RUP applicators constitute at least

half of all agricultural RUP applicators (an estimated 1.2 million noncertified applicators in 1988).

● States typically do not provide special programs for certified RUP applicators on training and supervising

noncertified applicators; because the definition of ‘‘direct supervision’ has been controversial and open to

interpretation, it is difficult to monitor and enforce the extent and quality of supervision of noncertified

applicators.

. Private, certified RUP applicators are not legally required to supervise noncertified farmworkers applying

general-use pesticides; inadequate communication between certified and noncertified applicators, short terms of

employment, and lack of familiarity with equipment are factors which increase chances of agrichemical

mismanagement by noncertified applicators.

Congress could also recognize or establish lead-role programs at the State level. Environmental protecresponsibilities for various agencies, or ask for the

development of an interagency proposal addressing

groundwater protection in agriculture. Improved

oversight of activities within agencies such as

USDA could be fostered by activity “tracking

systems’ and by making a person or office accountable for coordination of agency activities related to

agriculture and the environment.

Much confusion also exists over apportionment of

roles between Federal and State Governments.

Historically, agricultural programs have been largely

generated at the Federal level, and environmental

tion increasingly became a Federal concern during

the 1970s and 1980s, but EPA lacks the staffing and

funds to guide States in implementing federally

mandated groundwater protection strategies. Thus, a

patchwork of laws and regulations has evolved

across the Nation. These problems might be addressed through evaluation of State plans by relevant

Federal agencies, and/or centralization of State

planning for farmlands (through a program analogous to Coastal Zone Management).

To further improve Federal response to groundwater protection issues, agency jurisdictions and
18 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

legislative authorities could be adjusted such that

information collection, research and outreach programs address hydrogeologically defined “agroecoregions’ rather than political boundaries. Increasing

EPA’s legislative authority and flexibility and providing the National Fertilizer and Environmental

Research Center with greater funding autonomy and

clear national authority could also enhance the

Federal role in groundwater protection.

Losses of applied agrichemicals and excess energy use are economically and environmentally

undesirable. Improving agrichemical management

may be an appropriate goal for short-term policymaking. Actions to reduce such “waste” could

have beneficial effects on farm income and environmental quality. Congress could establish an Agricultural Waste-Reduction Initiative as an organizing

principle for identifying goals for U.S. agriculture

and the environment. Efforts could be applied

nationally or directed specifically to hydrogeologically vulnerable ‘‘target’ areas.

STRATEGY: Build the Knowledge Base

To Support Improved Decisionmaking

The availability and adoption of technologies—

products and practices-that reduce loss of agrichemicals to the environment will require substantial and

long-term investments. A basic prerequisite to

appropriate technology development is identification of critical site/agrichemical combinations. This

requires systematic procedures for monitoring, sampling, and testing, and for data collection, management, and display.

Congress could create the basis for improved

groundwater protection policies by accelerating

data-collection efforts as well as digitization of data,

so that interagency data sharing is facilitated. A

national database on agrichemical use could, for

example, fill an important information gap and help

policymakers assess the environmental and economic impacts of changes in agricultural policies

and practices. Techniques such as computer modeling can facilitate analysis of agrichemical use

patterns and other parameters relevant to groundwater contamination potential. Improved and expanded use of geographic information systems (GIS)

could provide a rapid means to assess where efforts

might have the greatest beneficial impact, or whether

proposed policy options have potential to solve

problems. A comprehensive approach could be

taken to provide an “open architecture” GIS—

accommodating data and users from a variety of

agencies. This could facilitate integration of nationallevel databases.

New investments are also likely to be needed in

agricultural research. The decade of the 1990s will

be characterized by broadening concerns for food

safety and the environment in addition to traditional

production concerns. Addressing these issues will

pose a significant challenge to the agricultural

research system, requiring an effective national

strategy and potentially demanding advances in

science and technology of unprecedented scale and

scope. Whether the present system, which traditionally was narrowly focused on production, fragmented among several agencies, and unevenly

funded at the State level, can meet this challenge is

under question. The following are probably all

needed to meet the challenges of the 1990s:

●

●

●

●

●

●

a broadened focus for basic research in agriculture;

adequate funding for applied research to address site-specific environmental problems;

more emphasis on systems-oriented, interdisciplinary research to address a spectrum of

environmental concerns arising from agricultural practices;

improved interagency coordination of research

efforts;

stronger linkages between basic and applied

research (and between public and private research efforts); and

new mechanisms to enhance development and

adoption of agricultural products and practices

with the potential to protect groundwater.

Some of these needs could be addressed by

directing and coordinating federally funded basic

research to improve understanding of agroecosystem components and processes. Such a research

initiative (implemented by USDA or jointly by

several Federal agencies) could provide the means

for developing research priorities, protocols, and

methodologies that are broadly applicable to agroecoregions. Data collection, modeling, and GIS development efforts could, however, be directed preferentially to highly vulnerable areas.

Tracking mechanisms to identify extant research

efforts with relevance to groundwater protection

could be developed as a first step in planning and

prioritizing research and determining funding needs.
Chapter I-Summary ● 1 9

Research coordination at the public level and a close

working relationship between basic and applied

scientists could be fostered by ‘‘coordination bodies’ and specific directives to Federal agencies to

work closely with State land-grant universities in

research and development efforts.

The present agricultural research system operates

with fundamental constraints to interdisciplinary,

collaborative efforts. Collaboration between individuals in the agricultural and social sciences is

especially rare. Congress could establish means to

identify and remove the constraints to interdisciplinary research, and direct Federal agencies to develop

mechanisms for encouraging collaborative research,

as well as adaptive research focusing on agroecological site conditions and on the socioeconomic

factors influencing technology adoption.

If farmers are to meet resource protection goals

(local or national) the traditional research and

extension system may need to expand in other ways

as well. In particular, the system could support and

benefit from farmers to a greater degree than it does

currently. Farmers may require help with recordkeeping on agrichemical use, long-term planning for

resource protection, comparative economic analyses

of agrichemical-based and alternative practices, and

with site-specific implementation of chosen practices, In turn, farmer-based experiential learning

could be tapped more fully by providing for better

communication between farmers and researchers. In

this way farmers’ specific needs could also become

known to researchers.

Congress could assess current mechanisms for

incorporating farmer input into technology development, and encourage the role of farmers in implementing waste-reduction and other groundwater

protection goals. Public-sector support for farmers

who are trying to improve nutrient and pest management could be enhanced through better coordination

of Federal, State, and local education, demonstration, groundwater monitoring, and financial support

programs. Some mechanisms already exist to effect

broad-based coordination of public-sector efforts,

and these could be assessed for their potential to help

producers integrate resource management concerns.

Sources of additional advisory support to farmers

might be found and encouraged in the private sector.

STRATEGY: Redirect Federal Agricultural

Programs To Remove Disincentives and

Create Incentives for Groundwater Protection

Agricultural policy reflects a complex web of

programs governing commodity production, risk

management, and resource conservation. Commodity programs, for example, help buffer farmers from

market price fluctuations. These programs, intended

to help ensure an orderly, adequate, and steady

supply of agricultural products, strongly influence

farmer decisions as to crop choice, agrichemical use,

and farming practices.

Critics of these programs argue that allocating

huge payment outlays to encourage the production

of a small number of agrichemical-intensive crops

has led to surpluses of these crops, encouraged their

production in hydrogeologically unsuitable areas,

discouraged farmers from diversifying production or

from using crop rotations, increased farmer dependence on Federal payments, and reduced the ability of

U.S. agriculture to compete in world markets.

Alternatives to current Federal farm programs are

being debated; these range from adjustments within

the general framework of current price and income

supports to elimination of Federal farm payments

based on production output.

Increased cropping flexibility coupled with incentives to grow crops suitable to site and climatic

conditions, could alleviate the need for some agrichemicals, and encourage beneficial cropping patterns

(e.g., rotations) in some areas. A national commodity program based on environmental stewardship, or

adjustments to extant programs to require rotations

incorporating nitrogen-fixing or other beneficial

crops could provide a means to achieve these goals.

Other program adjustments could be made to

remove incentives for intense agrichemical use on

non-setaside lands.

Risk reduction or economic security programs

(farm credit programs, crop insurance, disaster

assistance, and marketing programs) in some cases

deter farmers from taking action to protect groundwater resources, and some may actually encourage

agrichemical-intensive practices in regions of marginal suitability. Similarly, marketing-order programs that originated before refrigeration and modern transportation may serve to encourage or protect

environmentally inappropriate agricultural production in some areas.
20 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Such programs could be reviewed and modified to

better seine groundwater protection goals. For

example, access to certain subsidies and payments

could be made contingent upon approved nutrient

and pest management plans. Obsolete marketing

orders that are counterproductive to resource protection could be terminated.

The cross-compliance and voluntary cost-share

conservation components of Federal farm programs

could also be reoriented to better serve as groundwater protection tools. An enhanced cost-share

program could integrate multiple environmental

concerns. States could be encouraged to expand their

cost-sharing programs with Federal grants specified

for that purpose.

Some farm-credit mechanisms that could provide

innovative ways to protect hydrogeologically vulnerable areas may be underused. For example,

property easements, involving a transfer of certain

use rights of private property, can be based on

conservation as well as other values. Congress could

reorient the loan restructuring program to encourage

farmers to exchange conservation easements having

groundwater protection benefits for partial debt

forgiveness.

The Conservation Reserve Program provides

farmers a ‘‘rental’ payment for planting designated

highly erodible croplands into grasses, trees, or other

vegetative cover, that cannot be grazed, harvested,

or used for other commercial purposes for at least 10

years. This program could be expanded to include

(and its contract terms extended in) hydrogeologically vulnerable and aquifer recharge areas.

STRATEGY: Foster a National Effort

To Reduce Agrichemical Mismanagement

and Waste

Currently, no national guidelines for EPA’s and

USDA’s Pesticide Applicator Training program

exist, and the quality of training programs varies

greatly by State. Inconsistency in applicator certification requirements and training programs results in

highly variable levels of management skills among

agrichemical applicators, implying a high potential

for agrichemical mismanagement. This represents a

serious deficiency in the national effort to assure that

agrichemicals are applied properly across the Nation. Congress could strengthen the national commitment to reducing agrichemical mismanagement

and waste through options addressing applicator

certification, training, and support services.

Because EPA does not maintain a regularly

updated national overview of State pesticide applicator certification and training programs, it is

difficult to assess how well applicator certification

and training programs address environmental concerns relevant to each State. Congress could address

this problem by commissioning a national assessment of such programs; and by authorizing EPA to

maintain a regularly updated national overview of

State pesticide programs and their applicator certification and training requirements, as well as a

national database on pesticide applicators and agrichemical dealerships. Expanded certification and training

requirements, along with increased Federal subsidies to enhance States’ applicator training and

certification programs, could also help reduce agrichemical mismanagement, waste and potential groundwater degradation problems.

LOOKING IN THE LONGER TERM

What action(s) Congress opts to take to protect the

Nation’s groundwater from agrichemicals may depend as much on how it chooses to approach the

problem as on the state of science and technology.

For example, groundwater contamination could be

viewed simply as an additional target of environmental concern (along with surface water) and

extant conservation programs could be modularly

expanded to include groundwater protection provisions, or to increase the priority already given to

such provisions. Groundwater contamination also

could be considered an outcome of farm programs

that create disincentives for farmers to protect the

environment. Strategies for dealing with the problem could then involve program modifications to

reduce or remove disincentives and provide incentives for conservation.

A broader approach than either of these is to view

groundwater contamination as one of many symptoms of a need to integrate environmental protection

into agricultural policy as a whole. Historically,

agricultural policies and programs have placed

major emphasis on increasing production. However,

in the future, protecting environmental and public

health could be considered as important as enhancing agricultural production. The tone is set for

increased legislative and executive attention to

agriculture’s impact on the environment.
Chapter 2

Introduction

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS

● U.S. agriculture is one of the most pervasive contributors to nonpoint-source water

pollution; and contamination of groundwater by agricultural chemicals (agrichemicals)

has become an issue of great public concern.

● Concerns about, and policy responses to, agrichemical contamination of groundwater

cannot be isolated from other public concerns and potential policy responses related to

agriculture and the environment.

● Agrichemical groundwater contamination may result from normal agrichemical use,

from on-farm or offsite mishandling of agrichemicals, or from non-agricultural uses of

agrichemicals. Each source is an important component of potential contamination.

● Agrichemicals we many and varied; a number have been implicated in groundwater

contamination, however, the true extent of groundwater contamination by these is not

known.

● Agrichemicals in groundwater can have three major forms of adverse impacts: human

health risks, hazards for other agricultural uses of the water, and ecological impacts.

Uncertainty about their magnitude makes risk determination problematic, but enough is

known of these to raise concern.

● Monitoring groundwater for agrichemical contamination is costly, and remedial

actions to decontaminate drinking water would impose a substantial burden on rural

homeowners and small communities; the more efficient solution is to prevent

contamination.
CONTENTS

Page

WHAT IS AN AGRICHEMICAL? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

WHAT IS GROUNDWATER? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

WHAT IS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION? . . . . . . . . . . 28

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE CAUSES OF CONTAMINATION? . . . . . . . . . . 31

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF CONTAMINATION? . . . . . . . . . 32

Impacts on Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Impacts on Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

WHAT DO WE DO WHEN GROUNDWATER IS CONTAMINATED? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW TO MANAGE GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Boxes

Box Page

2-A. Other Concerns Potentially Affecting Agrichemical Contamination of

Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

2-B. Where Pesticides Are Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

2-C. Detection Limits: What Do They Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2-D. Standards for Groundwater Quality Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figures

Figure Page

2-1. Rural Dependence on Private Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2-2. Summary of Nitrate Detections in Drinking Water Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2-3. EPA Estimates of Numbers of Pesticides Found in Groundwater as a Result of

Known or Suspected Normal Agricultural Field Use Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Tables

Table Page

2-1. Major Sources of Groundwater Contamination by Synthetic Organic Chemicals . . . 26

2-2. EPA preliminary Data on Pesticides in Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Chapter 2

Introduction

Groundwater quality is one of the newest and

most important issues in the continuing debate about

the relationship between agriculture and the environment (see box 2-A). U.S. agriculture has been

shown to be one of the most pervasive contributors

to nonpoint-source pollution of surface water and

ground water (5,23,68,69). The forms of this contaminant ion vary, but the most widespread public concern

has been raised over the accumulating reports of

agrichemicals—pesticides and nitrate-found in

drinking water. Unlike most other groundwater

pollutants (see table 2-l), the agrichemicals of

concern are deliberately applied, integral to current

agricultural production systems and, in the case of

most pesticides, designed to be toxic.

In recent years concerns have focused on groundwater quality, which supplies drinking water to 50

percent of the U.S. population and at least 90 percent

of rural residents (50). Potential agrichemical contamination of groundwater concerns rural populations as well as farm residents, and ultimately may

affect some urban areas (see figure 2-l). While

currently of local or regional extent, groundwater

contamination has become a national issue. Public

concerns indirectly reveal the extent of uncertainty

about the amount and location of agrichemical use,

environmental fate of agrichemicals under varying

site conditions, and the implications of agrichemical

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Ridge tillage can reduce agrichemical use.

contamination of groundwater for human health,

economic activities, or ecological values: we’re

learning that agrichemical contamination of groundwater resources happens, but we don’t really know

what it means.

Given the high level of public concern about

groundwater contamin ation in some areas, many

farmers, particularly those in areas where extensive

groundwater monitoring has yielded negative contamination results, are worried about potential congressional and State ‘‘overreaction’ to the problem

(2,51). Some farmers fear that public concern over

sparse evidence of groundwater contamination will

lead to excessively restrictive Federal and State

regulations on agrichemical use that would increase

production costs, put farmers at a competitive

disadvantage, expose them to liability, and make it

difficult if not impossible to grow certain crops in

some areas. However, given the dearth of evidence

that agrichemical contamination of groundwater is

extensive and health-threatening, few members of

the agricultural community oppose investments in

research to learn more about the problem (54).

Farmers also favor research and education programs

to improve agrichemical management, because the

presence of agrichemicals in groundwater indicates

that they are being wasted. Information is needed on

the types of farming practices that cause agrichemical waste, and on their extent and potential for

modification.

To understand the causes for concern, and to

indicate the extent of uncertainty, certain questions

must be addressed:

. What do we know about the extent of agrichemical contamination of groundwater?

. What do we know about the causes of contamination?

. What do we know about the impacts of

contamination?

● How do we deal with contaminated groundwater?

. What do we need to know to prevent groundwater contamination?

Before these issues can be explored, some definitions are needed.

–23 –
24 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 2-A-Other Concerns Potentially Affecting Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

A number of safety, environmental, and economic concerns reflect what is popularly called a “growing anti-chemical

sentiment” or even public “chemophobia” (6). Policy decisions made in response to these issues will in turn affect availability

and use of agrichemicals and, thus, the potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

Food Safety-Agrichemical residues on or in food has become a major issue of public concern over the last few years (cf:

71) and is being addressed under EPA’s pesticide reregistration requirements. Concern about Alar, for example, caused

Washington State apple growers to lose millions of dollars as consumers refused to purchase apples for fear of adverse health

effects (cf: 26,75). Direct public pressure forced a voluntary withdrawal of Alar from the market, brought it under EPA review,

and forced eventual cancellation. Fruit and vegetable producers tend to be highly responsive to public perceptions. However, fiber

and feed crop producers, and grain farmers whose products tend to be highly processed may not face equivalent pressure.

Freshwater Availability—Total withdrawals of freshwater (surface and groundwater) have increased at an annual rate of

2 percent during the last 25 years; withdrawals of groundwater have increased at an average of 3.8 percent each year. Increasing

water supply requirements for urban areas (particularly in the Southwest), energy production, and drought protection; and

objections to construction of surface reservoirs have contributed to increasing groundwater use. Growing populations, expanding

per-capita use, and removal of contaminanted surface and groundwater supplies from the reserve necessitate an increased

dependence on groundwater in the future (59).

Surface Water Concerns--Forty-eight States have completed assessments of nonpoint-source pollution of their waters as

required by Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Agriculture was identified as the most common source of this pollution. More

than half of the surface waters (river miles and lake acreage) assessed are adversely affected by agricultural nonpoint source

pollution (77). A 1989 study by the USGS reported that 55 percent of streams tested in 10 Midwestern agricultural States had

measurable levels of pesticides prior to application, and 90 percent showed detections of pesticides shortly after spring

application. Although most detections were very small, numerous samples exceeded the health advisory limits foratrazine and

alachlor, restricted-use chemicals (28).

Nearshore Water Concern-Surface and groundwater in nearshore areas commonly flow into the sea. Nutrient loadings

derived from contaminated surface water and, to a lesser extent, from contaminated groundwater entering the Nation’s bays and

estuaries is causing excessive algal growth loss of ecologically valuable marine and estuarine vegetation, and oxygen deprivation

in certain waters. Pesticides in surface and groundwater outflows also may be causing more subtle impacts on marine species.

For example, pesticides designed to disrupt the maturation process of commercially destructive arthropods such as grasshoppers

may have adverse effects on commercially valuable arthropods, such as crabs and lobsters (17).

Wildlife and Endangered Species Protection-lhhancement of wildlife habitat has been a goal of numerous agricultural

conservation programs and a continuing issue in agricultural policy development (70). Now, the impacts of agrichemicals on

wildlife and, especially, endangered species has come under public scrutiny. In fact, one Federal district court ruled that EPA

had violated the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other Federal laws with registration of a rodenticide

that posed a threat to endangered species (20), and the Department of the Interior has identified several wildlife refuges where

agriculturally related water conlamination has reached unacceptable levels (see box 3-A). In response to pressure from public

environmental groups, EPA is developing a program to restrict or relabel pesticides to protect wildlife and endangered species

(l). Further action to protect species may affect the extent of restriction and use of agrichemicals, may enhance development of

alternative pest control methods, and may increase populations of insectivorous species (e.g., certain songbirds) that could

ultimately benefit agriculture.

Climate Change-Nitrous oxides and methane are two primary “greenhouse gases” that are contributing to global

warming (73) and some scientists expect that these will increase in importance to climate changeover time. Bogs, wetlands, rice

paddies, wildlife and livestock, and burning forests and grasslands all produce methane. Some studies suggest that the world’s

cattle-a number that has doubled in the past 40 years-emit enough methane alone into the atmosphere to warm up the planet.

The largest methane “sink” is believed to be the soil, but recent studies suggest that nitrogen fertilize may reduce the soil’s

ability to capture and sequester methane. Nitrous oxides now account for appro ximately one-quarter of greenhouse gases emitted

to the atmosphere (55).

Pesticide Registration and Reregistration-The 1988 reauthorization of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) substantially increased the budget for pesticide reregistration and set a 1996deadline for completion.

New legislation proposed in Congress would speed the cancellation process, would streamline FIFRA and would reduce the

economic benefit rationale for maintaining potential dangerous chemicals on the market. Some of the pesticides removed from

the market, either voluntarily by a company not wishing to bear the costs of data collection for reregistration, or due to stricter

registration requirements, may also be those with potential to leach to groundwater. In addition, proponents of alternatives to

synthetic commercial pesticides have argued that an overwhelming emphasis placed on reregistration of pesticides, driven by

Congress, has hindered the registration of new, potentially less persistent or mobile pesticides and alternative pest controls (36).

Completion of the reregistration process may allow greater attention to be devoted to registration of these products, potentially

allowing farmers greater choice in pest control methods.

Farmworker Safety—Agriculture is one of the most hazardous occupations. Farmers and farmworkers suffer from elevated

incidence of traumas, certain cancers, respiratory diseases, dermatitis, and acute and chronic chemical toxicity. At the

biochemical level, certain pesticides may affect humans in the same manner that they affect the insects for which they are intended
Chapter 2-introduction ● 25

(74). Farm families also may be exposed to farm hazards; children represent a substantial proportion of those suffering from acute

and chronic pesticide poisoning (47,74). Policies and programs promulgated to reduce risk to farmers, farmworkers, and farm

families also may affect agrichemical availability and use.

Rural Revitalization--Federal natural resource conservation policies may conflict with or complement rural development

goals, another major topic of agricultural policy debate for the 1990s (cf: 53). For example, rural communities and families would

face a substantial burden from the costs of drinking water treatment due to agrichemical contamination, hindering allocation of

funds to local development (50,76). More directly, farm policies that restrict farm production or use of agrichemicals will have

impacts on farm chemical and implement dealers in rural communities. On the other hand, resource conservation and

environmental protection policies may enhance rural redevelopment through recreation and tourism opportunities, which rely

on a safe and esthetic environment (cf: 10). Also, water quality protection programs that rely on provision of specialized

information or decisionmaking services might be designed to create new employment opportunities for rural residents.

Dependence on Fossil Fuels-Agriculture is a relatively energy-intensive industry. Production of one ton of grain requires,

on average, expenditure of the equivalent of a barrel of oil. Natural gas is widely used to convert atmospheric nitrogen to chemical

nitrogen fertilizers (7), and many pesticides are manufactured from petroleum (56,64). Movements to increase energy efficiency

and conserve fossil fuel resources (or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing) may affect equipment design,

size, and turnover; expansion of irrigated land and design of systems; and the price and availability of nitrogen fertilizers and

certain pesticides.

Industrial Safety and Transportation of Hazardous Substances-Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3), used in fertilizers and

in explosive mixtures, has been implicated in industrial accidents, including fires and explosions when stored in bulk. For

example, two nitrate-bearing freighters exploded in Texas City, TX setting off a major conflagration, killing 576 people. More

recently, in 1988, two trailers of ammonium nitrate exploded near Kansas City, KS (22). Certain forms of nitrogen fertilizers also

are considered hazardous substances in terms of highway transportation. Restrictions on movement of these formulations may

restrict their availability to farmers.

Municipal Waste Reduction and Management—The United States generates at least 160 million tons of municipal solid

waste (MSW) each year. Almost 80 percent of MSW is disposed of in landfills, most of which will close within the next 20 years

(72). Organic yard and food waste make up about one-fourth of MSW, and thus contribute significantly to the loss of landfill

capacity, to leaching from landfills, and to nitrogen oxide emissions from incinerators. Federal, State, or local policies and

programs requiring or facilitating separation and comporting of yard and food wastes (and potentially of some paper wastes),

would generate new materials that might be applied to agricultural lands. Depending on the mode of management, these have

potential for creating new agrichemical leaching sites, or for providing soil conditioners and plant nutrients that might reduce

dependence on chemical fertilizers in some areas (72).

Family Farms-Some suggest that preserving the family farm structure (presumably meaning moderate-sized farms) is

necessary to maintaining a cadre of skilled agricultural entrepreneurs in the agricultural sector and preserving the quality of rural

life (cf: 48). Efforts to accomplish this could affect regional cropping patterns, farm size, and other such factors potentially

affecting agrichemical use.

New Crops and New Marketing Strategies-Even though organic fruits and vegetables-produce grown without the use

of synthetic, chemical pesticides and, sometimes, fertilizers-may cost twice as much as conventionally grown produce, the

market is growing. Farmers have moved rapidly to capture the returns available from the higher prices consumers are willing

to pay. The trend toward organic farms is strongest in California with an estimated 1,500 organic farms (26). Some States, certain

farmer cooperatives, and even some market chains will test and certify organic produce (or alternatively, produce showing no

residues despite use of some pesticides), Fear of being “blackballed’ by supermarkets or by food processing companies may

spur other farmers to reduce agrichemical use and, thus, the potential for agrichemical leaching to groundwater. Furthermore,

some marketing officials believe that ‘‘environmentally friendly’ may become a marketing tool--a means to differentiate a

product and thus capture a larger market share or charge a premium price---and may become as popular as ‘‘natural’ is now (46).

Cosmetic Quality of Produce--Changes in consumer demand have spurred the recent decline in pesticide use, but

consumer demands also drove farmers to use some pesticides in the first place; to achieve cosmetically perfect red apples or

unscarred tomatoes. Cosmetic perfection today can be achieved only with pesticides. A recent study by the California Public

Interest Research Group concluded that more than half of the pesticide applications on tomatoes and oranges are made primarily

for cosmetic purposes (26). Continuing changes in consumer perceptions of safe and acceptable commodities may change the

rates and types of application.

Trade and The Balance of Payments-Farm exports generate an eighth of total U.S. earnings, and may have contributed

as much as $18 billion to the 1989 balance of trade (48). Agricultural technologies that preserve or enhance yield and product

quality with reduced input costs may increase the competitive advantage of U.S. agriculture. Conversely, increased

environmental restriction may increase farmers’ costs of production and thus reduce competitive advantage over producers in

countries operating without such restrictions (cf: 67,58).

For the first time, trade in agricultural products has become a major component of the ongoing international GAIT (General

Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) talks. One important component of the ongoing GAIT talks is discussion of ‘producer subsidy

equivalents’ which, in aggregate, measure a country’s distortion of international trade flows. Any policies implemented through

‘ ‘carrots’ could be considered part of these subsidies and thus may come under pressure to reduce trade distortions. And, of

course, international trade conditions and U.S. macroeconomic policies and conditions will affect farmers decisions.
26 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 2-l—Major Sources of Groundwater

Contamination by Synthetic Organic Chemicals WHAT IS AN AGRICHEMICAL?

Waste disposal sources Non-waste disposal sources Pesticides are used for many purposes other than

Landfills, surface impoundments, Abandoned, poorly constructed, agriculture (see box 2-B), and many of these uses

dumps or damaged wells also raise public concerns. However, for the purOn-site wastewater disposal Accidental spills poses of this assessment an agricultural chemicalsystems

Land treatment of municipal Application of agricultural agrichemical-is any chemical compound:

and industrial wastes chemicals

Land application of sludges Petroleum exploration and 1.

development

Underground injection wells Above- and below-ground

storage tanks

SOURCE: Adapted from F.R. Hall, “improving Pesticide Management

Practices,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technoi- 2. ogy Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical information Service, November 1989).

applied to an agricultural production system

with intent to enhance plant productivity (e.g.,

nutrients, nutrient-release mediators, plant

growth regulators);

applied to an agricultural production system

with intent to prevent loss

Figure 2-l—Rural Dependence on Private Wells (hundreds of thousands)

Pacific Northern Plains Lake States

~

NF -3,232

 F -34 3

NF -537 NF -5,155

F -530 F -719

Northeast

NF -8,904

F -393

of productivity

/

NF -646

F -390

Only 12 percent of the nearly 43 million rural residents dependent on private wells to supply drinking water are farm

families (F), nonfarm residents (NF) are as likely as farm people to be concerned about potential agrichemical contamination of groundwater

SOURCE: J. Hostetler, “Groundwater Contamination is a Rural Problem,” Choices, Third Quarter, 1988, p. 24.
Chapter 2 Introduction ● 27

Box 2-B—Where Pesticides Are Used

EPA has prepared a list of “EPA Site Categories for Preparing and Coding Pesticide Labeling” illustrating

the extent of nonagricultural uses of pesticides. Pesticides include fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, nematicides,

rodenticides, and disinfectants. The EPA list illustrates two important facts about pesticides: not all are used in

agriculture, and not all that are used in agriculture are used to grow food crops,

. Fiber crops, such as cotton and hemp.

. Specialized field crops, such as tobacco.

Ž Crops grown for oil, such as castor bean and safflower.

● Forest trees and Christmas tree plantations.

● Ornamental lawns and turf (e.g., golf courses).

● Ornamental shrubs and vines.

● General soil treatments, such as manure and mulch.

● Household and domestic dwellings.

● Processed non-food products, like textiles and paper.

● Fur and wool-bearing animals, such as mink and fox; laboratory and zoo animals; and pets. (Pesticides are

used in animal sprays, dips, collars, wound treatments, and litter and bedding treatments.)

● Dairy farm milk-handling equipment.

● Wood-protection treatments, such as those applied to railroad ties, lumber, boats, and bridges.

● Aquatic sites, including swimming pools, diving boards, fountains, and hot tubs.

● Uncultivated, non-agricultural areas, such as airport landing fields, tennis courts, highway rights-of-way, oil

tank farms, ammunition storage depots, petroleum tank farms, saw mills, and drive-in theaters.

● General indoor/outdoor treatments, in bird-roosting areas, for example, or mosquito abatement districts.

● Hospitals. Pesticide application sites include syringes, surgical instruments, pacemakers, rubber gloves,

bandages and bedpans.

● Barber shops and beauty shops.

● Mortuaries and funeral homes.

● Industrial preservatives used to manufacture such items as paints, vinyl shower curtains, and disposable

diapers.

● Articles used on the human body, like human hair wigs, contact lenses, dentures and insect repellents.

● Specialty uses, such as moth proofing and preserving animal and plant specimens in museum collections.

SOURCE: Adapted from EPA Journal, “Pesticides and the Consumer, ” vol. 13, No. 5, May 1987, pp. 2-43.

caused by disease or by pests such as insects these may provide nitrate that may leach to ground-

(insecticides), weed competitors (herbicides), water. However, because most commercial fertiliznematode worms (nematicides), fungi and ers are highly soluble and concentrated, concern

molds (fungicides), and rodents (rodenticides); exists that such fertilizers may have long-term

or adverse impacts on nitrate leaching to groundwater—

3. produced as a byproduct of that system (e.g., particularly if application rates are not matched to

byproducts from livestock manures or crop crop needs.

residues, pesticide rinsate). WHAT IS GROUNDWATER?

Clearly, this definition can describe myriad substances used in or produced by U.S. agriculture. Groundwater is water stored below the land’s

However, at present only nitrate and certain catego- surface in saturated soils and rock formations.

ries of pesticides are believed to be significant However, groundwater is not necessarily drinking

groundwater contaminants. water, nor is it necessarily suitable for other uses. It

may be naturally saline or otherwise unpotable, or it

Nitrate sources include commercial fertilizers, may not be available in sufficient quantity to allow

livestock wastes, crop residues (especially of nitrogen- withdrawals for human use. Therefore, in some

fining plants), sewage sludges and wastewater, as cases, agrichemical contamination of groundwater

well as non-agricultural sources such as septic tanks may have little immediate impact on current groundor natural mineral-bearing soil formations. Each of water uses, but may preclude future use as the
28 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

demand for groundwater changes or as the contaminants migrate into drinking water sources.

WHAT IS GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION?

Groundwater contamination here refers to the

measurable presence of an agrichemical or its

breakdown products in groundwater, regardless of

the level of concentration or the current or projected

uses of the water. Thus, it does not necessarily imply

the existence or absence of a threat to human health

or the environment. Advances in analytical chemistry now allow detection of chemicals in groundwater

at concentrations as low as one part per billion (box

2-C), and even smaller amounts for a few chemicals;

such would be considered contamin ation.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE

EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION?

The state of knowledge, the degree of interest, and

the degree of frustration in the area of agrichemicals

in groundwater have all increased exponentially

within the last decade. Studies, focused on vulnerable regions and on individual chemicals or small

groups of chemicals, have found at least 5,500 wells

with pesticide concentrations exceeding some health

advisory level and at least 8,200 wells with nitrate

concentrations exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level established by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to protect public health

(13). Yet the true extent of the problem is not known.

For example, many of the detections represent

products that are no longer in significant use in the

United States (e.g., DBCP). We do not know

whether this nonrepresentative subsampling of the

Nation’s 13 million drinking water wells overstates

the severity of the problem or whether it represents

the tip of the iceberg.

The scientific community began to emphasize the

study of nitrate in groundwater in the mid-1970s

(52,30) and the study of pesticides in groundwater in

the late 1970s (61,62,14). By 1984, 24,000 of

124,000 wells sampled nationwide were found to

contain nitrate concentrations exceeding 3 milligrams per liter mg/L). Although natural background levels of nitrate in groundwater vary, concentrations above 3 mg/L suggest human sources of

cont amination (42) (figure 2-2).

Box 2-C—Detection Limits: What Do They

Mean?

Advances in analytical chemistry have allowed

detection of contaminants in groundwater at increasingly lower levels; however the meaning of

such low levels of contamination have yet to be

clearly defined, Parts per million (ppm) and parts

per billion (ppb) are perhaps the most common

units employed in reporting agrichemical contamination levels. Such sensitive detections largely are

beyond common understanding, thus it may be

helpful to illustrate their meanings in more readily

understandable terms.

One part per million is equivalent to 1 second in

12 days while 1 part per billion is equivalent to 1

second in 32 years; beyond these, 1 part per trillion

is equivalent to 1 second in 32,000 years. Alternatively, the unit ppm can be described as the

equivalent of a one-inch square postage stamp in an

area the size of a baseball infield. A ppb is this same

stamp within an area 1/4 mile in diameter, while a

part per trillion is the stamp in an area of 250 square

miles. Some tests have sufficient sensitivity to

detect parts per quadrillion (ppq). Detecting a ppq

would be roughly equivalent to locating that same

postage stamp within the area covered by the States

of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio

(24).

However, despite such seemingly infinitesimal

concentrations, implications for risk exist in certain

cases. For example, the Maximum Contaminant

Level for nitrate is 10 ppm and health risks have

been clearly identified for ingestion of water

containing above 10 ppm nitrate. Other agrichemicals have much lower Maximum Contaminant

Levels or Health Advisory Limits.

That same year, EPA staff were able to document

findings of 12 pesticides in groundwater from 18

States believed to be the result of field applications

(14). This count was updated to at least 17 pesticides

in 23 States in 1986, and 2 years later, to 46

pesticides in 26 States in association with field use

(76) (figure 2-3; table 2-2). The EPA Pesticides in

Ground Water Data Base is not complete, and some

data remain under contention (cf: 16), yet these are

the only data available to date.

A number of concerns about studies of agrichemical contamination of groundwater make it difficult

to draw conclusions from these interim data. Some

of these relate to study methodology, others refer to
Chapter 2-Introduction ● 29

Figure 2-2—Summary of Nitrate Detections in Drinking Water Wells

Nitrate-nitrogen concentration \l

I

U Fewer than 25 percent of sampled wells

Not determined:

m Fewer than 5 wells per county in data base

Although data are insufficient to draw specific conclusions, an analysis of historical nitrate detection data indicates areas of the country in

which human activities have elevated the nitrate levels above 3 mg/L.

SOURCE: R.J. Madison and J. Brunett, “Overview of the Occurrence of Nitrate in Ground Water of the United States,” Natior@ Water Summary

19-ydrologic Events; Selected Water-Ouality Trends and Ground Water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2275

(Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OMce, 1985).

the complex and variable nature of the agroecosysbeing evaluated.

Source of contaminant—through normal field ●

use or from a point source-was determined by

EPA via interview with study authors rather

than by verifying all detections.

Most studies lack a statistical basis and many

oversimple areas with relatively high ground- ●

water vulnerability and pesticide use and thus

may tend to overstate the extent of the problem.

It is not valid to sample arbitrarily a few wells

in an area and extrapolate the results to the

whole area. Instead, sampling schemes with

probability components must be implemented

(11,15).

Most studies focus on one pesticide or small

groups of pesticides. This would tend to

understate the extent of a problem relative to

studies that use multiresidue methods and other

techniques to detect multiple pesticides.

Most studies also do not test for pesticide

metabolizes, breakdown products, or ‘‘inert’

ingredients in addition to active ingredients; in

some cases these byproducts can be more toxic

than the parent compound. This may further

understate agrichemical contamination.
30 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 2-3-EPA Estimates of Numbers of Pesticides Found in Groundwater as a Result of Known or Suspected

Normal Agricultural Field Use Origin

Detections of pesticides in groundwater confirmed to derive from field uses have reached 46 pesticides in 26 States. However, these

numbers are likely to be an underestimate of the national status of pesticide residues in groundwater due to lack of data or source

verification of data in many areas. Information from EPA’s ongoing well testing program should provide a more complete depiction of the

extent of contamination.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Progralms, Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch, “Pesticides in Ground Water

Data Base 1988 Interim Report,; De&mber 1988.

. The analytical chemistry sometimes has not

been trustworthy. Some reports of detections

may be due to false positives—acceptable

analytical techniques combined with a failure

to confirm---or with actual laboratory errors.

. Capacity to detect contaminants in groundwater has outstripped understanding of the

meaning of the detections for human or environmental health. The impacts of combinations of

contaminants are even less clear.

. Increases in pesticides detected and States with

detections may represent an increase in groundwater monitoring studies more than an increase

in groundwater contamination.

● A drought over much of the agricultural Midwest since 1986 has confused analysis of data

from that region (cf: 38).

EPA is conducting a statistically based, national

survey of drinking water wells, which should

characterize the national extent of groundwater

contamination. Approximately 1,400 public and

private wells are being tested. The survey’s primary

goal is to quantify the distribution of nitrate and

summed pesticide residues in wells. Its secondary

goal is to correlate the results with hydrogeologic

and agronomic factors. The final report probably

will be published in early 1991. The Monsanto Co.

also conducted a statistically based, nationwide
Chapter 2--Introduction ● 31

Table 2-2—EPA Preliminary Data on Pesticides in Groundwater

No. of pesticides No. of States with

Category Description detected detected pesticides

6 Confirmed, quality data of known or suspected

point source origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12

5 Confirmed, quality data of known or suspected

field use origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 26

4 Confirmed, quality data of unknown or

suspected field use origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 27

3 Suspected field use data excluding known

poor quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 36

2 All data except suspected point sources

or known poor quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 38

1 All data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 39

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Ground

Water Branch, “Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base 1988 Interim Report,” December 1988.

survey for nitrate and five herbicides in 1,430

private, rural, drinking water wells (45,34).

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE

CAUSES OF CONTAMINATION?

Agrichemicals may enter the hydrogeologic system through a number of activities, some of which

are not strictly agricultural, such as treatment of

highway or railroad rights-of-way (see box 2-B).

Any one of these uses may result, through mishandling or, in some cases even through normal use, in

contamination of groundwater.

Controversy remains over the relative contributions of point and nonpoint sources of agrichemical

groundwater contaminants. Nonpoint sourcesl derive from the application of agrichemicals to agricultural lands; contaminants usually are not traceable to

their exact source. Point sources, in this context,

mean a localized introduction of chemicals to a well

or to land via a spill, or through improper storage,

mixing, loading, handling, or disposal. Clearly, both

modes of groundwater contamination must be considered in any attempt to reduce introduction of

agrichemicals to groundwater.

Nonpoint-source contamination has multiple and

dispersed sites of entry into groundwater, is dynamic, usually intermittent, and has multimedia

dimensions. Agrichemical residues may volatilize

into the atmosphere, may cling to soils, may run off

into surface water, or may leach into groundwater.

Airborne chemicals may travel for hundreds of miles

prior to deposition, perhaps in surface waters that

can leach to groundwater (e.g., agrichemical conPhoto reedit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Pesticides are applied to agricultural crops to reduce yield

losses due to insects (such as the Colorado potato

beetle shown), diseases, and weeds that even today

destroy almost one-third of all food crops.

taminants in the Great Lakes have been linked to

distant application and aerial transport). A compound released into one medium may have substantially different environmental persistence and reactions than the same compound released in another.

Land uses may change over time, causing changes in

the type and fate of agrichemicals applied, the speed

and direction of agrichemical movement, and agrichemical concentrations and impacts of contaminated

water.

The capacity of agricultural systems to assimilate

agrichemicals safely varies from site to site and in

!Nonpoln[ ~ollu~lon is defined by EPA as pollution c~used by sediment, nutncnt, and organic and tOXIC substances Ofi@Ilat@ from land-use activities

and/or from the atmosphere, which are earned to surface water bodies through runoff or to groundwater.
32 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

time (e.g., season) depending on local natural

conditions, and on the modifications made to the site

by land uses and technologies (3). Determination of

where, when, and under what conditions agrichemicals are likely to leach to groundwater depends on

knowledge of numerous variables at multitudinous

sites; many such data are lacking (43). However,

preliminary analyses suggest that large regions of

the country are potentially vulnerable to groundwater contamination by agrichemicals (50).

Point sources of agrichemical groundwater contaminants have received relatively little attention in

the scientific literature, but in some areas they may

be more of a problem than nonpoint sources (27).

High concentrations of agrichemical contaminants

may be indicative of a point source of contamination

such as spills of pesticide concentrate, backsiphoning of pesticide solutions into wells, or rinsate

spills. However, concentration level alone is insufficient to clearly identify the point or nonpoint source

nature of contamination.

Point sources also may introduce different chemicals to the subsurface than nonpoint sources, because point sources commonly “short-circuit” the

typical leaching process and directly introduce

contaminants to groundwater through a wellhead.

Point-source contaminants also may migrate

through the soil in an organic phase, i.e., as bulk

liquids, overcoming soil capacity to sequester organic chemicals. The implication of this shortcircuiting process is that any chemical could contaminate groundwater through this route, not just

those pesticides that are mobile and persistent (14).

The 1988 EPA report represents the first national

accounting of groundwater contamination by pesticides from known or suspected point sources (32

pesticides in 12 States). Many of these pesticides are

relatively immobile chemicals-i. e., tightly bound

to soil-that are not likely to leach into groundwater

following normal application (13).

Farm chemical supply dealerships may provide a

particular point-source problem, since they store and

handle large quantities of agrichemicals. Potentially

serious point-source contamination problems have

been associated with at least 10 of Iowa’s approximately 1,500 farm chemical supply dealerships (30).

Pesticide concentrations in soils sometimes exceeded 200,000 parts-per-billion (ppb) and concentrations in nearby groundwater exceeded 500 ppb,

two orders of magnitude above normal background

levels. Nitrate concentration was as high as 117

parts-per-million (ppm) in one location, and was 20

ppm or greater in all groundwater samples from the

10 farm chemical supply dealerships studied. Relatively high levels of contamination also were found

in groundwater samples taken near agricultural

dealerships in Illinois (39).

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE

IMPACTS OF CONTAMINATION?

Agrichemicals in groundwater can have three

major forms of adverse impacts: human health risks,

hazards for other agricultural uses of the water, and

general ecological impacts. For pesticides, in addition to potential adverse impacts of the pesticide’s

active ingredient, risks involve impacts by metabolizes (chemicals resulting from transformation within

a living organism), by breakdown products (resulting from partial degradation by physical or chemical

interactions), and by ‘‘inert ingredients. ’ The latter

are those compounds added to the active ingredient

in order to prolong its shelf-life or facilitate its

application, and may not be chemically or metabolically inert. For example, known carcinogens benzene and formaldehyde are inert ingredients added to

certain pesticides.2

Determination of the potential risks of all the

possible forms of an agrichemical that might develop after application would be impossible (19). In

fact, isolation and identification of all possible

ingredients, metabolizes, and breakdown products

probably is not possible, given the breadth of factors

involved in agrichemical transformations and variations of application sites. Any attempt to do so

would most likely halt development of new chemicals. However, knowledge of certain chemical and

metabolic reactions and their likely effects on the

toxicity of specific chemical groups (e.g., triazine

pesticides) may allow adequate predictions of overall risk (19).

%PA is now reviewing and testing inert ingredients and classifying them based on their potential nslq List 1 includes those ingredients of known

toxicity and these constituents must be identified on the pesticide label (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde); List 2 includes ingredients of potential toxicity

and tbese will be rediss~led based on test results; List 3 are ingredients of unknown risk and are also being tested; and List 4 are those ingredients of

minimal risk (e.g., corn syrup, calcium sulfate, bees wax) (40).
Chapter 2 Introduction ● 33

Impacts on Human Health

EPA has detailed the health risks from pesticides,

to the extent known, in Health Advisories for 70

pesticides developed in accordance with the Safe

. . Drinking Water Act. Health Advisory Levels beyond which the water is considered to pose a

potential human health risk are enumerated. Between 1979 and 1986, about half of the approximately 11,000 detections of pesticides in groundwater exceeded EPA’s or State’s Health Advisory

Levels (12). Six percent of nitrate detections exceeded the 10 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level,

beyond which a health hazard maybe present. While

a complete analysis of the health impacts of exposure to agrichemicals in groundwater is beyond the

purview of this assessment, clearly there is cause for

concern.

3

The means for assessing potential health hazards

from exposure to agrichemicals are found in EPA’s

toxicology data, and in epidemiologic studies of

morbidity and mortality in certain populations. EPA

frequently is criticized for not having a complete

toxicology database on the 600 active ingredients it

regulates (13). Statements that only a handful of

pesticides have been “fully tested” are technically

true, but may be misleading. Approximately three to

four dozen studies and tests are required for registration of an agricultural pesticide. Data gaps exist for

most chemicals, but these gaps can range from minor

technical deficiencies to studies performed with

unacceptable protocols to a total lack of data (13).

The toxicology database probably is more complete than the databases pertaining to ecological

effects, residue and product chemistry, and environmental fate and exposure. This is due to the

extensive “data call-ins” conducted in the early

1980s (25). Registrants of all food-use chemicals,

which include most agrichemicals, were required to

submit or resubmit data on chronic toxicity, oncogenicity, reproductive effects, and teratology (immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity may be added to the

conventional pesticide toxicity testing guidelines in

the near future (60,74). A similar, more limited data

call-in program was instituted in 1984 to gather

information on the environmental fate of approximately 100 pesticides that had some mobility

potential.

Few epidemiologic studies have been conducted

on exposure to agrichemicals through groundwater.

Evidence linking agrichemicals with cancer and

other diseases primarily derives from studies of

occupationally exposed populations (9). Results of

these more general epidemiologic studies point out

possible relationships that require further investigation and raise concerns about mortality among

people who work with certain classes of agrichemicals (13). Studies using crop production patterns as

a proxy for chemical use have suggested connections

with certain cancers, but little research has attempted

to test directly the relationship between use of

agricultural chemicals and county cancer mortality

(63).

Although associations between certain pesticides

and cancer are not yet clearly established (47,78), a

clear relationship exists between nitrate in drinking

water and infant methemoglobinemia (blue-baby

syndrome). Some epidemiologic studies further

indicate an association between nitrate and nonHodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), stomach cancer, and

possibly birth defects; others fail to show any

elevated risk for these (47).

An increased incidence of NHL in some eastern

Nebraska counties may be related to use of nitrogen

fertilizers and resultant groundwater contamination.

However, elevated nitrogen levels may just serve as

a marker for pesticide contamination and several

classes of pesticides have been associated with

increased risk of NHL, including atrazine herbicides, organophosphates, carbamates, and chlorinated hydrocarbons (78). One recent study, covering

1,497 U.S. rural counties, attempted to determine

predictors of cancer mortality. Agrichemical use

was the best predictor of cancer mortality among

nine variables tested in five multiple regression

cancer models. Herbicides were associated with

genital, lymphatic, and digestive cancer, and insecticides had a positive relationship to respiratory

cancer (63).

Problems abound in attempting to derive conclusions or generalizations from existing studies. For

example, exposure information depends on the

subject’s memories or on knowledge of relevant

practices by next of kin (32). Other problems include

(63):

SFor -lysls of the he~~ fis~ from exwsme to neutoxic pesticides, see: U.S. Congress, Offiw of T~hnoIogy Assessment ~e~~@~~”cifY~

Identifying and Controlling Poisons o~the Nervous System, OTA-BA-436 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1990).
34 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

●

●

●

●

Multiple pathways of non-occupational exposure to agrichemicals exist: through ingesting

food or water with pesticide residues, inhalation, dermal contact with pesticide vapors,

dusts, or pesticide-laden water,

The 20- to 40-year latency period for many

types of cancer exceeds the length of time that

data have been collected on agrichemical use

(Census of Agriculture data on county-level

chemical use other than fertilizers are not

available before 1964).

The cancer latency period also commonly

exceeds the length of time that county-level

behavioral data have been collected on lifestyle

factors such as diet, smoking, or alcohol

consumption; such factors could confound

associations observed in studies.

Percentage of farmland treated is used as a

proxy for agrichemical use due to a lack of

detailed data on the types, quantities, and

frequency of chemical applications, as well as

behavioral practices in their application (e.g.,

use of masks, aerial spraying).

Additional factors potentially confounding interpretation of health impacts are: effect of nearby

manufacturing industries; mining; urban exposures;

ethnicity and socioeconomic status (education and

income) (63). While no solid evidence exists showing a direct causal relationship between pesticide

residues in drinking water at legally permissible

levels and any human illness or death in the United

States (47), the potential for some effect warrants

continuing investigation.

Despite uncertainty in many of these areas,

recognition of potential health hazards has led to

numerous requirements to reduce or prevent human

exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Such

requirements include bans on certain substances,

product labeling and public education, licensing and

certification of those wishing to apply restricted-use

pesticides, requirements for certain types of protective gear for applicators, determination of acceptable

‘‘re-entry’ times into areas treated with certain

chemicals, and initiation of trainin g sessions by

Cooperative Extension Service personnel in correct

handling and application procedures (63).

The only non-controversial conclusion possible at

this point: additional studies are necessary. Evaluations of the toxicity and possible carcinogenicity of

agrichemicals will continue to fall under the purview

of biological and medical researchers. However,

more ‘‘ecological’ studies incorporating demographic, socioeconomic, and agricultural factors and

thus involving environmental and rural sociologists,

demographers, geographers, and agronomists, would

seem to be of considerable value (63). A comprehensive analysis of studies performed to date and an

evaluation of their findings, perhaps performed by

the Institute of Medicine in cooperation with the

National Academy of Sciences (e.g., Board on

Agriculture), probably would clarify many of these

issues.

Impacts on Agriculture

Agrichemical-bearing groundwater has been found

to have adverse impacts on agriculture through

re-use, including toxic responses in livestock and

yield reductions in irrigated crops (41,65). In general, livestock seem to be more tolerant to drinking

water contaminants of primary concern to humans,

such as nitrate (31). However, species’ tolerances

vary. Chemical constituent risk levels have been

recommended (49, 18) but may need to be reexamined in light of recent veterinary diagnostic research

and new chemical detection capabilities (65).

Irrigation may concentrate salts, nitrate, and

persistent pesticides in surface and groundwaters.

These waters may be re-used for irrigation, providing a source of stress to crops and potentially

reducing their yield or product quality (66). Herbicideladen shallow groundwater may “prune” root

systems, hindering crop growth (41 ). Finally, groundwater contaminated by livestock wastes may damage or hinder operation of irrigation pumps and other

equipment.

Ecological Impacts

It is now well-known that chemicals that may

have little direct impact on human health may have

potentially severe impacts on fish and wildlife. For

example, DDT was only slightly toxic to mammals,

including humans, but harmed species of game fish

and certain bird species. No data exist that clearly

indicate adverse ecological impacts from nitrate or

pesticides in groundwater, but because of the nature

of the hydrologic cycle, groundwater may be a

contributor to degradation of surface and nearshore

waters. For example, an estimated 45 percent of the

total nitrogen found in Lake Mendota in Wisconsin

moved into the lake as nitrate from groundwater

(44); the role of nitrogen in eutrophication of water
. 

Chapter 2-introduction ● 35

bodies is well-known. More recently, the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) found that 55 percent of

the streams tested in 10 Midwestern States had

detectable levels of pesticides prior to spring planting when contaminant levels were expected to be

lowest. The study leader speculated that the unexpected springtime detections might be due to infusions of groundwater contaminated in earlier months

or years, or perhaps due to the dearth of soil

“flushing” that occurred in the 1989 drought (28).

A new and rapidly expanding field of study

termed ‘‘ecotoxicology’ is concerned with the fate

and impacts of toxic compounds, such as pesticides,

in ecosystems. Research in toxicology has paralleled

interest in water quality problems since at least the

1960s (8); such research increased with the establishment of EPA and its mandate to protect human

health and the environment (4). Ecotoxicological

studies are required by EPA for pesticide registration

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FWRA). The studies combine toxicological hazard data with exposure data in media of

concern such as water. The studies may uncover: 1)

no hazard, 2) a hazard that may be mitigated by

restrictions on use, or 3) an unacceptable hazard

preventing registration of the chemical. However,

the types of studies that have been pursued by EPA

are fraught with weaknesses (4), and they tend to

focus more on specific ecosystem inhabitants (the

‘‘indicator organisms’ such as birds, mammals, an d

fish) rather than on the ecosystem as a whole.

In response to growing concerns about ecological

impacts of toxic compounds, EPA’s Risk Assessment Council established the Ecotoxicity Subcommittee in 1987 to develop ecological risk assessment

guidelines. This Subcommittee developed an assessment framework based on the hierarchical ‘‘levels’

of an ecosystem, ranging from a single organism to

the entire ecosystem. This allows both laboratory

work on species and field work on ecosystem

interactions. Guidelines drafted by the Subcommittee should be released for review in 1990 (4). While

EPA’s activities most closely related to protection of

human health probably will continue to receive

highest priority, the increasing public concern about

ecological impacts likely will spur expanded efforts

in ecotoxicology.

WHAT DO WE DO WHEN

GROUNDWATER IS

CONTAMINATED?

EPA and State agencies with Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) primacy4 have the authority to close

public wells (those serving at least 2,500 people or

25 outlets) when contamination exceeds acceptable

levels defined by the EPA Maximum Contaminant

Level standards. For example, the Hawaii Department of Health shut down several public wells on

Oahu in 1983 when the nematicides EDB, DBCP,

and trichloropropane were detected (37). Some

residents of central Oahu had to obtain drinking

water from a tank truck furnished by the State until

alternative well connections could be put in place.

Although States such as New Jersey and Florida

are increasingly establishing construction standards

and monitoring programs for private wells, no State

has reserved authority to close private wells. Instead,

when water from private wells exceeds standards set

by States or the EPA (box 2-D), State agencies

generally advise people on whether their water is

suitable for drinking, cooking, or washing. In

addition, States may assist homeowners to procure

water filters, bottled water, or to construct new wells

or hook up to public water systems.

The State of Florida accepts applications for

remedial relief to individuals with wells containing

EDB (57). The State has spent nearly $3 million to

install granular activated carbon falters and to

connect homes to existing water systems ( 13). Union

Carbide (now Rhone-Poulenc) also supplies water

falters to Long Island homeowners where aldicarb

concentration in drinking water is greater than 7 ppb

(33). As of 1986, approximately 2,000 filters had

been installed at a cost to the company of $450 each

for installation and $60 to $70 for annual replacement (13).

To date, there are no reports that aquifer cleanup,

as opposed to well or tapwater cleanup, has been

attempted following nonpoint-source contamination

of groundwater (13). Drinking water cleanup from

iun~er SDWA, EPA identified state agencies ~i{h ~esponsibili~ for irnplernen~tion of dfinking w~t(!r quall~ prOgrarnS ]e@Skitfd ~d~ ht ACt.
36 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 2-D—Standards for Groundwater Quality Protection

Numerical groundwater standards have been suggested as a strategy to limit groundwater contamination, and

standards have been promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and a number of States. For example,

Wisconsin has established health-based enforcement standards and preventative action levels for potential

groundwater pollutants, giving a two-tier system of standards. The Environmental Protection Agency provides two

sets of standards for levels of contaminants in drinking water: Health Advisory Levels (HAL) and Maximum

Contaminant Levels (MCL): HALs offer guidance to States and municipal water suppliers regarding contaminant

levels approaching hazardous levels, MCLs

There may be dispute whether States should be allowed to set stricter standards than the Federal government,

but all look for Federal involvement and leadership. A number of program administrators have complained that it

is difficult to develop programs to protect groundwater from contamination when they don’t know what level of

groundwater purity they are trying to reach or maintain. Program costs may in fact be directly linked to setting of

such a level.

Some benefits of standards:

. Standards provide clearly defined targets at which interested parties can aim.

● Standards provide a defined design goal against which various agricultural and resource management

practices can be evaluated.

Ž Standards can be set for individual contaminants, groups of contaminants, or for contamination in aggregate

(e.g., EEC)

Ž Standards can help identify areas of a State or the nation where management practices need modification.

. Standards provide the public with an estimate of the risk of consuming contaminated water and of the relative

risk of different contaminants.

. Standards help the public determine when remedial “drinking water treatments are needed.

Some disadvantages to standards:

● Standards may provide a level up to which polluters feel free to pollute.

. Establishment of scientifically-defensible standards require considerable time and money.

● Standards can focus on one group of potential pollutants and inadvertently miss others (e.g., potentially toxic

“inert’ ingredients that might leach to groundwater).

Unanswered questions:

Ž Costs of developing risk assessments and of monitoring to assess compliance are high; who should pay?

● Should standards could apply to ground water generally (resource protection) or the “drinking water (health

protection), or to both?

. What action should be taken to ensure compliance when standards are violated?

. Should the ultimate goal of a groundwater protection policy be nondegradation (no additional contamination

over current levels) or achieving health-based standards?

. Can the standards be designed so that they do not provide a‘ ‘license to pollute’ up to the level of the standard?

. Will the sparcity of the health- or ecological-impacts database require that standards be continually revised

(particularly for older chemicals)?

SOURCE: Adapted from National Coalition for Agricultural Safety& Health, “Environmental Health Strategies for Agriculture,” May 1989.

agrichemical nonpoint-source contamination is likely WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW

to be very costly, and generally technically infeasible given the low concentrations involved. One TO MANAGE GROUNDWATER

study of potential costs of groundwater contamina- CONTAMINATION?

tion estimated that initial household monitoring Several basic questions must be answered to

alone would cost approximately $1.4 billion (50). identify means to reduce the potential for agrichemiPotential remedial actions vary widely in cost and cal contamination of groundwater:

effectiveness, but would impose a large burden on

rural homeowners and small communities. Clearly, . WHY do we use agricultural chemicals?

the more efficient solution is to prevent contamina- . WHERE is groundwater contaminated, where

tion in the first place. might it occur in the future, and why?
Chapter 2-Introduction ● 37

●

●

●

WHAT crops, cropping systems, and technologies are associated with contamination?

WHO is making the decisions that lead to

contamination and why?

HOW might incentives and influences be

changed to-favor technologies and management

systems that protect groundwater quality?

Discussion of these subjects form the remainder of

this assessment.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

Alternative Agriculture News, “EPA Delays Program on Pesticides/Endangered Species,” vol. 6, No.

3, March 1988, p. 2.

American Farm Bureau Federation, “Farm Bureau

Policies for 1988, ” Resolutions on National Issues

adopted at the 69th Annual Meeting of the American

Farm Bureau Federation, New Orleans LA, January

1988.

Bailey, G. W., and Waddell, TE., “Best Management

Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture: An Integrated Overview,” Best Management Practices for

Agriculture and Silviculture, R.C. Imehr, et al. (eds.)

(Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,

1979), pp 33-56.

Bascietto, J., Kinckley, D., Plaflcin, J., and Slim&

M., “Ecotoxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment: Regulatory Applications at EPA, ” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 24, No. 1,

1990, pp. 10-15.

Batie, S. S., and Diebel, P.L., “Managing Agricultural Contamination of Groundwater: State Strategies” (Blacksburg VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1989).

Bjerke, K. D., “Viewpoint: Pesticides, Common

Sense, and Groundwater,” Journal of Soil & Water

Conservation, vol. 44, No. 4, July-August 1989, p.

262.

Brown, L.R. “The Vulnerability of Oil-Based Farming,” World Watch, vol. 1, No. 2, March/April 1988,

p. 24.

Burton, G. A., “Ecotoxicology: The Study of the

Effects of Chemicals on Natural Systems,’ Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 24, No, 1, 1990,

p. 9.

Cantor, K. P., Blair, A., and Zahm, S. H., “Agricultural Chemicals, Drirdun“ g Water, and Public Health:

An Epidemiologic Ovemiew,’ Paper No. 2. Perspectives on the Contamination of Groundwater From

Agriculture (Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of

America, 1986), pp. 73-87.

Carriker, R., “Linking Natural Resource Policies

With Rural Development Goals,” Rural Develop11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

ment Perspectives, vol. 6, No. 1, October 1989, pp.

13-16.

Cochran, W.G., Sampling Techniques, Second Edition (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

1967). In: Cohen, 1989.

Cohen, S.Z., Dinxtor of Groundwater Programs,

Biospherics Inc., testimony at hearings before the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

on Pesticide Issues, June 10, 1988. Zn: Cohen, 1989.

Cohen, S.Z., “Pesticides and Nitrates in Ground

Water: An Introductory Overview,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield VA: National Technical Information Service, August 1989).

Cohen, S.Z., Creeger, S. M., Carsel, R.F., and Enfield,

C. G., “Potential for Pesticide Contamination of

Ground Water From Agricultural Uses,” Treatment

and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes, R.F. Krueger and

J.N. Seiber (eds.) (Washington, DC: The American

Chemical Society, 1984), pp. 170-196. In: Cohen,

1989.

Cohen, S.Z., Eiden, C., and Imrber, M. N., “Monitoring Ground Water for Pesticides, ” Evaluation of

Pesticida in Ground Water, W.Y Garner, R.C.

Honeycutt, and H.N. Nigg (eds.) (Washington, DC:

The American Chemical Society, 1986), pp. 170-

196. In: Cohen, 1989.

Corte-Real, L., Massachusetts Department of Food

and Agriculture, testimony before the Massachusetts

Pesticide Board, Boston MA, Mar. 1, 1989. Zn:

Cohen, 1989.

Costlow, J. D., “Impact of Toxic Organics on the

Coastal Environment,’ Impact ofMan on the Coastal

Environment, TW. Duke (cd), EPA-600/8-82-021

(Washington DC: Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Research and Development, August 1982).

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,

“Quality of Water for Livestock,” vol. 1, No. 26

(Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1974).

Dorough, H. W., “Mammalian Metabolism, ’ Pesticides: Minimizing the Risks (Washington DC:

American Chemical Society, 1987), pp. 106-114.

Ecology USA, “Judge Bans Poison Bait, Says EPA

Violated ESA,” vol. 17, No. 9, May 9, 1988, p. 82.

EPA Journal, “Pesticides and the Consumer,” vol.

13, No. 5, May 1987, pp. 2-43.

Faust, W. L., “Explosive Molecular Ionic Crystals, ”

Science, vol. 245, July 7, 1989, pp. 3742.

Feliciano, D.V., Congressional Research Service,

Library of Congress, “Emerging Issue of Agricultural Contamination of Groundwater, ” 86-8 ENR

(Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1987).

Fleetwood, S. C., “Guidelines for Groundwater Protection Legislation-An Industry Perspective,’ Proceedings of the Agricultural Impacts on Ground
38 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

25,

26.

27.

28,

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37. I

(

1

1

(

WaterA Conference, Des Moines, IA, Mar. 11-13,

1988, pp. 43-58.

Franc, J., Section Head, Reregistration Branch,

Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, personal communication, February 1989. In: Cohen, 1989.

Gilbert, S., “America Tackles the Pesticide Crisis, ”

The New York Times Magazine, part 2, Oct. 8, 1989,

p. 22.

Graham, J. A., Senior Research Group Leader, Environmental Science Section, Monsanto Agricultural

Co., St. Louis MO, personal communication, December 1988. In: Cohen, 1989.

Ground Water Monitor, “USGS Study Finds Unexpected Widespread Herbicide Contamination of

Streams, ” vol. 6, No. 2, Jan. 16, 1990, p. 14.

Hall, F. R., ‘‘Improving Pesticide Management Practices, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, November 1989).

Hallberg, G. R., “Overview of Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water, ’ Proceedings of the Agricultural Impacts on Ground Water=A Conference,

Omaha, NE, Aug. 11-13, 1986 (Dublin, OH: National Water Well Association, 1986). In: Cohen,

1989.

Herrick, J. B., “Water Quality for Animals” (Ames,

IA: Iowa State University, 1976). In: Sweeten, 1989.

Hoar, S. K., et al., “Agricultural Herbicide Use and

Risk of Lymphoma and Soft-Tissue Sarcoma, ”

Journal of the American Medical Association, VOL

256, No. 9, 1986, pp. 1141-1147.

Holden, P., Board on Agriculture, National Research

council, “Pesticides and Ground Water Quality,”

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

In: Cohen, 1989,

Holden, L. R., Whitmore, R. W,, and Graham, J. A.,

“The National Alachlor Well Water Survey: 1988

Statistical Design and Current States,” Proceedings

of the Agricultural Impacts on Ground Water-4

Conference, Des Moines IA, Mar. 21-23, 1988

(Dublin, OH: National Water Well Association,

1988), pp. 237-254. Zn: Cohen, 1989.

Hostetler, J., “Groundwater Contamination is a

Rural Problem,” Choices, vol. 3, No. 3, Third

@m.rter, 1988, p. 24.

Iovanovitch, A., President, Technology Services

Woup, Inc., Briefing to staff of the House Comrnit-

:ees on Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; and

Science, Space and Technology; and Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Aug.

16, 1989.

xiu, L. S., and W J. F., “Organic Contamination

]f Groundwater: A ka.rning Experience, ’ Management and Operations, Journal of the American

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

1

1

1

1

1

d

Water Works Association, vol. 79, September 1987,

pp. 37-42.

Libra, R. D., Hydrogeologist, Geological Survey

Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources,

Iowa City, IA, personal communication, July 25,

1989. In: Cohen, 1989.

Long, T, “Ground Water Contamination in the

Vicinity of Agnchemical Mixing and I_mading Facilities,” Pesticides and Pest Management Proceedings

of the 16th Annual ENR Conference, ILENRfRE-13A88/04 (Chicago IL: Illinois Department of Energy

and Natural Resources, 1988), pp. 133-149. In:

Cohen, 1989.

Imranger, R., Senior Scientist, Dietary Exposure

Branch, Health Effects Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, personal communication, Apr. 4,

1990.

Madden, P., “Can Sustainable Agriculture Be Profitable?” Environment, vol. 29, No. 4, 1988, pp. 19-20,

28-34.

Madison, R. J., and Brunett, J., “Overview of the

Occurrence of Nitrate in Ground Water of the United

States, ’ National Water Summary 1984—

Hydrologic Events; Selected Water-Quality Trends

and Ground Water Resources, U.S. Geological

Survey Water Supply Paper 2275 (Washington DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985).

Maizel, M., and Chan, K., “Mapping Groundwater

Vulnerability to Agricultural Uses on a National

Scale in a Geographic Information System,’ contractor report prepared for the OffIce of Technology

Assessment (Springfield VA: National Technical

Information Service, February 1990).

Menzel, R. G., “Nitrogen Forms and Cycling in

Relation to Water Quality,’ National Conference on

Management in Irrigated Agriculture (Riverside,

CA: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 33-52.

Monsanto Technical Bulletin, ‘‘The National Alachlor

Well Water Survey (NAWS): Data Summary,”

Monsanto Agricultural Company, St. Lnuis MO,

July, 1990.

Multinational Environmental Outlook, “Slants and

Trends, ” vol. 15, No. 16, Aug. 8, 1989, p. 121.

National Coalition for Agricultural Safety and

Health, “A Report to the Nation: Agricultural

Occupational and Environmental Health: Policy

Strategies for the Future” (Iowa City, IA: Institute of

Agricultural Medicine and Occupational Health,

hhy 1989).

National Commission on Agriculture and Rural

Development Policy, ‘‘Future Directions in Agricultural Policy,” 1989-261 -435:20165/EAS (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

Wational Research Council, “Nutrients and Toxic

Substances for Water for Livestock and Poultry”
Chapter 2-Introduction ● 39

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1974).

In: Sweeten, 1989,

Nielsen, E.G., and Lee, L.K., U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination From

Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective,

1987-917/6041 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987).

Northey, W., Member, Iowa Corn Growers Association, testimony in Congressional Field Hearing on

Groundwater,House Agriculture Committee, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research and

Foreign Agriculture, Humboldt, IA, Oct. 12, 1987.

Olson, R. A., Seim, E. C., and Muir, J., “Influence of

Agricultural Practices on Water Quality in Nebraska:

A Survey of Streams, Ground Water, and Precipitation,” Water Research Bulletin, vol. 9, No. 2, 1973,

pp. 301-311. In: Cohen, 1989.

Osboum, S. S., Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, ‘ ‘Rural Policy in an Era of Change

and Diversity, ’ CRS-88J482, July 13, 1988.

Padgitt, S,, “Farmers’ Views on Groundwater Quality: Concerns, Practices, and Policy Preferences,

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield VA: National Technical Information Service, February 1989).

Pearce, F., “Methane: The Hidden Greenhouse

Gas,” New Scientist, vol. 122, No. 1663, May 6,

1989, p. 37.

Pirnentel, D., “Energy Inputs for the Production,

Formulation, Packaging, and Transport of Various

Pesticides, ’ Handbook of Energy Utilization in

Agriculture, D. Pimental (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC

Press, Inc, 1980), pp. 4548.

Rhodes, H. L., Florida Ground Water Protection

Task Force Annual Report FY 86-87 (Tallahassee,

FL: Department of Environmental Regulation, September 1987). In: Cohen, 1989.

Runge, C. F., and Nolan, R. M., “Trade in Disservices: Environmental Regulation and Agricultural

Trade, ” Food Policy, vol. 15, No. 1, February 1990,

p. 3-7,

Schroeder, L. L., “Our Growing Dependence on

Groundwater” Journal of Freshwater, vol. 11,1988,

pp. 7-8.

Sjoblad, R., “Potential Future Requirements for

Irnmunotoxicology Testing of Pesticides,” Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 4, No. 3, 1988, pp.

391-395. In: Cohen, 1989.

Spalding, R. E., Exner, M. E., Sullivan, J. J,, and Lyon,

P. A., “Chemical Seepage From a Tail Water Recovery Pit to Adjacent Ground Water, ’ Journal of

Environmental Quality, vol. 8, No. 3, 1979, pp.

374-383. In: Cohen, 1989.

Spalding, R. E., Junk, G. A., and Richard, J. J., “Pesticides in Ground Water Beneath Irrigated Farmland in

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

Nebraska, August 1978, ’ Pesticide Monitoring Journal, vol. 14, No. 2, 1980, pp. 70-73. In: Cohen, 1989.

Stokes, C. S., and Brace, K. D., “Agricultural Chemical Use and Cancer Mortality in Selected Rural

Counties in the U. S. A.” Journal of Rural Studies,

vol. 4, No. 3, 1988, Pp. 239-247.

Stout, B. A., and Nehring, R. F., “Agricultural Energy: 1988 and the Future, ’ Phi Kappa Phi Journal,

Summer 1988, pp. 32-36.

Sweeten, J. M., “Improving Livestock and Poultry

Management Practices To Reduce Nutrient Contamination of Groundwater, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, August 1989).

Threadgill, E. D., “Irrigation/Chemigation: Implications

for Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Semice, December 1989).

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Food

Safety and Quality: Five Countries’ Eflorts to Meet

U.S. Requirements on ImportedProduce GAO/RCED90-55 (Gaithersburg, MD, March 1990).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination, vol. I, OTA-O-276 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, October 1984).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination, vol. II, OTA-O-233 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, October 1984).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies To Benefit Agriculture and Wildlfe,

OTA-BP-F-34 (Washington DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, May 1985).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Pesticide Residues in Food: Technologies for Detection, OTA-F-398 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1988),

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal

Solid Waste? OTA-O-424 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, October 1989).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

“Policy Options to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” draft special report (in press).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Neurotoxicity: Identijjing and Controlling Poisons

of the Nervous System: New Developments in Neuroscience, OTA-BA-436 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, April 1990).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, “Apple Prices Depressed Following Alar

Scare, ” Agricultural Outlook AO-153, June 1989,

pp. 16-18.
40 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

76.

77.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offlce of 78. Weisenburger, D.D., ‘‘Environmental Epidemiology

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Ground on Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in Eastern Nebraska,’

Water Branch, “Pesticides in Ground Water Data American Journal of Industrial Medicine (in press).

Base 1988 Interim Report,” December 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, “Nonpoint Sources Agenda for the FutureNonPoint Source Solutions,” January 1989.
Chapter 3

Contamination of the

Hydrogeological System:

A Primer

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS

● Movement of chemicals is directly linked to water movement, over and through the soil.

● Natural factors affecting potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater are

complex, interactive, and not enough is known about them to specify solutions for most

locations.

● Diffuse sites and diverse modes of entry, and multiple agrichemical transport

mechanisms render agrichemical contamination of groundwater true nonpoint source

pollution.

. Natural factors associated with suspected groundwater vulnerability are widespread and

support national concern. Federal and State data collection and information management

activities to identify and understand these natural factors are underway, but national-level

efforts to synthesize this information to assist decisionmaking are still evolving.

● Long periods of time elapse between changes in surface activities and impacts on

groundwater contamination, and contamination is extremely costly to reverse, such that

prevention is preferable to redemption.

● Reduction of agrichemical contamination of groundwater requires that the entire

agroecosystem be managed to minimize waste and leaching*
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Groundwater and the Hydrologic Cycle ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Contamination of the Hydrogeologic System . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Natural Factors Affecting Leaching of Agrichemicals to Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Characteristics of Underlying Geological Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Aquifer Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Putting It All Back Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

HUMAN MODIFICATIONS OF THE HYDROGEOLOGIC SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Preferred Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Changing Groundwater/Surface-Water Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

AGRICHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO LEACHING ...............60

SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Improving Data Collection and Management for Groundwater Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Coordinating Agroecosystem Simulation Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Developing Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Boxes

Box Page

3-A. Groundwater Contamination From Natural Sources: Kesterson Wildlife Refuge . . . 60

3-B. Using Hydrogeologic Information To Predict Sites Vulnerable to Groundwater

Contamination: Minnesota’s Groundwater Contamination Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figures

Figure Page

3-1. Hydrologic Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3-2. Zones of Subsurface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

3-3. Perched Water Tables in Relation to the Main Water Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3-4. Surface Water and Groundwater Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

3-5. Horizons of a Typical Soil Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

3-6. Microfauna and Macrofauna Open Conduits and Create Pore Spaces in Soils . . . . . 52

3-7. General Direction and Rate of Groundwater Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3-8. Extent of Pleistocene Continental Glaciation in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3-9. Schematic Diagram of Agricultural Drainage Well ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3-10. Cones of Depression Resulting From Water Withdrawal May Result in

Contamination of Water Supplies Near Non-contaminated, Well-constructed

Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3-11. Status of State Soil Geographic Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3-12. Thickness of Pleistocene Deposits in Illinois ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Tables

Table Page

3-1. Estimated Permeability of Typical Geologic Materials in Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3-2. Key Chemical and Mineralogical Factors Commonly Considered When Assessing

a Pesticide’s Behavior and Ability To Leach From Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3-3. Pesticides With High Potential for Leaching to Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Chapter 3

Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer

INTRODUCTION

Groundwater has represented a vast and seemingly inexhaustible resource for years, and has

become an indispensable source of freshwater. Even

until the 1970s, the soil was believed to be a‘ ‘living

filter’ preventing groundwater contamination from

chemicals applied to the land (74). Today, however,

a growing body of information tells us that agrichemicals (pesticides and nitrate) have moved through the

soil cover to contaminate groundwater. Contaminated well-water in many U.S. agricultural areas is

evidence that groundwater is ultimately affected by

man’s aboveground activities. Clearly, environmental contamination from agrichemicals requires a

three-dimensional view of agriculture and its impacts rather than the two-dimensional view held by

many in the past,

Three categories of factors largely determine the

potential for agrichemical leaching to groundwater:

1.

2.

3.

natural characteristics of the site of agrichemical use that affect leaching of water and thus

transport of agrichemicals,

nature and extent of human modification to

those natural characteristics that may affect

leaching patterns, and

characteristics of the agrichemicals used that

determine their environmental fate.

To understand how the problem originated and how

it might be solved requires a basic understanding of

how water moves through the atmosphere, over the

land surface, and below the ground-the hydrologic

cycle.

Groundwater and the Hydrologic Cycle

The hydrologic cycle begins with the evaporation

of water from oceans and other open bodies of water,

vegetation, and land surfaces (figure 3-l). The

moisture from evaporation forms clouds, and falls

back onto the Earth’s surface as rain or snow. When

it rains, some of the rainfall is taken up by

vegetation, some returns to the atmosphere by

evaporation and through transpiration by plants, and

some water runs off the land to lakes and rivers and

on to the sea.

Part of the rainfall falling directly on the land or

collected in surface water bodies seeps downward

through the Earth’s surface. Water moves through

the interconnected spaces among individual particles of soils and geologic materials, along cracks and

fissures in these materials, or through openings

where worms have burrowed or roots have decayed.

These spaces may become temporarily saturated

with water after a heavy rain, but near the surface, in

the ‘‘vadose zone,”2

open spaces normally contain

air as well as water. With increased depth, water fills

all available pore space in the Earth’s sediments and

rock formations. This fully saturated zone is where

groundwater is stored; the upper surface of this

saturated zone defines the water table (figure 3-2).

Although groundwater is ubiquitous, only certain

geologic formations (aquifers) have an extractable

quantity of water sufficient for human use. Aquifers

may reach hundreds of feet in thickness and may

extend laterally for hundreds of miles. The Ogallala

aquifer, for example, underlies parts of eight Great

Plains States (6,18) and is vital to agriculture over a

large region. Other groundwater aquifers are thin

and of small areal extent and, thus, only a few wells

can draw from them. The smallest aquifers—

perched water tables—sit on small impermeable

layers of geologic material above the region’s

general water table (figure 3-3).

Water moves continuously below the Earth’s

surface, much as surface water flows from higher

regions towards the sea. Many aquifers contribute to

surface water bodies, such as springs, wetlands,

rivers, and lakes, and others flow directly into the

ocean. Some deep aquifers, however, contain ‘fossil

water’ sequestered under the soil thousands of years

ago.

Contamination of the Hydrogeologic System

Water reaches the groundwater table through two

primary natural pathways in the course of the

lcont~m(lon here ~efers t. tie m~~umble ~rcsence of an a~chefi~ or its br~do~ products, and docs not necessarily imply the eXiStenCe

or absence of a threat to human health or the environment.

‘This zone also may be referred to as the unsaturated zone or the zone of aeration.

43–
44 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 3-1—Hydrologic Cycle

Saline groundwater

SOURCE: Adapted from B.J. Sldnner and S.C. Porter, The Dynamic Earth (New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons, 1989).

hydrologic cycle: direct leaching through soils and

rock formations, and via recharge from surface

waters. Although the waters leaching through farmlands to groundwater may pickup agrichemical and

natural contaminants as they move through the

system, contaminants also may derive from atmospheric deposition or contaminated surface waters.

Atmospheric Deposition

Agrichemicals can be transported and dispersed in

the atmosphere, eventually returning to lands and

surface waters. With spraying from airplanes, in

particular, pesticides aimed at a specific field are

likely to drift beyond its boundaries and settle on

distant land areas, lakes, and streams.

Contamin ation of rainfall has been documented

for certain organochlorinated pesticides. Studies

show that the pesticide toxaphene (now banned by

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) was

carried long distances from its use site and deposited

through rainfall in concentrations high enough to

damage fisheries (1 1). Similarly, in a pilot study of

atmospheric dispersal of pesticides in the Northeastern United States, rainwater samples were analyzed

for 19 commonly used pesticides and 11 were found

in detectable levels (62).

The detected compounds showed strong seasonal

variation consistent with application times and

chemical stability and, thus, are thought to have

originated mostly from local sources (62). However,

wind also can transport agrichemical particles and

vapors hundreds or thousands of miles before they

fall back to Earth. In 1980, an insecticide used to

control boll weevils in cotton fields in the Southern

United States was discovered in fish in the waters of

Lake Superior. The global scope of atmospheric

transport became apparent when insecticides used in

Asia and southern Europe appeared in Arctic and

Antarctic waters.

Recharge by Contaminated Surface Waters

Readily soluble agrichemicals maybe carried off

fields with runoff. Some agrichemicals have a

tendency to attach themselves to certain soil parti-
Chapter 3-Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 45

Surface water

Rivers and lakes

Figure 3-2—Zones of Subsurface Water

——

.——.

——

— —.—————— — ——— ————— —-

—— ————— ———— ————————.

-—————.

CAPILLARY FRINGE

—— — — ————— ——— — —— —-

/

Water table

Well

/

-—

, Water level

——

SOURCE: Adapted from R. C. Heath, Ground- Wafer Regions of the United States, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper No. 2242 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1984).

Figure 3-3-Perched Water Tables in Relation to the Main Water Table

Perched

water bodies

Dry

hole I

I I

Sand

Main water table

. .

, ,, :,.

SOURCE: B.J. Skinner and S.C. Porter, The Dynamic Earth (New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons, 1989).
46 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 3-4-Surface Water and Groundwater Relationships

Rainwater enters

ground by infiltration

———— —

Water leaches downward

in zone of aeration

Ground water percolates

via curved paths and

emerges in nearest stream

A. Generalized movement of groundwater in uniformly permeable

rock in a humid region, or during high precipitation conditions

in an arid/semiarid region

/

B. Generalized movement of groundwater in uniformly permeable

rock in arid/semiarid regions-or during long-lasting drought in humid regions

SOURCE: B.J. Skinner and S.C. Porter, The Dynamic Earth (New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons, 1989).

cles; the impact of raindrops can erode soils and

associated agrichemicals from the field. In such

cases, agrichemicals may end up in surface water

bodies. From there, agrichemicals or their breakdown products may leach into groundwater.

Groundwater and surface waters are closely

linked, with the flow of one to the other depending

on the relative altitudes of the surface water and the

groundwater table (figures 3-4a and b). For example,

in humid regions, the flow of groundwater generally

is toward surface water bodies because the groundwater table in the surrounding land is higher than the

surface water body. In arid/semiarid regions, however, the flow direction is reversed because the

altitude of streams tends to be higher than the

groundwater table (75,18,66). Under conditions of

abnormally high rainfall in arid/semiarid regions or

abnormally low rainfall in humid regions, the

predominant direction of water flow may change

accordingly. Thus, in any region of the country,

potential exists for climatic factors to promote

recharge of groundwater by surface waters. In

addition, pumping of high-capacity municipal wells

can draw surface water into the aquifer.

The absence of oxygen below the water table

precludes most reactions that degrade contaminants

in the vadose zone (40). Contaminants that reach and

move with groundwater are therefore likely to

remain chemically intact for long periods.

Once contaminants reach groundwater they may

spread laterally to a greater extent than they may

have in the vadose zone. In certain instances, a large

aquifer may be encountered through which contaminants can disperse regionally (e.g., Ogallala aquifer)

(25). While it might be years before contaminants

reach the deeper parts of a very thick aquifer, deep

groundwater may act as a long-term reservoir for

cont aminants. Thus, contaminants in groundwater
Chapter 3---Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 47

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-L. Childers

Groundwater and surface water, such as the wetlands shown here, are intimately connected. Contamination of groundwater can

therefore result in contamination of surface-water bodies, and vice versa

may be discharged to a stream decades, or centuries,

after percolating rainwater introduced pollutants in

the first place (86).

Natural Factors Affecting Leaching of

Agrichemicals to Groundwater

The potential for agrichemicals to leach directly

through soils and rock to groundwater depends on

numerous factors. Natural site characteristics can

enhance or reduce the potential for a given agrichemical to leach and to contaminate groundwater. Local

topography and landforms can favor surface runoff

over downward soil seepage or vice versa. Vegetation and climatic parameters (temperature, precipitation, air movement, and solar radiation levels) affect

the environmental fate of contaminants as well (14).

Roots and sunlight can interact directly with the

cont aminant (e.g., photochemical degradation of

chemicals exposed to sunlight, root uptake of

nutrients and pesticides); vegetation and climate

also have impacts on soil properties. Other variables

such as the depth to the water table, characteristics

of the unsaturated zone, and the presence and

distribution of low-permeability layers also can

affect contaminated water flow. Pesticide degradation may occur via one or a combination of several

biological and chemical pathways, and the operative

pathways may vary from site to site (58).

Certain soils may have direct physical or chemical

interactions with agrichemicals. Some chemical

reactions, relating to the presence or absence of

oxygen or to the hydrolysis of a chemical, may serve

to detoxify contaminants in the soil. Sometimes,

though, the pesticide breakdown products may be

more toxic than the parent compound (14).

Topography and the Soil Surface

Topography of the land and the roughness of the

soil surface can affect the movement and fate of

agrichemicals applied to agricultural lands. Sloping

agricultural lands tend to be more prone to water

erosion than are flat lands. On flatter agricultural
48 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

lands, water erosion is less of a problem and the

likelihood for infiltration of the agrichemicalbearing water into the soil and into groundwater may

be enhanced. On flat land, wind is likely to be the

agent that erodes soil and carries agrichemicals from

agricultural lands. Strong winds can remove fine soil

particles and lightweight organic matter from dry

soils. These airborne materials may end up in distant

water bodies; any attached agrichernicals may ultimately move into the groundwater. Rougher soil

surfaces, such as those produced by leaving crop

stubble on the field, tend to reduce runoff and thus

hold agrichemicals and soil particles on site, affording time for agrichemical degradation.

Some pesticides will break down when exposed to

direct sunlight, a process called photochemical

degradation. The longer pesticides are exposed to

sunlight, the more likely it is that photosensitive

chemicals will break down. Topography obviously

affects length of exposure to sunlight (e.g., north-v.

south-facing slopes); it also affects soil temperature

and microbiota, which in turn affect pesticide

degradation.

Vegetation

The presence and type of vegetation-forests,

grasslands, or agricultural crops—strongly affect the

movement of water and water-borne solutes within

the vadose zone. Crops such as alfalfa with roots up

to 20 feet deep and high water demand, and

sunflowers and safflowers with roots penetrating to

at least 6 feet, have impacts far different from those

of shallow-rooted crops with lower water demand.

Agrichemicals are less likely to pass beyond deeprooted crops to contaminate groundwater than to

travel beyond the much shallower root zone of crops

like corn (17,64). Once agrichemicals pass the root

zone there is little to stop them from moving

downward to the groundwater.

The closer the spacing between individual plants

the less potential there is for soil erosion and the

inadvertent movement of agrichemicals to off-site

locations and potential groundwater contamination.

Close-grown crops such as grasses or small grains,

are more likely to intercept raindrops and shield the

soil from wind than widely spaced crops such as

corn, soybeans, or cotton. Moreover, the denser the

root system the less likely it is that soluble nutrients

will pass the root zone and move into groundwater.

This is particularly true when the nutrients are

applied at that time during the growth period when

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

USDA researchers take groundwater samples from a

test site next to a cornfield in Beltsville, Maryland.

Groundwater will be tested for pesticides in a study on the

effects of different tillage methods on pesticide movement.

the plants have the most demand for them. Those

areas having the longest growing seasons provide for

the maximum nutrient uptake.

When annual crop plants die, nutrient and water

uptake by the plants ceases, thus providing a period

when water, agrichemicals remaining in the soil, and

nutrients from decomposition of crop residue can

move downward. Some nutrients may be sequestered by soil organic matter; others are subject to

leaching and may contaminate groundwater. Consequently, the removal or harvest of annual crops and

its timing plays an important role in the fate of

agrichemicals (64).

Water Table

The movement of water into and through the soil

is very complex, and there are seasonal and regional

variations in the amount of water that enters the soil

and eventually recharges groundwater (25,57). The
Chapter 3--Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 49

amount of recharge, depth to the water table, and

fluctuations in depth to water table vary with

climate, soils, topography, and geology.

The water table tends to be shallower and more

readily recharged in the Eastern United States where

precipitation normally exceeds evaporation, than in

the arid/semi-arid regions of the Western United

States, where the reverse is true. Streams supplied by

water sources originating in distant mountains are

for the most part the only significant source of

groundwater recharge in some arid regions of the

Western United States (75). With little rainfall over

long periods of time, the groundwater table in

arid/semiarid regions may be as much as 1,500 feet

below the land’s surface (6).

In humid regions, the likelihood of contaminating

groundwater with agrichemicals is higher than in dry

regions where water is scarce, because of the shorter

distance between the land surface and the groundwater table. Longer transit time in dry regions than

in humid areas may afford greater opportunity for

the natural breakdown of pesticides. However, for

those pesticides requiring moisture for degradation,

this condition may lead to a persistence in the soil.

The water table fluctuates seasonally, typically

rising during the winter and early spring rains, and

falling during drier months. Under drought conditions, the water table will continue to fall. Streams

and ponds that once served as outlets for groundwater may begin to dry up as their waters follow the

falling water table. In normal times, the water table

may rise to the plant root zone during the “spring

flush’ ’-when snows melt and rains are more

frequent or intense-minimizing potentially mediating soil effects, Spring also tends to be the period of

heaviest plant nutrient application.

Soil Characteristics

Soil characteristics are determined by the interaction of soil-forming factors such as the soil’s

geologic parent material, the climate under which

the soil formed, its topographic position, the nature

of the vegetative cover, the kinds and abundance of

soil organisms, and the amount of time the soil has

been forming. The resulting soil properties in turn

have a direct influence on how rapidly or slowly

agrichemicals move through the soil into groundwater. Therefore, in a country as large as the United

States where significant variation exists in soil,

geology, climate, and topography, it is natural to

expect large variations in soil properties vertically

and horizontally in different areas. It would be

necessary to have site-specific data on the soil type

to indicate soil structure, mineralogy, chemistry, and

texture before making detailed predictions on the

potential for contaminating groundwater with agrichemicals.

Soils exist in a water-saturated or unsaturated

state. Plants growing in ponds and marshes have

their roots in water-saturated soils. Most agricultural

crops, however, grow on unsaturated soils comprising the top few feet of the vadose zone. The soil

factors that affect leaching and degradation processes through unsaturated soils include organic

carbon, clay and moisture content, pH, temperature,

texture and structure, nutrient status, and microbial

activity (14).

Physical and Chemical Soil Characteristics—

The texture of soil relates to the size and shape of its

constituents, and extent of particle aggregation (56),

all of which affect the volume of air or water a soil

can hold or transmit. Soil texture exerts substantial

control over the movement of water and associated

agrichemicals.

Soils have many open spaces between constituent

particles that can hold and transmit water. This open

space in a soil is called porosity. However, if the

open spaces or pores are not interconnected, water

cannot flow through the soil rapidly. Such soils are

said to lack permeability even though they are

porous. Clean sand (sands containing little silt or

clay or other fine-grained materials) and gravel soils

are porous and permeable but as the content of fine

silt and clay particles increases, the pores become

plugged and the rate at which water moves through

such soils decreases. Therefore, it is important to

know how porous a soil is, how large the pores are,

and to what degree the pores are interconnected

before predicting the fate of agrichemicals applied to

that soil.

Some of the best agricultural soils are called

loams, i.e., those containing about 5 to 25 percent

clay with approximately equal parts of silt and sand

constituting the remainder. Such soils commonly

remain well-aerated throughout the year and drain

effectively. Loam soils are better than either coarsegrained soils or fine-grained, poorly drained soils in

faltering out and arresting downward percolating

contaminants (45).
50 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Pore size is an important characteristic to consider

when evaluating the likely movement of contaminated water. A thin film of water is held tightly on

the mineral particles making up soil by forces of

molecular attraction. This film of water (adsorbed

water) does not behave like the water in the center of

large pores. The adsorbed water will not flow out of

a soil’s pores as will the water in the center of a large

pore (absorbed water). Consequently, a soil composed of fine-grained materials may have a high

porosity and the pores may be interconnected, but

because the pores are so small most of the water is

adsorbed and little will be able to flow through the

soil (66). Such soils give farmers problems bemuse

they are slow to dry out, waterlog easily, are difficult

to cultivate, and do not crumble but form clods (53).

The oxygen content of the soil can be reduced in

such situations to the point where plants are adversely affected.

Soil particles tend to be spherical in the large grain

sizes (e.g., sand) but more plate-like in the freer

fractions (e.g., clay). Fine clay particles can be

arranged in two general forms, one like a deck of

cards and the other like a house-of-cards. The

adsorbed water is continuous between parallel clay

particles and, therefore, essentially is immobile.

Little pore space exists in the “deck-of-cards”

arrangement. The house-of-cards clay arrangement

has a high porosity and may have interconnected

pores, but because the clay sheets are so small, the

layer of adsorbed water on each sheet overlaps with

that of adjacent sheets, also restricting water flow.

Clay-rich soils and rocks thus transmit water poorly

and, therefore, retard agrichemical movement into

groundwater.

Clay minerals have other important properties for

retarding the movement of certain agrichemicals,

heavy metals (toxic constituents of sewage sludge

containing industrial wastes), and bacteria into

groundwater. Many U.S. soils contain several common types of clay minerals that can trap fertilizer

nutrients on their outer surfaces as well as between

mineral layers. The clays can incorporate nutrients

important to plants such as potassium, calcium, or

magnesium, hold them in an exchangeable form, and

release them later to plant roots or the soil solution.

The movement of nutrients to and from clay surfaces

is called ‘‘ion exchange. ’

Some pesticides and heavy metals also can be

trapped by appropriate kinds of clay minerals. In

addition, some bacteria that might originate in

sewage sludge, manure, or even dead farm animals

can be filtered out of soil water or groundwater and

trapped by clays and even fine-grained sands (66).

Viruses, being much smaller than bacteria, are not

easily faltered out but their properties are such that

they are likely to adhere to clay mineral surfaces.

Another important component of soils is the

humus that gives the uppermost part of soils their

dark color (figure 3-5). Humus is a breakdown

product of plant and animal organic matter and, like

clays, has the ability to filter out and capture bacteria

and many chemical contaminants. Organic matter

can hold water, heavy metals, and some organic

chemicals and it promotes the retention of soluble

plant nutrients that otherwise would tend to leach

downward with percolating waters. Pesticide adsorption in soils in many studies has been found to

correlate with the soil organic-matter content (14).

Soil organic matter plays a key role in successful

agriculture, imparting benefits to soils that, for the

most part, cannot be obtained by merely adding

chemicals. Soil organic matter promotes soil particle

aggregation, which in turn improves soil tilth and

soil percolation (74). Thus, soil organic matter

relates directly to the capacity of the soil to hold air

and moisture, and promote more extensive, deeper

crop root systems. The latter is important in the

overall water use efficiency of the crop.

Further, organic matter ultimately is biologically

degraded to release the ‘‘macronutrients’ (nitrogen,

potassium, and phosphorus) most essential to plant

growth. The main natural source of nitrogen for

plant growth is soil organic matter, however, most of

the nitrogen is unavailable to plants until it is

converted to ammonia and nitrate by microorganisms. Soil organic matter also helps control potassium supply for plant growth. As soil reservoirs of

available potassium are depleted, they are replenished by potassium released from organic residues,

fertilizer, living organisms, and soil minerals (47).

The mineral part of soils ordinarily contains about

400 to 6,000 lb. per acre foot of nitrogen in the plow

layer. Somewhat lesser amounts are found in subsoils (3). Nitrate levels in range and wheat fallow

soils of central and south central Nebraska were

estimated up to 150 pounds per acre foot at depths of

30 to 40 feet. These high natural volumes of nitrate

exceed the amount applied as fertilizer in the State,
Chapter 3---Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer Ž 51

—

—

SOIL HORIZONS

Humus just below surface

A Horizon

(Zone of Ieaching)

B Horizon

(Zone of accumulation)

—

C. Horizon

(Slighty weathered

parent material)

SOURCE: B.J. Skinner and S.C. Porter, T,+A Dynamic Earth (New York,

NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).

and constitute a considerable threat to groundwater

should they leach (13).

Soil inorganic matter may contain from 15 to 80

percent of the total soil phosphorus, an important

plant nutrient (3). Mycorrhizal fungi are active in

collecting phosphorus for plant use. As the phosphorus is slowly released during weathering of certain

soil minerals, it is moved to plant roots by the fungi

(76).

Characterizing the amounts and types of clay

minerals, organic matter, and other soil components

is complex, yet such information is fundamental to

assessing the fate of commercial fertilizers, pesticides, and the heavy metals in sewage sludge that

might be applied to agricultural land. Increased

regional and soil series data are needed.

Biological Characteristics

Biological agents also affect the movement of

water and water-borne substances within the vadose

zone. Organic compounds break down most readily

within the uppermost ‘‘bioactive” soil layers, although microbial populations are present and can be

significant in deeper unsaturated zones (58). The

soils most reactive with agrichemicals possess

substantial water-holding and ion-exchange capacities, an open physical structure, and thriving populations of beneficial bacteria, fungi, and invertebrates

(figure 3-6).

However, burrowing animals and decaying plant

roots may create vertical ‘‘macropores’ that permit

the rapid passage of water (41,55). Rapid, channeled

flow, as opposed to dispersed, slow seepage leaves

less room for soil reactions to cleanse water physically or chemically, and increases the potential for

the movement of soil nutrients and other contaminants into groundwater.

Microorganisms-Most soil microorganisms are

microscopic or barely visible to the naked eye. Soil

microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, and

protozoa) serve a critical function in that they

metabolize extant organic matter to release the

nutrients essential for plant growth. Microbial decomposition of organic matter also releases elements not used directly as plant nutrients. Some of

these elements may be converted to gaseous form

(e.g., carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides). By such

conversions, microorganisms in part regulate the

chemistry of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere.

Microorganisms comprise the sole or chief natural

means for converting organic forms of nitrogen,

sulfur, phosphorus, and other elements to plantavailable forms. In the final stages of biochemical

decomposition of organic matter, nutrients are

recycled, humus forms, and soil particle aggregation

is fostered (21). Any actions or agrichemicals

deleterious to these microbial processes ultimately

would have adverse consequences on crops.

Potential groundwater pollutants can be degraded

(converted to a non-toxic form) or created by

biological agents. Certain “nitrifying” soil microbes convert organic compounds of nitrogen into

nitrate useful to plants and potentially available for

leaching to groundwater. In the absence of high

levels of commercial nitrogen fertilizers, the rate at

which microorganisms convert nitrogen to products

useful to plants largely determines the rate of plant

growth. Leaching of microbially produced nitratenot of fertilizer nitrate-is thought by some British

scientists to be the primary source of nitrate detected

in some of their water supplies (l).

Further, soil microorganisms are responsible for

decomposing a wide array of synthetic organic

chemicals in agricultural soils and water, including
52 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 3-6—Microfauna and Macrofauna Open Conduits and Create Pore Spaces in Soils

SOURCE: P.H. Raven, R.F. Evert, and S.E. Eichhorn, BiohgyotPLants (New York, NY: %rth Publishers, Inc., 1986).
Chapter 3-Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 53

pesticides, industrial wastes, and precipitated air

pollutants, converting them to inorganic products.

The breakdown process may lead to detoxification

of toxic chemicals, the formation of short- or

long-lived toxicants, or the synthesis of nontoxic

products. Scientists have investigated only a few of

the multitude of chemicals to determine what

breakdown products are formed when microorganisms encounter chemicals in natural systems (2).

Soil Invertebrates and Vertebrates-Most soils

are inhabited by a diversity of life forms. The soil

biota includes, in addition to numerous microbes, a

wide variety of invertebrate animals and a few

vertebrates. Some of these larger soil invertebrates

such as earthworms, ants, other soil insects, and land

snails and slugs are important to agrichemical

leaching or degradation processes. Small mammals

are the dominant vertebrate animals found below

ground, but some amphibians, reptiles, and even a

few birds live at least a part of their lives within soils.

Soil “macro-organisms” often modify and enhance the soil by their activities, carrying out the

early stages of the physical and chemical decomposition of all types of organic debris in or on the soil.

They are vital to the formation and maintenance of

the natural soil system and perform functions

essential for plant growth. Annually, earthworms in

one hectare of land can produce as much as 500

metric tons of castings, the soil material passing

through their gut. The castings are enriched in

nutrients compared to the adjacent soil: 5 times as

much nitrogen, 7 times as much phosphorus, 11

times as much potassium, 3 times as much magnesium, and 2 times as much calcium (61). Before the

widespread availability of commercial fertilizers,

nutrients recycled by the biota were recognized as a

major component of soil fertility and so soil biology

ranked high among the agricultural sciences. In

recent decades, however, there has been much less

emphasis on soil biology as increased soil fertility

has been achieved through use of commercial

fertilizers.

Despite the lack of quantitative data on the impact

of farming practices on invertebrates in most U.S.

soils, some qualitative information does exist. The

situation is not the same for soil vertebrates, which

include such animals as moles, gophers, mice, other

burrowing mammals, and some reptiles and amphibians. Even though some people worry that agrichemicals may harm beneficial soil invertebrates, the

activities of soil vertebrates are commonly and

narrowly viewed as negative: for example, making

burrows in which farm machinery can become

entrapped, consuming valuable grain or forage, or

providing pathways for agrichemicals to reach the

groundwater table. Some studies of soil vertebrates

suggest that they may also have beneficial impacts,

such as breaking up hardpan a foot or more below the

surface, thus improving drainage and increasing

rooting depth. Unfortunately, such ecological studies typically are conducted on virgin land and are

difficult to relate to agricultural lands (63).

No economically feasible substitutes exist for the

significant functions of organic matter and soil biota,

so their maintenance in croplands and rangelands is

critical. Soil invertebrates and microorganisms assist in breaking down plant remains, producing new

organic compounds that promote good soil structure,

and convert soil nutrients to forms usable by plants.

Microbes also break down pesticides and other toxic

chemicals. Without the soil biota, the organic matter

from plant residues and manure would be of little

use. Consequently, care is needed to assure that

agrichemicals moving through the soil and groundwater do not adversely affect the soil biota.

Characteristics of Underlying

Geological Materials

In situations where soils lie directly over bedrock

it is generally easier to predict the likelihood for

agrichemical leaching to underlying aquifers than in

instances where unconsolidated sediments separate

the soil from the bedrock. In this latter situation, the

characteristics of the intervening materials play an

important role in determiningg the fate of agrichemicals.

Bedrock Characteristics

Accumulations of unconsolidated materials and

various kinds of bedrock may lie beneath the soil

surface. Whatever its name and origin, it is largely

the chemical and physical nature of bedrock that

governs water flow and pollutant dispersal. Even

though the permeability of some types of bedrock is

very low (table 3-1; figure 3-7), most types of

bedrock are criss-crossed with hairline cracks and

fractures, and larger cracks or “joints” provide

pathways through which water can flow. Some rocks

like sandstones and conglomerates may be highly

permeable even where joints are scarce.
54 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 3-l—Estimated Permeability of Typical Geologic Materials in Illinois

Geologic material Flow rate Comments

Clean sand and gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ft/yr May be highly permeable

Fine sand and silty sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ft/yr -100 ft/yr

Silt (Ioess, colluvium, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

10 ft/yr -1 ft/10 yr

Gravelly till, less than 10% clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

1 ft/yr -1 ft/100 yr Often contains gravel/sand lenses or zones

Till, less than 25% clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ft/10 yr -1 ft/1 ,000 yr

Clayey tills, greater than 25% day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ft/100 yr -1 ft/10,000 yr Often contains gravel/sand lenses or zones

Sandstone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ft/yr

Cemented fine sandstone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

10 ft/yr -1 ft/100 yr Frequently fractured

Fractured rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ft/yr May be extremely permeable

Shale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1ft/100 yr -1 ft/1,000,000 yr Often fractured

Dense limestone/dolomite (unfractured) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1ft/1000 yr -1ft/1,000,000 yr —

SOURCE: Adapted from R.C. Berg, J.P. Kempton, and K. CartWright, “Potential for Contamination of Shallow Aquifers in Illinois,” Illinois State Geological

Survey, 1984.

Figure 3-7-General Direction and Rate of

Groundwater Movement

I /

\

,

\ Decades /

/ ‘\ ‘ . 1

1 ,

\

Centuries

/

\

/

\

‘

- Flow line s

-~ — ——

.- \

— — ———— — - - Mlllennla \

\

—— —— —— — — — — —— — — —— —— — ——— —

l— — — — — — . — — — I

SOURCE: R.M. Wailer, “Groundwater and the Rural Homeowner, ”

(Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 1988),

Generally, fractures and joints in bedrock become

less common with increasing depth and groundwater

movement and storage volume decreases. At least

one-half of all groundwater, including most of the

usable groundwater, occurs within the upper 2,500

feet of the land’s surface (66).

Bedrock commonly shows evidence of distortion

and folding and faulting. The variation of bedrock

types and properties, and the different geologic

structures present beneath the land’s surface, all

affect the flow of water and, hence, complicate

predictions of contaminant movement in surface and

groundwater. Groundwater follows an erratic path

rather than a straight, vertical line and contaminants

may be carried considerable horizontal distances

away from the original site of surface application.

Where water encounters solution cavities and channels in an area of carbonate bedrock, it may move

rapidly downward as if through an open well.

Without detailed subsurface geological data, it is

nearly impossible to predict precisely where groundwater and its pollutants are likely to move or

accumulate in the subsurface.

Solution Cavities in Carbonate Rocks

Limestone, dolomite, and marble are common

rocks that can dissolve slowly as water comes in

contact with them. Over centuries, rainwater and

groundwater can dissolve a considerable volume of

these rocks leaving behind a variety of solution

features (cf: 66). Regions where limestone is common at, or very near, the land surface and where

solution of this rock is at an advanced stage, are

characterized by sinkholes, caves, and streams that

seem to disappear into the ground. These features

typfiy what geologists call karst topography.

If agrichemicals are used in karst regions there is

high probability that groundwater will be contaminated. Once such chemicals move into the groundwater in such a setting, they can move rapidly over

large distances diluting to lower concentrations or

causing contamination in unexpected places. Wells

in karst regions, therefore, are highly susceptible to

contamination from agricultural activities.

In certain cases, limestone karst topography is

buried far below the land surface. Overlying sediments may have low permeabilities and consequently downward moving agrichemicals may not

reach the water-filled limestone cavities. In such

cases, well-water pumped from the limestone aquifer may be uncontaminated, However, in cases

where the limestone beds are tilted and crop out at

the land surface, the entire aquifer may become

contaminated as agrichemical-laden groundwater

flows laterally from its shallow to its deepest parts.

Wells miles from the source of contamination can be

adversely affected. Thus, groundwater contamina-
Chapter 3--Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 55

tion that begins as a local problem can, under certain

conditions, become regional in nature.

Unconsolidated Materials

Unconsolidated materials commonly underlie soils

in many parts of the United States. For example,

extensive unconsolidated glacial deposits separate

the soil from bedrock across much of the farmlands

of the northern part of the United States from

Montana to Maine. These and other unconsolidated

materials affect how slowly or quickly contaminated

water will reach groundwater in confined and

unconfined aquifers. Geologists can assist with

assessing the subsurface character of these sediments where concerns exist about agrichemical

contamination of subsurface waters.

Unconsolidated sediments deposited along

streams and rivers (alluvium) can cover bedrock and

can vary greatly in thickness. Similarly, sediments

that move downhill and accumulate at the foot of

slopes (colluvium) also can cover bedrock to varying

depths. Other unconsolidated material form in place

from weathering of underlying bedrock. These types

of sediments can vary in composition vertically and

laterally over short distances, thus directly affecting

the downward flow of water.

The porosity and permeability of the unconsolidated materials relate to the sediment’s source

material, the degree of weathering, whether or not

the unconsolidated material has been transported,

and the mode of transportation. Where unconsolidated materials are thick, porous and permeable,

they commonly are filled with water in their lower

parts if rainfall is sufficient, and they are used as

unconfined aquifers by farmers and others. Of

course, where they have a high degree of porosity

and permeability and underlie agricultural sites, they

are likely to be contaminated easily where agrichemicals are applied to the land surface.

Glacial Geology and US. Midwest Agriculture

Glaciers moving south from what today is Canada

once covered large parts of the United States from

Montana to Maine and as far south as southern

Illinois (figure 3-8). The last glaciers melted or

retreated about 10,000 years ago leaving behind a

variety of sediments of varying thicknesses, filling

in old river valleys and giving the land a much

smoother topography than before. Today, rivers

have cut through these glacial sediments in some

places but much of the flat land of this region still has

a glacial sediment cover.

This glaciated region—nearly one-quarter the

area of the lower 48 States--contains 40 percent of

the U.S. population and some of the best agricultural

land in the world, including the “Corn Belt. ” This

also is the region of the United States where the

application of agrichemicals is highest.

The geology of the glacial deposits is complicated

because the sediments had different origins; the

composition of this sedimentary veneer varies laterally and vertically. Some of the sediments were

deposited directly by moving ice and are clay rich

and relatively impermeable (glacial tills). These till

deposits are likely to contain intermixed sand,

cobbles, and boulders. Trapped beneath tills in some

localities are the compressed remains of forests and

other vegetation that may assist in agrichemical

breakdown. Some sediments were derived from

glacial melt-water and consist of permeable, clean

sands and gravels. Still other deposits are composed

of the fine silts from stream valleys blown across the

land during dry periods (loess).

Each of these sediment types transmits water at a

different rate. Wind-blown loess deposits, for example, drain more slowly than gravels and sands but

much more rapidly than clay-rich tills. Consequently, knowledge of the origin, distribution, and

composition of these glacial sediments vertically

and horizontally is key to understanding where

agrichemical-bearing water from agricultural operations may have potential to reach groundwater.

Aquifer Configuration

Below the groundwater table, pores of the rocks

and sediments are filled with water. However, this

does not imply necessarily that the water is available

to a well in sufficient amounts to satisfy human

needs (an aquifer). For example, a completely

saturated fine-grained sediment or rock would yield

water to a well too slowly to be considered an

aquifer. (Many mines exist below the groundwater

table but because the tunnels are in rock having little

permeability, the mines stay quite dry and have few

water problems.) Therefore, downward-moving water

containing agrichemical contaminants could in fact

contaminate groundwater but not necessarily an

aquifer.
56 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 3-8-Extent of Pleistocene Continental Glaciation in the United States

SOURCE: Adapted from R.E. Snead, 14WdAtk?s of Georrrorphic Features (Huntingdon, NY: R.E. Kreiger Publishing Co., Inc., 1980).

Aquifers are classified as being “unconfined’ or

‘‘confined. ’ Unconfined aquifers are those in which

the water table is the top of the aquifer. A confined

aquifer (or artesian aquifer) is separated from the

groundwater table above by a layer of relatively

impermeable sediment or rock and is sealed at its

base by another layer of materials having low

permeability. The water in the aquifer is under

pressure and, therefore, rises above the top of the

aquifer in a well. A greater potential for agrichemical contamination of well-water exists in unconfined

aquifers than in confined aquifers that may have

relatively small recharge areas.

Putting It All Back Together

The hydrogeologic cycle is a complex system of

interactive components and processes, driven by the

Sun and modified by local variations in climate,

topography, vegetation, soils and bedrock, and

human activity. Groundwater problems and solutions, therefore, cannot be addressed without reference to the atmosphere, surface waters, the soils and

bedrock that overlie and contain groundwater, and

human activity at the Earth’s surface.

Changes affecting any one component of the

hydrological cycle are likely to be felt by other

components, or throughout the system. Over the

long term, changes in regional climates affect how

rocks weather and, hence, influence soil development and soil thickness. Soils, in turn, help determine what kinds of agriculture are possible in a

region, and the extent to which agricultural activities

and different cropping and tillage systems might

affect groundwater.

Because water on and below the ground’s surface

is part of the same integrated system, what happens

to groundwater, through human use, ultimately

affects water resources on the land’s surface and vice

versa. Due to changes in rainfall patterns and

agricultural activities, infiltration rates may vary
Chapter 3--Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 57

over time in a given area, leading to fluctuations in

aquifer levels (groundwater storage), and affecting

the dynamics of surface and groundwater exchange,

and sometimes water quality.

Because of the many different factors that affect

groundwater storage and quality, groundwater management poses complex challenges. In assessing

known or potential groundwater quality

all components of the hydrologic cycle

man’s ability to modify them should be

account.

problems,

as well as

taken into

HUMAN MODIFICATIONS OF THE

HYDROGEOLOGIC SYSTEM

Agriculture, by definition, continually modifies

the landscape and its vegetative cover throughout

the year and over the years. Application of chemicals

to agricultural fields is but one possible source of

groundwater and surface water contamination problems related to agriculture. Two additional pathways

exist for agrichemicals to reach groundwater, both

related to changing the nature of the hydrogeological

system itself. The first way is through openings in

the soil or exposed bedrock that circumvent soil

filtration processes (preferred pathways), and the

second way is through land-use practices that

change the groundwater/surface water relationships.

Humans have dug and drilled holes in the ground

for many purposes over time, inadvertently providing pathways for agrichemicals to reach groundwater. These include, for instance, water-wells, drill

holes for mineral exploration, seismic shot-holes,

test drilling for foundations, injection wells, tiledrainage wells, missile silos, and mines. On a much

smaller scale, plant roots and burrowing animals

may create vertical charnels allowing for rapid

infiltration of water.

Similarly, land-use changes also can affect the

flow of surface water and groundwater thereby

moving agrichemicals to unwanted sites. For example, changing dry-land agriculture to irrigated (and

perhaps chemigated) agriculture, construction of

ponds for groundwater recharge, construction of

dams and reservoirs, and channeling and diking

streams can cause such changes. The following

section describes a few of these land-use examples

and relates them to possible movement of agrichemicals beneath the land surface.

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Since climate affects pest outbreaks, weather balloons are

released near the Mexico-U.S. border to study migratory

behavior of can and cotton pests. Better information on

pest populations can help farmers be more selective on

when and where to apply pesticides.

Preferred Pathways

Water will flow along the path of least resistance.

Even though a soil maybe fine-grained and have low

permeability, if it is pierced by small, natural

channels (macropores) or larger manmade conduits

(megamacropores), water contaminated with agrichemicals can move rapidly through these toward the

groundwater table rather than slowly through the

soil matrix where most contaminants are trapped or

broken down. Although the amount of agrichemicals

moving downward through such openings may be

small for any single opening, the total that can be

moved during a growing season could significantly

and adversely affect water quality.

The most common natural macropores derive

from earthworm channels, decayed plant roots, or
58 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approachees TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

cracks from soil drying. Freezing and thawing will

collapse some of these conduits. Nevertheless,

during the warm spring and summer months, agrichemical contaminated water can move easily downward.

Similarly, the burrows of larger vertebrate animals

provide pathways deep into the soil. Such conduits

will not extend below the groundwater table unless

the water table rises.

Megamacropores can be natural, such as sinkholes where the land’s surface has collapsed into

underground caves eroded from carbonate rocks

(“solution cavities”), or manmade conduits like

abandoned wells and drill holes. The latter may be

several inches to several feet in diameter, while

sinkholes may be hundreds of feet across.

Poorly constructed water-wells can lead to groundwater contamination problems. Water-wells having

continuous steel casing from the land surface down

into the aquifer can eliminate the possibility of

degrading the drinking-water source with contaminated water from shallower aquifers. Completion of

such wells so that contaminated surface runoff

cannot enter the well head is essential to keep

agrichemicals from contaminating the well-water. If

active or abandoned wells are only partly cased or if

casings corrode or crack, a potential will exist for

contaminants to reach the well’s aquifer.

Abandoned Drill Holes and Wells

Drilling holes in the ground for oil, water, mineral

exploration, foundation testing, and other uses has

been a common practice in the United States for

many years. The first productive oil well was

completed in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859 (66),

but water-wells predated oil exploration by many

years. Only recently have States developed regulations about the proper sealing of abandoned wells

and other such holes. Quantitative data on the

number of wells and drill holes is sparse and the

number of improperly sealed abandoned holes in

each State probably will never be known.

Minnesota is one State where some quantitative

information exists, although estimates are based on

extrapolation of certain field sites. The Minnesota

Department of Health (MDH) estimates that some

700,000 to 1.2 million abandoned water-wells in

Minnesota have a potential to endanger groundwater

quality (88). Today, Minnesota has roughly 500,000

producing water-wells, and some 10,000 new waterwells are drilled annually. By a conservative estimate, about 10 percent of these are replacement

wells. Therefore, at least 1,000 additional waterwells are abandoned each year. At the present rate of

sealing (2,500 in 1988 at an average cost of $500

each), the MDH estimates that it will take 480 years

to seal already abandoned wells. If 1,000 additional

water-wells are abandoned each year, sealing the

combined backlog of abandoned wells will take 800

years.

Minnesota is not an oil- or gas-producing State, so

the number of abandoned wells there probably is far

below the total number of wells and exploratory drill

holes and seismic shot-holes scattered over States

such as Texas and Oklahoma. Some abandoned

wells and holes may have collapsed so that they no

longer present avenues through which agrichemicals

might move to contaminate groundwater. Further,

water flowing down the walls of an open hole

through the unsaturated zone are subject to strong

withdrawal into the unsaturated zone. Contaminants, therefore, may not reach the water table if the

contaminated supply of water is small (5). Yet other

abandoned holes and wells probably are still open

and may present a serious threat to States’ groundwater resources.

Agricultural Drainage Wells

Agricultural drainage wells are structures designed expressly to provide access to underground

strata for disposal of water drained from saturated

soils or from irrigation systems. Farmland drainage,

the primary agricultural water management and farm

reclamation activity in this country, occurred throughout the last century, peaking in the 1930s (74).

Nearly 75 percent (77 million acres) of the cropland

on which wetness is a dominant constraint on

production (105 million acres; (77)) have manmade

surface or subsurface drainage systems (79). There

are indications that many of the drainage systems

constructed in the early 1900s, particularly in the

Midwest, are now obsolete and in need of repair; in

their current state, they promote leaching (74).

Drainage outflows can be directed through drainage wells and sinkholes into subsurface strata (figure

3-9). If outflow waters are directed into sinkholes for

disposal, the relatively rapid movement of groundwater through karst may provide relatively rapid

dilution of the soluble chemicals carried, However,

in areas with fractured bedrock or slow-moving

groundwater, chemicals may remain concentrated in

the subsurface.
Chapter 3--Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 59

Figure 3-9-Schematic Diagram of Agricultural

Drainage Well

Drainage well Ground surface

Surface water intake

Confining layer

preventing infiltration

SOURCE: Adapted fromlowa Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Commission, Iowa Grourdwater Protection Strategy, 1987

Drainage outflows and irrigation tailwaters commonly carry agrichemicals and naturally occurring

soluble soil minerals, such as nitrate and selenium

into surface- and groundwaters (see box 3-A).

Unless properly processed or diluted, concentrations

of natural and introduced chemicals can contaminate

groundwater or aquifers posing environmental and

health hazards.

Changing Groundwater/Surface-Water

Relationships

Certain human activities can alter the natural

relationship of surface waters and groundwater and,

hence, how easily and in which directions contaminants are likely to move. Some common examples

include darn construction, stream diversion, drainage and irrigation, and over-pumping of water-wells.

These can either promote contamination, or dilute

groundwater contaminated from other sources.

Dam Construction and Stream Diversion

Construction of a dam can greatly reduce the

natural rate and volume of groundwater recharge

downstream of the dam. Consequently, the groundwater table may drop to such an extent that

contaminated surface- water bodies disappear as they

drain into the falling groundwater table. Conversely,

the water reservoir that forms behind the dam can

raise the area’s water table bringing the groundwater

table close to or above the land surface. In such

cases, the near-surface and surface water can pick up

agrichemicals as contaminants. Previously contaminated groundwater may also be diluted.

Streams sometimes are diverted from their natural

channels to new charnels to irrigate farmland, to

divert water around developments, or to redirect

water to water-poor areas. The groundwater impacts

along the old charnel are similar to those that occur

downstream of a new dam, and those along the

diversion channel will parallel those occurring

behind the dam.

Irrigation

Used on some 55 million acres of U.S. crops (75),

irrigation is essential for crop production in arid

areas, will increase crop yield or quality every year

in semiarid areas, and ensures consistent crop yield

and quality in subhumid and humid areas. However,

irrigation has the potential to hasten leaching of

applied and natural chemicals if excessive deep

percolation occurs.

Irrigation systems commonly are established on

agricultural lands with excessive soil drainage

where they provide water for leaching. Irrigation

water may release naturally occurring water contaminants including nitrate from certain mineral-bearing

formations, Leaching of naturally occurring nitrate

has been documented in several areas in the Great

Plains and the Southwest (73).

In arid parts of Western States rainfall may not be

sufficient to leach excessive soil salts below the root

zone, requiring periodic ‘‘soil flushing’ with large

amounts of water to allow continued agricultural

production. This will also transport chemicals other

than salts into the deeper soil profiles and potentially

to groundwater. In arid areas where the contaminate d ‘ ‘outflow’ ‘ waters from soil flushing are

directed into surface waters, they can seep directly

below the water table to recharge groundwater (box

3-A).

Over-pumping Water-wells

When water is pumped from a well the water table

is drawn down in the area adjacent to the well

formin g what is called a “cone of depression. ’ The

size of the cone of depression and how quickly the

depression disappears after pumping ceases depends

on the rate of water withdrawal from the well and the

permeability of the surrounding rocks or sediments.

If the cone of depression becomes large enough it

can change the slope of the groundwater table. In
60 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 3-A-Groundwater Contamination From Natural Sources: Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge

Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge was established from ponds built in 1971 for disposal of agricultural

drainage water and also to provide wildlife habitat. Agricultural drainage water became the only source of inflow

to the ponds by 1981, and by 1982 problems were first observed. Large-mouth bass and striped bass and carp

disappeared from the ponds. In 1983, investigations of declining waterbird births showed deformities in embryos

that were blamed on selenium (22,23,49).

Irrigated agriculture depends on the flushing of salts that accumulate in the rooting zone in order to maintain

productivity; tailgaters thus have high salt content. Normally, the oceans are the ultimate sink for dissolved salts,

however, depending on the drainage system these waters may or may not reach the ocean and drainage into

contained basins may create a highly saline water body (e.g., Salton Sea, Dead Sea, Great Salt Lake).

Generally, trace elements (e.g., arsenic, selenium, molybdenum) are not contained in tailwaters, however, the

soils in the San Joaquin contain naturally elevated levels of selenium and the hydrologic conditions promoted the

movement of soluble selenium into irrigation tailwaters. The damage has been attributed to a combination of factors,

including: 1) the high soluble-selenium content of soils, 2) increased irrigation development and installation of

subsurface drains, and 3) lack of understanding of the potential adverse impacts from the method of disposal (49).

Irrigated agriculture can clearly create adverse offsite effects over time. Irrigation management then must include

adequate treatment and disposal plans for tailwaters.

A survey of 20 sites conducted by the Department of the Interior in Western States shows that at least four

(Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, NV; Salton Sea, CA; Kendrick Reclamation Project, WY; Middle Green

River Basin, UT) show potential trace-metal levels (boron, arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium) similar to those

at Kesterson (22,49).

Technical options for remediation of the Kesterson refuge have been examined, including:

. transport and disposal of drainage water (ocean disposal, and deep-well injection);

● source control (retirement of land from irrigation, irrigation management, evaporation ponds); and

. water treatment (desalinization, chemical and biological removal of contaminants) (49).

The Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game

have developed a plan to offset the loss of the nearly 1,283 acres of wetlands destroyed. The plan calls for acquisition

and management of 23,000 acres in the San Joaquin Drainage Basin to replenish the wetland acreage. Water needed

to maintain the wetland will come from the Bureau’s Central Valley Project (27).

some cases contaminated water from another well icals vary in chemical structure, behavior and

can flow downslope along the cone of depression of

the uncontaminated well, degrading its water supply

(figure 3-10). Each water-well produces its own

cone of depression and where many wells exist, their

intersecting cones of depression create complicated

patterns in the surface of the groundwater table and

affect normal flow patterns. In such cases, a properly

maintained and constructed farm well still may

become contaminated with agrichemicals even if

none percolate downward directly from farm operations.

AGRICHEMICAL

CHARACTERISTICS RELATED

TO LEACHING

Characteristics of agrichemicals may be as important as site hydrogeological characteristics in predicting groundwater contamination potential. Agrichemstability and, hence, in the extent to which they

volatize into the air, are taken up by plants, disperse

through the soil, degrade through chemical, biochemical, or photochemical action, or remain available for leaching through the soil (28).

Determining the probable fate of an agrichemical

(it’s “partitioning” among a variety of sequestration

and degradation processes) is a complex process, but

determination of certain key chemical characteristics helps scientists make such analyses (see table

3-2). In general, however, agrichemicals that are

mobile and persistent, if used in hydrogeologically

sensitive areas in sufficient quantities, have the

highest probability of leaching to groundwater (16).

Nitrate and certain pesticides have these characteristics (table 3-3).

Some studies suggest that nitrate might be used as

a ‘‘mwker’ for potential vulnerability to pesticide
Chapter 3-Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 61

Figure 3-10-Cones of Depression Resulting From Water Withdrawal May Result in Contamination of Water

Supplies Near Non-contaminated, Well-constructed Wells

No, 1 No. 2

Uncontaminated well Contaminated well

Situation A:

Both wells have

moderate withdrawal

rates

.

.’

Situation B

Well No 1 significantly

Increased the rate of

withdrawal with respect

to welt No 2 causing

contaminated water from

well No 2 to flow to

well No 1

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

contamination, although no study has shown a clear

one-to-one link between the presence of nitrate

contamination and pesticide contamination. In areas

of Nebraska, at least, occurrence of high nitrate

concentrations has been shown to be correlated with

triazine-herbicide concentrations (71 ,84). Likewise,

LeMasters and Doyle (38) found a significant

association between wells in Wisconsin containing

greater than 10 ppm nitrate and detectable levels of

Groundwater table

.,

4———— Agrichemical contaminant

\

\

Groundwater table

pesticides. However, the same researchers did not

find a quantitative relationship between pesticide

concentrations and nitrate concentrations. Similarly,

the correlation was very weak in one two-county

area of Iowa (39). Thus, in areas where herbicides

are known to be used, nitrate might serve as an

inexpensive test to identify areas potentially contaminated by herbicides (84), but more extensive

data are needed for a broader correlation analysis.
62 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 3-2—Some Chemical and Mineralogical

Factors Commonly Considered When Assessing

a Pesticide’s Behavior and Ability To Leacha

From Agricultural Lands

Volubility in water The amount of pesticide that will dissolve in

water in part will relate to the pH of the water (pH is a measure

of acidity).

Half-life/persistence: The time needed in the field for 50 percent

of the pesticide molecules to degrade.

Stability in wafer The degree to which a pesticide resists

hydrolysis (breakdown in water).

Volatility from the soil: A measure of how easily a liquid pesticide

applied to the soil is able to change to a gas.

Octanol-water partition coefficient A laboratory test to determine the preference a pesticide has for fats versus water.

Photolysis The breakdown process of a pesticide when exposed

to sunlight.

Ability to ionize: Whether the pesticide behaves as a cation (+),

anion (-), zwitter ion (+ and -), or is neutral at various pH values

in water.

Nature and amount of soil organic matter The biological

breakdown products in a soil’s A horizon (uppermost layer of

a soil).

Clay mineralogy of the soil and underlying geological materials: The nature of the fine-grained minerals, some of which can

bind pesticides tightly.

aAbility to le~h (leachability) refers to the fOllOWing pesticide Property:

when used in a normal agricultural manner under cmditions conducive to

movement, the pesticide moves down through the soil in quantities

sufficient to b detected in nearby wells of proper construction.

SOURCES: D. Gustafson, “1989 Ground Water Ubiquity Sawe: A Simple

Method for Assessing Pesticide bachability,” Journal of

Errvironmenfai Toxiwbgical Chemistry, pp. 339-357, unpublished paper; A. Moye, pestiade c+emist, personal communication, December 1989.

A mobile agrichemical tends to move in the water

phase without tightly adhering to soil. A pesticide

would be considered mobile if its soil/water partition

coefficient is 1 in a soil with 1 percent organic

carbon (15). Pesticides vary widely in mobility. The

pesticide paraquat, for example, is attracted to clay

surfaces where it is held tightly whereas pesticides

like picloram are repelled by the clay surfaces and

can move freely through the soil (53). Atrazine, one

of the most widely used agricultural pesticides, is

only weakly held by the soil (30), and has appeared

in the groundwater of at least 13 States (82).

Volubility can also affect a pesticide’s mobility

and fate. Highly soluble pesticides are more likely to

be mobile and can move long distances with the

natural flow of surface or groundwater. Plants can

capture water-soluble pesticides along with soil

moisture, potentially sequestering them in plant

tissues. Pesticides that are not degraded by the plants

may be re-released to the environment through crop

residues remaining after harvest (14).

Table 3-3-Pesticides With High Potential for

Leaching to Groundwater

Acifluorfen

Alachlor

AIdicarb

Aldicarb sulfone

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Ametryn

Atrazine

Baygon

Bentazon

Bromacil

Butylate

Carbaryl

Carbofuran

Carboxin

Chloramben

Chlordane-alpha

Chlordane-gamma

Chlorothalonil

Cyanazine

2,4-D

Dalapon

DBCP

Diazinon

Dicamba

1,2-Dichloropropane

cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene

tram-l ,3- Dichloropropene

Dieldrin

Dinoseb

Diphenamid

Disulfoton

Diuron

EDB

Endrin

ETU

Fenamiphos

Fluometuron

Heptachlor

Heptachlor epoxide

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexazinone

Methomyl

Methoxychlor

Metolachlor

Metribuzin

Nitrate/nitrite

Oxamyl

Picloram

Prometon

Pronamide

Propachlor

Propazine

Propham

Simazine

2,4,5-T

Tebuthiuron

Terbacil

Terbufos

2,4,5-TP

Trifluralin

apriority pesti~des imlud~ in the EPA National Pestiade survey of

Drinking Water Wells, which includes testing for over 100 pestiddes

(general use, restricted use, or banned) or their breakdown products.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Pesticide Included in

the EPA National Pesticide Survey,” Apr. 14, 1988.

A persistent pesticide tends to degrade very

slowly in the soil-water matrix. A pesticide with a

soil-degradation half-life of 100 days would be

considered persistent. Certain pesticides, such as

DDT, can persist unchanged for long periods of time

in the soil, and will accumulate over time if used

regularly.

All else being equal, if agrichemicals resistant to

degradation and only weakly interactive with soil

particles are applied to widely-spaced, shallowrooted row crops, where the water table is near the

surface, there is great potential for groundwater

contamination. If the same chemical is used on

close-grown crops with deeply penetrating roots, the

underlying aquifer may not be affected, particularly

if it is confined. Chemicals that are more easily

degraded in, or retained by soil materials, have less

potential to reach groundwater than persistent chemicals that interact poorly with the soil.
Chapter 3--Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 63

SUMMARY AND POLICY

IMPLICATIONS

Groundwater is one of the key components of the

global hydrogeological cycle, as well as being an

important resource. Whether pure or contaminated,

groundwater can reside in some aquifers for thousands of years. Still, groundwater discharge (e.g., at

surface springs, or into lakes, rivers, or the ocean)

and recharge through rainfall eventually cycles

water, and any contaminants it may hold, through

most aquifers (14), Because groundwater recycles so

slowly, over decades, centuries, or even millennia,

and because the aquifers in which groundwater is

contained lack the cleansing mechanisms of surface

watersheds, a degraded aquifer may not recover at all

in human time frame, The surest way of protecting

groundwater is to prevent contamination at the

source.

In areas characterized by many different soils and

rocks it is extremely difficult to predict where, or

how fast water-soluble pollutants will spread once

they are underground and out of sight (40). Predicting the patterns of contaminant dispersal below the

water table can be nearly impossible, particularly in

geologically complex regions. Understanding the

hydrogeology of a site is integral to determining the

potential for leaching agrichemicals to groundwater

(box 3-B), and therefore is imperative in identifying

technologies that may reduce potential contamination.

Because of its close link to surface conditions and

activities, groundwater must be considered a part of

any agroecosystem. Agrichemical contaminants can

invade groundwater as a result of a farmer’s agrichemical handling or agricultural management practices,

changes in land uses, or through poorly constructed

or abandoned manmade holes or wells. Whether

agrichemical contamination actually occurs depends

on a large number of interactive physical, chemical,

and biological factors. A systems approach to

mitigate or eliminate such problems today is essential.

Different agricultural chemicals move through the

environment at different rates. In some cases, low

levels of detection may simply represent the forward

edge of a contamination pulse that is working its way

through the soil profile (35). Without expanded

research efforts on the fate and transport of these

chemicals, we will not know if these low levels

indicate that there is nothing to worry about, or that

the worst is just now coming (54). Clearly, repeated

sampling of each aquifer, and testing for every

agrichemical, would be impractical. Systematic

procedures for monitoring, sampling, testing, and

for data collection and management are necessary to

identify critical site/agrichemical combinations

(33).

Improving Data Collection and Management

for Groundwater Protection

Numerous Federal agencies collect natural resource and land-use information relevant to prediction of potential agrichemical contamination of

groundwater. An evaluation of the data collection,

management, and coordination systems within Federal agencies is beyond the scope of this assessment.

However, prediction of potential vulnerability, design of site-specific agricultural practices to mitigate

that potential, and implementation of programs to

reduce adverse impacts of agricultural practices will

require extensive, detailed data and comprehensive,

readily accessible information derived from that

data.

It would clearly be advantageous for agricultural

and groundwater scientists and policymakers to

have access to relevant databases, including:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

climate data (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Agricultural Experiment Stations);

topographical, hydrological, and aquifer mapping data (USGS);

surface water quality and associated data (EPA;

USGS);

soil data (USDA/SCS);

cropping patterns data (USDA/ASCS);

nitrogen use data (TVA/NFERC);

pesticide use data (USDA/NASS, USDA/ERS,

EPA, and Resources for the Future);

groundwater quality monitoring data (EPA,

USGS); and

data on hydrogeological vulnerability (USDA/

ERS).

Other data not currently available in national-level

databases, such as extent of tillage patterns or

distribution of and waste production from livestock

confinement facilities, would also improve decisionmaking.
64 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 3-B—Using Hydrogeologic Information To Predict Sites Vulnerable to Groundwater

Contamination: Minnesota’s Groundwater Contamination Experience

Recent baseline field and laboratory research by Minnesota’s Departments of Health and Agriculture (36,37)

illustrates how hydrogeological information can be put to use in making a first approximation of the nature and

magnitude of agrichemical contamination of groundwater resources. Researchers tested well water in two different

settings: 1) where coarse-grained soils overlie either sands and gravels or limestone bedrock having well-developed

solution channels and cavities, conditions thought to promote movement of contaminants to groundwater; and 2)

where clay-rich glacial tills overlie sand/gravel aquifers, conditions thought to retard movement of contaminants

to groundwater. Depth to bedrock generally was 25 feet or less in most wells but in some it was 50 feet. Most samples

were taken intentionally from wells in geological setting number one, therefore the percentage of wells found

contaminated with agrichemicals probably is higher than if samples had been taken randomly from both settings.

The assumption that “confined aquifers” underlying the clay-rich tills would be less likely to show

contamination from agrichemicals than the groundwater in shallow, karst limestone environments and/or overlain

only by coarse-grained soils and glacial sands and gravels (’‘unconfined aquifers”) seems borne out by the field

and laboratory work. The researchers found that, in general, pesticide contamination was higher in private wells than

in public wells. The former normally are shallower and nearer to fields where pesticides are applied than wells used

for public water supplies.

Pesticide contamination was common in the karst limestone region of southeastern Minnesota; most

contaminated wells were not associated

contamination occurred where a thick

contaminants fkom the aquifer.

Geological setting No. 1 (unconfined aquifer)

high probability of agrichemical

contamination of well-water

Water

well

. .

. .

. .

Soil

Sand and

,+

1

I I I

with obvious point sources of pollution. The fewest detections of aquifer

layer of clay-rich till or other fine-grained materials separate surface

Geological setting No. 2 (confined aquifer)

low probability of agrichemical

contamination of well-water

Water

well

Groundwater table and

well-water level

Sand and gravel aquifer

or

Karst limestone aquifer

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Soil

%

Groundwater table

% Clay-rich glacial

$$

-~ Well-water level

Sand and gravel aquifer

Also playing important roles in whether a particular well showed contamination were the contamination

source, the properties of the agrichemicals, local agrichemical practices, and well construction. These factors varied

from well to well. However, the local hydrogeology seems to have played a lead role. Such determinations are likely

to be repeated as further data on other sites become available.
Chapter 3-Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 65

Data Adequacy for Prediction of Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater

Producing maps and developing three-dimensional displays to show where agrichemical contamination of aquifers is likely to occur in the absence

of detailed data on soils, unconsolidated sediments,

bedrock geology, and subsurface waters can lead to

incorrect interpretations. It seems clear that the

synthesis of such information is critical for assessment of where and when possible adverse impacts

from agrichemicals might affect groundwater resources. Increased State and Federal activities in

producing and presenting information depicting the

Earth in three dimensions is highly important to

understanding the nature of agriculture’s impact on

groundwater quality.

Status of Major Hydrogeologic Data Collection

Efforts-The natural earth materials-soils, unconsolidated sediments, and bedrock-that contain

groundwater are sometimes referred to as the “container” for groundwater. Characteristics of this

container will determine the groundwater’s direction

of flow, its chemical purity, its residence time in the

Earth, and a host of other variables. Therefore, it is

important to know the status of the information base

that currently exists to describe the “container.”

Data on topography, soils, and bedrock geology are

fairly comprehensive, but detailed knowledge of the

intervening unconsolidated sediments is less certain.

Additional data continuously are being gathered at

the State and Federal level to add to this knowledge

base, but as yet may not exist in a published form.

Synthesis of the major databases described below is

starting to occur, but certain gaps still need to be

filled.

Soils—The Soil Conservation Service has long

striven to develop detailed maps of soils, topography, other site characteristics, especially as they

relate to capability to support conventional agriculture. Today, soil maps for most States have been

compiled. Soil data for some States have been

digitized to allow for computer manipulation, and

the other States are moving in that direction (figure

3-1 1). Digitized soil databases include SOILS-5 and

SOILS-6 that describe soil characteristics and suitability for uses such as cropping, woodlot management, and certain types of development. SCS

databases also include the progressively freer-scale

Soil Geographic Data Bases, including National Soil

Geography database (NATSGO) of soils data related

to the major land resource areas (1 :7,500,000 scale),

State Soil Geographic database (STATSGO) for

‘‘general’ soils mapping (1:250,000 scale), and Soil

Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) presenting

detailed soils data (1:15,840 to 1:31,680 scale) (8).

Geology and Topography-Each of the 50 States

has produced a map showing the bedrock geology.

The oldest State map is Ohio’s, published in 1920;

most other States have published maps produced

between 1970 and 1980. A provisional bedrock

geological map was prepared for Puerto Rico in

1964; few other U.S.-afffiated islands have been

mapped. Most of these maps were published at a

scale of 1:500,000; some at 1:100,000; Wisconsin

and Nebraska at 1: 1,000,000; and Alaska at 1 :2,500,000.

Even though some of these maps are old, detailed

related information is continually collected and

evaluated by each of the State geological surveys as

well as the USGS (85).

Topographic maps are important to geological

mapping and all aspects of land-use evaluation or

planning. The Defense Mapping Agency will, in

1990, complete and publish the last 71⁄2 minute scale

topographic maps for all States except Alaska.

Alaska is completely mapped in 15-minute quadrangles and, at this time, no plans to map at the 71⁄2

minute scale have been made (85).

Unconsolidated Materials—Even though local

soil and geologic maps showing the hard, subsurface

bedrock may exist, little is known in detail of the

makeup of the unconsolidated sediments lying

between soil and bedrock in many States. This

hinders efforts to collate information and predict

vulnerable sites. Illinois is a notable exception. The

Illinois State Geological Survey has developed maps

showing the thickness of unconsolidated glacial

sediments throughout the State (figure 3-12), and

detailed lithological and mineralogical data exist for

many glacial deposits there. Data are sufficient over

much of this area to permit detailed, threedimensional analyses of variations of the glacial

lithologies. With this information at hand, Illinois is

in the position to make reasonably sound estimates

of where its groundwater and its aquifers might be

vulnerable to agrichemical contamination.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is preparing

a map based on data assembled from 850 sources

that will show the extent, thickness, and gross

lithology of glacial deposits in 28 glaciated States

east of the Rockies (70). The map combines soil
66 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 3-n-Status of State Soil Geographic Databases

. . . . . . . . .

I ~ Compilation complete

. . . . . . . .

SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, “Status of State Soil Geographic Databases (STATSGO),” map

compiled using automated map construction with the FOCAS equipment, National Cartographic Center, Fort Worth, TX, revised November 1989;

D. Goss, soil scientist, National Water Quality Technology Development Staff, South National Technical Center, Soil Chservation Sergvice, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, personal communication, February, 1990.

data, glacial sediment data, and subsurface bedrock

geological data into a three-dimensional geological

picture, but published in a two-dimensional map

called a ‘‘stacked map. ” Such three-dimensional

depictions are useful for analysis of where potential

agrichemical groundwater problems might exist.

This new map will show for the first time the general

nature of the glacial sediments covering this large

region (69). The map shows that the thickness of the

glacial deposits is 50 feet or less over much of the

region but that broad areas exist that have at least

200 feet of sediment; in some cases, thicknesses may

reach 1,000 feet or more. The thickest section of

glacial sediments (1,200 feet) occurs in the lower

peninsular of Michigan (68). Acceleration and

expansion of efforts to produce maps showing

information on unconsolidated sediments in greater

detail is integral to predicting the fate of agrichemicals applied to the land, and to assuring that

groundwater contamination is minimized.

Water Quality-EPA and USGS maintain water

quality databases. EPA’s REACH file is a digitized,

graphical database of surface water attributes covering three-quarters of a million miles of the Nation’s

rivers, streams, lakes, bays, and estuaries. It was

designed primarily to analyze pollutant movement

in surface water bodies, and would require considerable expansion to include movement in groundwater. Associated with the REACH files are the EPA

and USGS Water Quality Databases, which include
Chapter 3-Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 67

0 20 40 60mi

L I

1 1

0 40 80km

SOURCE: R.C. Berg, J.P. Kempton, and K. Cartwright, “Potential for Contamination of Shallow Aquifers in Illinois,” Illinois State Geological Survey, Circular

No. 532, 1984.
68 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Photo credit: U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey personnel have routinely collected

groundwater data on water levels, total dissolved solids,

and many inorganic chemicals in monitoring wells

throughout the country. However, information has not

been collected routinely on organic substances and

other key chemical parameters.

approximately 40 million observations of chemical

and natural attributes.

The USGS has a recently developed National

Water Quality Assessment Program designed to

assess water quality on a regional watershed/aquifer

basis through joint monitoring of surface- and

groundwater. The information collected includes: 1)

source of agrichemicals, 2) rate of loading, and 3)

where and how they are moving. Seven 2-year pilot

studies based on the initial program proposal are

nearing completion, and followup monitoring is

planned to occur in 5 years. Further, the data

collection program is based on drainage systems, not

political boundaries. A pilot study just completed in

Kansas and Nebraska provides a common data set

for both States, and indicates that some agrichemicals are moving from Nebraska into Kansas surface

waters (31). Full implementation of the Program

would involve work at about 120 aquifer systems

and river basins nationwide, covering about 80

percent of the water currently used in the United

States.

Aquifers-The USGS also has had a Regional

Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) Program, in operation since 1978, to study the 28 major regional U.S.

aquifer systems USGS has identified. To date, 14

studies have been completed (42). Objectives of the

RASA programs are to ‘‘define the regional hydrology and geology, and to establish a framework for

background information-geologic, hydrologic, and

geochemical-that can be used for assessment of

local and regional groundwater resources” (83,42).

The RASA studies use computer simulation to assist

in the understanding of groundwater flow patterns,

recharge and discharge characteristics, and effects of

development on aquifer systems. The Program

already has helped improve the matching of geologic and hydrologic data at State boundaries, and

has developed numerous groundwater flow-models

for regional use (83).

Integrated Natural Resource Information Databases—By congressional mandate, the SCS maintains a comprehensive survey of agricultural and

related natural resources on 1.5 billion acres of

non-Federal rural lands. Surveys have been conducted six times in the past 30 years, including the

extensively detailed 1982 National Resources Inventory (NRI). The 1982 NRI consists of data

collected from roughly 1 million individually inspected locations. Attributes evaluated included

nearly 200 variables, such as land use and cover,

conservation needs and practices, and irrigation

water source. The NRI sample points (inspected

locations) also are directly linked to the SOILS-5

databases described above (44). Because the data on

multiple attributes were collected simultaneously

for each sample point, this database allows analysis

of associations between specific land use and

resource conditions, whereas combined use of nonintegrated databases using data generalized to an

area (e.g., county) cannot.

Status of Agrichemical Use Data-Collection

Efforts-Groundwater contamination potential is

based on the combination of natural factors and type

and intensity of agrichemical use or livestock waste

application. While NRI data is collected to evaluate

soil conservation efforts, no comparable information

gathering process currently exists related to other

resource conservation concerns (e.g., agrichemical

losses to the atmosphere and groundwater) (19).

As a result of special appropriations in 1964, ERS

provided a great deal of information on pesticide and

fertilizer use from the mid-1960s up until the early

1970s, in order to provide a basis for determining
Chapter 3--Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 69

costs and benefits of pesticides and to determine

trends in pesticide use. However, the U.S. Government has drastically reduced its surveys of pesticideuse patterns in the last nine years: published

information for the early 1980s is sparse and

published pesticide-use data for the mid-1980s is

almost nonexistent. Resources for the Future, a

nongovernmental organization, has developed a

national pesticide use database by compiling Stateand county-level use data, but these data are based

on average use estimates (26). Hence, we now have

less specific knowledge of how farmers and other

pesticide users are actually using materials than in

the 1960s and 1970s (87).

USDA’s Water Quality Program Plan developed

in response to the President’s Water Quality Initiative identifies the need for comprehensive national

data on agricultural chemical use, related farming

practices, and the links with the agroecosystem to

assist Federal and State governments to ‘‘assess the

benefits, costs, and other effects of current agricultural practices and to evaluate consequences of

alternative policies and practices for reducing any

adverse effects of agricultural production on water

quality” (78).

The Economic Research Service (ERS) and the

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are

charged with the design of a continuous cycle of

national surveys. The NASS plans to collect data on

farm use of pesticides and certain other chemicals,

and type of production practices. Farm survey efforts

will cover field crops in major producing States as

well as a range of vegetables in five large producing

States (9). Statistical analyses are to be conducted by

NASS and results summarized and disseminated by

ERS. The first pilot test of this survey process is

planned for a single crop in 1990 and will be

expanded over a 3- to 4-year period to cover the

other major commodities (78).

Rationalization of Data Collection

and Management

Although many pertinent databases exist, in most

cases they were created autonomously to address

different fundamental questions. This hinders their

use in predicting potential groundwater or aquifer

vulnerability to agrichemical contamination. Myriad

natural resource, land-use, and agrichemical-use

factors combine to determine vulnerability to groundwater contamination, however, preliminary identification of regions exhibiting high association with

agrichemical contamination of groundwater can be

made.

Congress could direct USDA to correlate agrichemical-use data contained in the planned NASS

Agrichemical-Use Survey and the National Agricultural Census with EPA and USGS data on

identified groundwater contamination problems

to identify areas or regions with high apparent

vulnerability to groundwater contamination. Regions showing a high correlation between incidence

of agrichemical contamination and intensity or type

of agrichemical use could be designated target areas

for intensified monitoring, and hydrogeologic research efforts. As data and data integration procedures improve, definition of highly vulnerable

region can be refined.

Baseline information on current nutrient and pest

management practices and continued information on

changing agricultural practices will help policymakers

assess the impacts of policy changes on groundwater

quality, agricultural productivity, and the farm

economy. Understanding of how and where the

chemicals with greatest contamination potential are

being used could assist in identifying pest control or

nutrient problems that are in the greatest need of

research and extension of alternate products or

practices. Without such a clear link, research and

extension may remain focused on issues unrelated to

groundwater protection and associated environmental issues,

Although established, many extant natural resource databases are not readily accessible for users

outside each agency, and may be of unusable format

for integrated or geographically specific analyses.

Moreover, no clearly defined Federal commitment

has been made for provision of multi-use, nationalscale maps and related geographic information for

public and private users (50). Provision of information derived from these data probably would be of

more use to agriculture and water quality decisionmakers than the raw data.

Most legislation has dealt with parts of the total

hydrogeologic system; only in the last several years

have studies of how agrichemicals move through the

larger environment been initiated. EPA is organized

to address different components rather than the total

ecosystem; its offices address air or water or

groundwater rather than attempting to follow movement of particular contaminants through the entire

environment. USDA and TVA have historically
70 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

focused on the effect of agrichemicals on crop

growth. Thus, they have studied the movement of

these chemicals from site of application through the

plant root zone, which usually is considered to be 6

feet deep (20). USGS traditionally has focused on

movement of contaminants within the saturated

zone, from the groundwater table down (60). Little

research by these agencies has focused on the

movement of contaminants between the root zone

and the saturated zone. A Memorandum of Understanding between USGS and USDA has defined

relative responsibilities of these agencies regarding

such research, but few cooperative efforts have been

initiated (54). Were this separation of research and

data collection focus to continue, it would impede

development of agricultural practices to reduce

agrichemical contamination of groundwater in vulnerable areas, and would likely result in duplication

of effort.

For example, a group of hydrologists might create

a database that includes information on the movement of herbicides through the soil profile. They

might measure parameters relevant to the chemistry

and physics of chemical transport through the soil,

but as hydrologists they may need to consult with

soil scientists, and cropping system specialists to

include measurements describing influences of tillage practice or crop types, information that would be

critical to an agronomist trying to develop new

cultural practices to minimize the movement of an

herbicide out of the root zone (54). Preliminary

consultation with potential database users could

save substantial money and effort by adding measurements of a few extra attributes to the database.

Further, only some of the databases have been

automated (entered into a computerized data management system), or “digitized” (entered into a

spatial or geographically registered database in

generic format) to allow ready transmission to users,

easy manipulation of data for different decisionmaking efforts, or integration of different data sets to

allow for more comprehensive analysis. In addition,

the systems of information search and retrieval

(manual or computerized) commonly are unique to

each database system. Consequently, many data

have been collected relevant to groundwater protection, but much is inaccessible or of unusable format

for scientists from other agencies. Efforts are underway to define data-entry protocols and standard

formats such that future databases might be more

integrable (cf: 82,48).

Congress could undertake a number of mutually beneficial options to rationalize natural

resource data collection and management efforts.

Such efforts might include:

●

●

●

●

●

accelerating extant hydrogeologic and agricultural land-use data collection efforts (e.g., SCS

soils surveys, USGS RASA analyses);

initiating additional data collection efforts to

ensure comprehensive provision of information

(e.g., used and abandoned well locations, Statelevel groundwater monitoring);

accelerating digitization of data already collected by Federal agencies;

mandating digital storage of all new, relevant

land-use and natural resource attribute data

collected by the Federal agencies; and

requiring regular data updating, maintenance of

databases, and cost-effective provision of data

to users.

Furthermore, in order to ensure that the necessary

information is collected for accurate Federal, State,

and local decisionmaking to reduce agrichemical

contamination of groundwater, Congress could encourage establishment of an interagency Technical

Information Integration Group3 that will determine

what data is necessary, what data is available, who

might collect data not presently available, and how

data might be integrated to support non-technical

decisionmakers and how data might be shared

among public user groups.

Although the efforts listed above could be undertaken simultaneously and immediately, the costs of

data collection and digitization can be enormous.

Many data collected thus far are available only

‘‘manually, ‘‘ on maps or in tables, and thus must be

transferred into computerized databases. Digitizing

data is an expensive process. For example, the SCS

estimates the cost of updating and digitizing soils

data for the Nation at $200 million (72). Therefore,

Congress might initially require the General Ac3A T&~c~ ~temtion Group ~G) is ~ ~teragency orga~tio~ s~c~e d~igned to p~rnotc Coordinaam and standardization at a tt%bkd

level. At preseq the only extant TIG is a the-tiered structure sponsored by the USGS including technical and administrative representatives of several

Federal agencies, States, and academic research organizations. The tiers include four Strategy Teams comprised of researchers in certain topical areas,

the Technical Integration Group of technical program managers, and a Headquarters Team of research administrators with authority to allocate research

resources (59) ~one, personaI communication Mar. 1990].
Chapter contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer . 71

counting Office or a Federal interagency group (e.g.,

the Technical Information Integration Group) to

evaluate the status and needs of data collection and

management efforts specifically related to agrichemical contamination of groundwater, and to recommend specific steps to achieve a comprehensive,

integrated system in the most cost-effective manner.

Coordination of Data Collection and Storage—

Most Federal agencies have means to internally

coordinate the information collected by that organization. Other systems have been developed to

coordinate data acquisition and sharing of certain

types of information. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey coordinates water resources data acquisition and data sharing activities among Federal

organizations through its Office of Water Data

Coordination (42). Coordination is accomplished

among Federal agencies through a Federal Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data and

between Federal agencies and the States and private

sector through a non-Federal Advisory Committee

on Water Data for Public Use. While of immense use

to those seeking specific information, such systems

do little to improve integration of different types of

data (e.g., integrating water data with soils and

vegetation data) without specifications describing

data detail, content, and accuracy.

Congress could require the creation of a

coordinated database network, to ensure that the

relevant agencies develop rational interfaces between extant databases and follow standardized

data entry, format, and search protocols. Alternatively, Congress could aggregate all of the

relevant databases into a single national database

clearinghouse .

4 The Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography

(FICCDC), was established in 1983 by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to facilitate coordination of 30 participating Federal agencies’ digital

information system activities and geographic information system activities and to establish standards

for production of digital cartographic data (24).

However, FICCDC has no authority to require that

Federal agencies follow data protocols.

Further, the FICCDC has focused on thematic

data collection, for example by recommending that

the Soil Conservation Service be the lead agency on

collection and management of digital soils information. It was not structured to assist in development of

integrated databases, nor to coordinate data collection and management among Federal agencies and

State and local information management systems or

users (43). Any data management system also will

need to be designed to accept data ‘uploaded’ from

regions and States that likely will be collecting more

detailed data related to crops, cropping systems, and

hydrogeologic vulnerability than national efforts.

Such a system would have capacity to aggregate

information “upwards” to evaluate national trends

and needs, providing a more accurate national

picture than a random sample of a few points, as well

as allowing resolution “down” to the local decisionmaking scale.

If all national-level natural resource and relevant

land-use databases were transferable to a centralized

organization, standardization of protocols and coordination among Federal, State, local, and private

users might be simplified. Each Federal agency

could maintain its own system, following formats

for specific sets of environmental information set by

the clearinghouse, but would periodically move their

data to the clearinghouse.

However, some agencies may resist changing

their own systems to accommodate outside users.

Further, agencies may be reluctant to house all of

their information within a separate organization,

especially if it is part of an established agency.

If Congress wishes to focus solely on groundwater

and agricultural production, the central database

clearinghouse might be located within the Soil

Conservation Service or at the National Agricultural

Library. But if Congress prefers to address database

integration for a broader array of agricultural/

environmental issues, it may be preferable to create

a separate office for environmental data acquisition,

integration, and management (54). Such an office

could be established with a ‘‘neutral’ data collection agency (e.g., USGS), within a central governmental unit such as the Council on Environmental

Quality, or as a new part of the Department of

Environmental Protection. Wherever located, the

agency components of the system could remain

4A v~at;on on &his concept would be &he creation of a ‘‘universal COMpUter SWCh prOgr~. fi~er~le~g the computer language or search

protocol of each database, or wait until the information is transferred to a national clearinghouse, individual inquirers could access an interactive search

program that would a..k them a series of questions. On the basis of the answers, the program would ‘‘dial-out’ to the appropriate databases and retrieve

the relevant information (54).
72 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

housed within the agencies, but the central office

would provide the integrating structure and mandate.

Coordinating Agroecosystem Simulation

Modeling

Data are collected and managed to help make

decisions. A working model of the world—whether

a formal computer paradigm or an informal set of

assumptions—is used when decisions are made.

In the case of groundwater management, as well

as other environmental issues, the number of variables and parameters of concern are so numerous and

the interactions between these factors so complex

that there is an increasing reliance on computer

models 5 (cf: 52). Computer modelers, in turn, are

discovering that environmental modeling has become a large and complex undertaking. Consequently, discussions are underway regarding the

development of “modular modeling. ’ Individual

researchers and teams develop the particular models

for which they have interest and expertise, but build

the “input” and “output” components of their

models according to agreed upon standards so that

other scientists can incorporate models without

having to repeat work that has already been done by

others.

For example, one scientist could develop a model

of nitrogen movement through the soil, another

could develop a model of how plants absorb nitrogen

from the soil, another could develop a model on

nitrogen volatilization, and yet another could develop a model of how nitrogen leaches through the

soil profile to groundwater. Left as individual

projects, these models would not be able to help

answer questions on how to balance nitrogen fertilizer applications so as to ensure healthy plant growth

while protecting groundwater resources. However,

if the models are developed according to agreed on

standards, an integration team could concentrate on

the interactions of the models and put them together

into a comprehensive nitrogen management model.

Congress could require that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, perhaps jointly with other

agencies, evaluate current simulation modeling

efforts related to the environmental fate of

agrichemicals. Based upon this analysis, a Technical

Agroecosystem Modeling Integration Group (TAMIG)

could be established to coordinate research and

development of computer simulation models related

to the environmental fate of agrichemicals in farming systems. Such a TAMIG should include the

technical program managers from relevant Federal

agencies undertaking such modeling efforts (e.g.,

USDA, EPA), State government and academic

specialists, and might include members of the

environmental and agricultural research community.

One goal of such a group might be to ensure

development of simulation models that can be

generalized, through agreed upon means, to allow

prediction of environmental fate on sites with

different hydrogeology or agricultural systems. Another goal might be to coordinate development of

detailed simulation models of certain parts of

hydrogeologic systems (e.g., the Pesticide Root

Zone Model developed by EPA or the Groundwater

Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems model developed by USDA/ARS) so that they

may be “hooked” to simulation models of other

parts of hydrogeologic systems to allow more

comprehensive analysis. USDA/ARS has used this

approach in developing NTRM, a Soil-Crop Simulation Model for Nitrogen, Tillage, and Crop-Residue

Management (65).

Developing Geographic Information Systems

Geographic Information Systems (GISs) are computer-based technologies including hardware, software, and graphics capabilities. More than automated mapping systems, GIS can encode, analyze,

and display the natural and built environment in

multiple ‘‘layers’ that are geographically registered

to unique locations on the Earth’s surface. Results of

GIS analyses can be described in reports, tables, and

most importantly, in maps at any scale.

Relationships between data can be used to depict

complex variables such as hydrogeologic vulnerability to agrichemical contamination as well as

spatial displays of component simple variables such

as average depth to water table. Further, GISs are

capable of displaying “option” variables, such as

the percentage of lands eligible for the Conservation

Reserve land-retirement program that coincide with

areas containing hydrogeologically vulnerable cropland. By using GIS, the decisionmaker can alter

5For de~~ discussion of ~~d~ater m~e~,se Natio~ R~~h (~o~cil, Water Science and TdMIoIogy Bored, committcc on ti~d Wat=

Modeling Assessment, Ground Warer ~odeZs: Scientific and Reguk.voryAp placations (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1990).
Chapter 3-Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 73

variable components and test the impacts of decision

alternatives before enacting new provisions. Given

adequate and reliable data, and a sufficient understanding of the pertinent variables and their interactions, GISs provide a rapid means to assess where

efforts might be allocated to have the greatest

beneficial impact, or whether proposed policy options have potential to solve problems.

Databases and Systems

The first requirement for a GIS is spatially

coordinated, geographically registered, digitized

data: data transferred into a computer so that it is

electronically associated with known geographic

coordinates (unique locations on the Earth’s surface). Then, using those coordinated layers, other

geographic information can be added and attributes

or characteristics of those geographically referenced

locations can be described by the computer in

graphic colors, textures, and shapes as well as

numbers. For example, a county might have attributes including 1990 population, amount of agrichemicals used in a year, or wheat production in bushels

per acre. A well shown as a point on the map may

have attributes including depth to bedrock, nitrate

concentration, or yield of water in gallons per

minute. A stream shown as a curved line at a

particular location may have a known flow rate,

sediment loading at certain times, or average numbers of bass.

Some of the most important databases for assessing potential groundwater vulnerability to agrichemical contamination are digitized soil and geologic

data at National, State, and local levels. SCS is in the

process of digitizing soil surveys; however, digitizing all soils data, collected at the county level, for the

Nation will cost nearly $200 million. This estimate

includes $100 million for updating, recompiling,

and establishing the geographic referencing system

for soil survey data, and $100 million for digitizing

(72).

Dearth of Federal funding has led a number of

States to proceed with digitization on their own;

however, some are not using the protocols proposed

by SCS or USGS so that State-level ‘pieces’ are not

likely to be easily assembled into a national system

(54). On the other hand, EPA has moved to provide

digital surface-water networks—another important

data layer—based on USGS hydrography data at a

relatively detailed, but still national scope. How and

whether this database, known as the ‘‘Reach File, ’

together with associated Water Quality Assessment

data and systems will be freely available for GIS

users outside the agency is not yet clear (43).

Approaches to using GIS to describe vulnerability

of surface- and groundwater should:

●

●

●

Ž

●

GIS

Integrate gee-referenced overlays of natural

resource information such as geology, subsurface hydrology, and terrain from USGS; soils

from SCS; and surface hydrography from

USGS and EPA.

Incorporate agricultural land use variables for

agricultural vulnerability assessments, including cropland and individual crops and cropping

systems, vegetative cover, climate, pesticide

and chemical use, and irrigation practices.

Incorporate derived variables such as: 1) meaningful hydrogeological units, 2) watershed

units based on elevation and terrain data, and 3)

surface stream and river networks that route

water-borne contaminants through watersheds

(this information should include associated

water quality information including well and

water samples, and the location of water intake

sites for community water supplies).

Develop or use existing GIS capabilities to

manage and display the information, including

maps of hydrogeologic parameters of particular

concern to groundwater management.

Identify needed information and databases that

do not yet exist (54,43).

Users

GIS for surface- and groundwater assessments

have been developed and used for some time by

certain Federal agencies, such as USGS, private

organizations concerned with natural resources such

as the newly established National Center for Resource Innovations, many State agencies, and some

Agricultural Experiment Stations and Land Grant

Universities such as Minnesota (7).

USDA, EPA, and others are showing increasing

interest in these systems and have included proposed

uses of such systems in their planning documents

(cf: 78). A survey of Federal organizations using or

intending to use GISs found at least 37 used GIS in

1988, 20 plan to have an operational GIS by 1990,

and 10 others have developed policies related to GIS

(24). For example, the NASS is planning to develop

a GIS to support USDA’s water quality program

plan. The proposed system will link nationwide data
74 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

and statistical information on agricultural productivity, cropping practices, land use, agrichemical use,

physical attributes of the land and surrounding

watersheds, climate and water quality (9).

Perhaps the greatest need for GIS development,

however, lies at the local level where detailed

information is most extensive. A 1985 survey

conducted by the American Farmland Trust found

that approximately 22,000 non-metropolitan rural

governments have authority to allocate 1.5 billion

acres of non-Federal rural lands and resources in

3,041 counties, 16,000 townships, 6,000 natural

resources special district governments. Only 25 of

these governments had operating GISs (4). That

number is rapidly increasing; today it is estimated

that approximately 1,000 urban and rural local

governments use GISs.

Current Programs for GIS Support and Delivery

To assist with GIS research and development, the

National Science Foundation recently established

the National Center for Geographic Information and

Analysis to: 1) serve as a clearinghouse on GIS

research, teaching, and application; 2) promote use

of GIS analysis and train users; and 3) study the

legal, social, and institutional aspects of GIS (12).

To assist with GIS technology delivery to primarily

non-technical local, regional, and national decisionmakers, Congress has funded the National Center for

Resource Innovations (NCRI). NCRI is a consortium of regionally distributed GIS technology transfer centers whose objectives include: 1) encouraging

the use of established specifications and standards

for data development, quality, and applications; 2)

coordinating technical assistance from public resource specialists in interpretation and use of information in GIS systems; 3) developing training

programs; 4) delivering GIS technology research; 5)

supporting and identifying needed GIS development

in the applications and decisionmaking environments; and 6) developing GIS into education tools

for public decisionmakers and the public.

Approaches to GIS Assessment of Groundwater

Vulnerability to Agricultural Land Uses

Two key impediments exist to GIS development

for non-technical decisionmakers concerned with

water quality protection at all levels of government.

These are: 1) lack of needed data; and 2) difficulty

integrating information from many sources at scales

suitable for local, regional, and national assessments.

Congress could mandate development of interagency GISs for management of groundwater

protection. 6 A first focus could be on completing and

digitizing soil survey maps developed by the Soil

Conservation Service. This should be extended to all

data sets identified as important for water quality

assessment and protection. To assist with this, data

sets developed outside Federal agencies might be

encouraged to meet specifications and standards

established by agencies with lead responsibility for

collecting and interpreting the data. Such an effort

could be coordinated through current OMB/

FICCDC efforts to ensure orderly GIS development

within Federal agencies, or could be assigned to a

concomitantly expanded Council on Environmental

Quality. Development of such a system also could be

handled through a centralized Office of Environmental Data Acquisition, Integration, and Management mentioned earlier.

A comprehensive and carefully developed approach to provide an “open architecture” GIS—

allowing users to combine databases with new data

and add models as well as interpret interrelationshipscould eventually lead to integration of national-level

databases into geographic information of specified

accuracy and scientifically supportable applications

(43). By being “open,” such a “core” GIS could

allow incorporation of decision support, and expert

systems to provide a powerful and accessible

information management system. Such a system

could also be developed to allow regional and local

levels of detail to be added together with regionally

appropriate factors including local climate, cropping

systems, chemical use, location of livestock confinement facilities, watershed characteristics, and other

regionally specific factors. A core GIS might provide a model for local systems and could assist in

integrating national-level databases, Geographic Information Systems, and expert systems into powerful information management and decision-aid systems. These, in turn, could foster development and

integration of voluntary, incentives-based, and regulatory systems to protect groundwater (54).

sDi@t~ed &tabas~ also can support development of computerized f~n decisio~“ g aids, such as ‘‘expert systems’ (see ch. 5).
Chapter 3---Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 75

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Addiscott, T., and Powlson, D., “Laying the Ground

Rules for Nitrate,” New Scientist, vol. 122, No. 1662,

Apr. 29, 1989, pp. 28-29.

Alexander, M., “Biodegradation of Chemicals of

Environmental Concern, ” Science, vol. 211, 1981,

pp. 132-138.

Allison, F. E., Soil Organic Matter and Its Role in

Crop Production: Developments in Soil Science, No.

3 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,

1973), p. 637.

American Farmland Trust, A National Survey of GIS

forNaturalResources-basedDecisiorwnaking (Washington, DC: 1985).

Amerman, R., U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Special Liaison to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, personal communication, 1990.

Amsden, TL., “Groundwater Protection: Challenge

of the 1990s,’ Government & Grain, vol. 41, No. 7,

May 11, 1989.

Anderson, J. L., and Robert, P. C., “Soil Survey

Information System: A User Friendly Soil Information System,’ Agrichemicals and Groundwater Protection: Resources and Strategies for State and Local

Management, Conference Proceedings, St. Paul, MN

Oct. 24-25 (Navarre, MN: Freshwater Foundation,

1988). h: Nipp, 1990.

Bartholic, J., ‘‘The Role of Geographic Information

Systems,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Research Needs for Unsaturated Zone Transport Modeling of Agricultural Chemicals, Agricultural Research Institute, Annapolis, MD, Nov. 2-4, 1987. In:

Nipp, 1990.

Bay, D. M., Deputy Administrator for Operations,

National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication, June

1990.

Berg, R. C., Kempton, J. P., and Cartwright, K.,

‘‘Potential for Contamination of Shallow Aquifers in

Illinois,” Illinois State Geological Survey, Circular

No. 532, 1984.

Bidleman, TF., Christensen, E. J., and Harder, H. W.,

‘‘Aerial Deposition of Organochlorines in Urban and

Coastal South Carolina Pesticides,” Atmosphere

Pollutants in Natural Waters, S.J. Eisenreich (cd.)

(Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers,

1981), pp. 481-508.

Bjerklie, D,, “The Electronic Transformation of

Maps,” Technology Review, vol. 92, No. 3,1989, pp.

54-63.

Boyce, J. S., Muir, J., Seim, E. C., and Olson, R, A.,

“Scientists Trace Ancient Nitrogen in Deep Nebraska Soils,” Farm, Ranch and Home Quarterly,

vol. 22, No. 4, 1976, pp. 2-3.

14.

15,

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Cheng, H. H., and Koskinen, W. C., “Processes and

Factors Affecting Transport of Pesticides to Groundwater,” Evaluation of Pesticides in Groundwater,

W,Y Garner, R.C. Honeycutt, and H.N. Nigg (eds.)

(Washington DC: American chemical Society Symposium Series 315, 1986).

Cohen, S. Z., “Pesticides and Nitrates in Ground

Water: An Introductory Overview, ” contractor report prepared for the Ofilce of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, August 1989).

Cohen, S.2., Creger, S. M., Carsel, R. F., and Enfield,

C. G., “Potential for Pesticide Contamination of

Ground Water From Agricultural Uses,” Treatment

and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes, R.F. Krueger, and

J.N. Seiber (eds.) (Washington DC: The American

Chemical Society, 1984), pp. 297-325. In: Cohen,

1989.

Comis, D., U.S. Department of Agricukure, Agricultural Research Service, “Rooting Out Groundwater

Contamination,’ Agricultural Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, January

1990, p. 7.

Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection

(Washington DC: 1987).

Cook, K. A., “The Environmental Era of U.S. Agriculture Policy, ’ Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 44, No. 5, September/October 1989, pp.

362-366.

Davidson, J., director, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida, personal communication, May 20, 1989. In: Nipp, 1990.

Dindal, D. L., “Data Base Assessment of Effects of

Agricultural Technology on Soil Macrofauna and the

Resultant Faunal Impact on Crop and Range Productivity,” contractor paper prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, Impacts of Technology on

U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service,

November 1980).

Ecology USA, “Water in Western States Threatened

by Selenium From Irrigation,” vol. 18, No. 22, Nov.

6, 1989, p. 215.

Environment, “Updates: Selenium, ” vol. 30, No. 9,

November 1988, p. 24.

Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on

Digital Cartography, Office of Management and

Budget, “Coordination of Digital Cartographic Activities in the Federal Government,” 6th Annual

Report to the Director, Washington, DC, 1988.

Freeze, R. A., and Cheny, J. A,, Groundwater (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979).

Gianessi, L., “The National Pesticide Usage Database,’ Agrichemicals and Groundwater Protection:

Resources and Strategies for State and Local Management, Conference Proceedings, St. Paul, MN,
76 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41. 1

Oct. 24-25 @Javarre, MN: Freshwater Foundation,

1988).

GroundwaterMonitor, “Slants and Trends,” vol. 19,

No. 5, Mar. 12, 1990, p. 41.

Group C, “Pesticide Properties,” Proceedings of the

Workshop on Research Neea3 for Unsaturated Zone

Transport Modeling of Agricultural Chemicals @nnapolis, MD: Agricultural Research Institute, Nov.

24, 1987).

Gustafson, D., “Groundwater Ubiquity Score: A

Simple Method for Assessing Pesticide hachability,” Journal of Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry, vol. 8, 1989, pp. 339-357,

Hallberg, G. R., “From Hoes to Herbicides: Agriculture and Groundwater Quality,’ Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, November-December 1986, pp.

357-364.

Harkins, J., director, Water Office, State of Kansas,

personal communication, Mar. 8, 1990.

Heath, R. C., “Ground-Water Regions of the United

States,’ Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper No.

2242 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

OffIce, 1984).

Holden, P., Pesticides and Groundwater Quality

(Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Commission, Iowa Groundwater

Protection Strategy 1987, 1987.

Jury, W., soil physicist, University of California at

Riverside, personal communication, 1988. In: Nipp,

1990.

Klaseus, TG., and Hines, J. W., “Pesticides and

Groundwater: A Survey of Selected Private Wells in

Minnesota,” Minnesota Department of Health, 1989.

Klaseus, XG., Buzic@, G. C., and Schneider, E. C.,

“Pesticides and Groundwater: Sumeys of Selected

Minnesota Wells, ’ Minnesota Department of

Health, and Minnesota Department of Agriculture,

1988.

hMasters, G., and Doyle, D.J,, “Grade A Dairy

Farm Well Water Quality Survey,” Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, Madison, WI, April 1989. In: Cohen, 1989.

Libra, R. D., hydrogeologist, Geological Survey Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa

City, IA, personal communication, July 25, 1989. In:

Cohen, 1989.

Lindorff, D,E., and Cartwright, K., “Groundwater

Contamination: Problems and Remedial Actions,”

Environmental Geology Notes No. 81, Illinois Geological Survey, Urbana IL, 1971.

Logan, T. J., ‘‘Assessing the Use of Agricultural Best

Management Practices: Implications for Groundwater Protection, ” contractor paper prepared for the

42.

43.

44,

45.

46.

47.

48,

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA:

National Technical Information Service, May 1989).

Impez, N., Overview of U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Information Programs (Reston VA:

U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data

Coordination, 1989), pp. 87-91.

Maizel, M., director, National Center for Resource

Innovations, Washington DC, personal communication, Mar. 31, 1990.

Maizel, M., and Chan, K., “Mapping Groundwater

Vulnerability to Agricultural Uses on a National

Scale in a Geographic Information System,” contractor paper prepared for the Ofilce of Technology

Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, February 1990).

Moore, J. S., “Seepage: A System for Early Evaluation of the Pollution Potential of Agricultural Groundwater Environments, ’ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Geology Technical

Note No. 5, 1988.

Moye, A., pesticide chemist, University of Florida,

Gainesville, FL, personal communication, December

1989.

Mulder, E. G., Annual Review of Plant Physiology,

vol. 1, 1950, pp. 1-24.

Mussman, H., Testimony before the U.S. House of

Representatives, Joint Hearing of the Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on

Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, and the Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations Research, and

Foreign Agriculture, “H.R. 2734: The National

Ground Water Research Act of 1989 Farm Bill,”

Oct. 3, 1989. In: Nipp, 1990.

National Research Council, Irrigation-Induced Water

Quality Problems (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).

National Research Council, Board on Earth Sciences

and Resources, Mapping Science Committee, Spatia2

Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping

Program (Washington DC: National Academy Press,

1990).

National Research Council, Water Science and Technology Board, Committee on Ground Water Modeling Assessment, Ground Water Models: Scientific

and Regulatory Applications (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1990).

New Waves, “Computer Models Mimic Groundwater Management, Plant Water Use, ” Research Letter

of the Texas Water Resources Institute, vol. 3, No. 1,

1990, pp. 1, 12.

Newman, A. C. D., “The Significance of Clays in

Agriculture and Soils,” in: Clay Minerals, Their

Structure, Behavior and Use, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Imndon, vol. 311, No.

1517, 1984.
Chapter 3-Contamination of the Hydrogeological System: A Primer ● 77

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

Nipp, T., “Approaches To Reduce Agricultural

Contamination of Groundwater: Federal Agencies

and the Pursuit of Groundwater Protection, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, February 1990).

NRINewsletter, “Atrazine Movement to Groundwater by MacroPore Flow, ” Natural Resources Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville

Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD, vol. 1,

No. 3, Ju]y 1, 1989, p. 3.

Pettijohn, F. J., Sedimentary Rocks, 2d ed. (New

York NY: Harper & Brothers, 1959).

Pettyjohn, W.A. (cd.), Water Quality in a Stressed

Environment (Nlinneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing

Co., 1972).

Pionke, H. B., “Types of Data and Their Role in

Chemical Transport, ” Proceedings of the Work~hop

on Research Needs for Unsaturated Zone Transport

Modeling of Agricultural Chemicals, Agricultural

Research Institute, Annapolis, MD, Nov. 2-4, 1987.

Ragone, S. E., vice-president, U.S. Geological Survey, Research Office, Water Resources Division,

personal communication, Mar. 30, 1990.

Ragone, S. E., Burkart, M. R., Thurman, E, M., and

Perry, C. A., “Herbicides in Ground and Surface

Water in the Mid-Continental United States: A

Research Plan,’ Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection.” Resources for State and Local

Management, Conference Proceedings, St. Paul MN,

Oct. 24-25, 1988 (Navarre, MN: Freshwater Foundation, 1989). In: Nipp, 1990.

Raven, P. H., Evert, R. F., and Eichhorn, S. E., Biology

of Plants (New York, NY: Worth Publishers, Inc.,

1986),

Richards, R. P., Kramer, J. W., Baker, D. B., and

Krieger, K. A., “Pesticides in Rainwater in the

Northeastern United States, ” Nature, vol. 327, May

14/20, 1987, pp. 129-131.

Ross, B. A., Tester, J. R., and Breckenridge, W. B,,

“Ecology of Mima-Type Mounds in Northwestern

Minnesota” Ecology, vol. 49, 1968, pp. 172-177.

Russelle, M. P., and Hargrove, W. L,, “Cropping

Systems: Ecology and Management,’ Nitrogen Management and Groundwater Protection, R.F. Follett

(cd.) (Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, 1989).

Shaffer, M. J., and Larson, W.E. (eds,), “NTRM, a

Soil-Crop Simulation Model for Nitrogen, Tillage,

and CropResidue Management, ’ ARS Conservation Research Report 34-1 (Washington DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service, June 1987),

Skinner, B. J., and Porter, S. C., The Dynamic Earth

(New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).

Snead, R. E., World Atlas of Geographic Features

(Huntington, NY: R.E. Kreiger Publishing Co.,

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

1980).

Soiler, D. R., research geologist, Branch of Eastern

Regional Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, National

Center, personal communication, Nov. 28, 1989.

Soiler, D. R., “A RegionaI Three-Dimensional Map

of Laurentide Glacial Sediments in the United States:

Overview and Applications for Hydrogeology and

Land Use, ” Memories of the international Symposium on Hydrogeological Maps as Tools for Economic and Social Development, Hanover, Federal

Republic of Germany, 1989, pp. 107-114.

Soiler, D. R., Map Showing the Thickness and

Character of Quaternary Sediments in the Glaciated

United States East of the Rocky Mountains, U.S.

Gexdogical Survey Misc. Invest. Series Maps 1-1970-

A,B,C,D, scale 1:1,000,000 (in press).

Spalding, R. F., Junk, G. A., and Richard,J.J.,‘‘Pesticides in Ground Water Beneath Irrigated Farmland in

Nebraska, Aug. 1978,” Pesticide Monitoring Journal, vol. 14, No. 2, 1980, pp. 70-73.

Teselle, G., division director, Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, U.S. Department of

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, personal

communication, Apr. 16, 1990.

Threadgill, E. D., “Irrigation/Chernigation: Implications for Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater, contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, December 1989).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity, OTA-F-166 (Washington DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1982).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Water and Related Technologies for Sustainable

Agriculture in U.S. Arid and Semiarid Lunak, OTAF-212 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, October 1983).

U.S Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Innovative Biological Technologies for bsser Developed Countries, OTA-BP-F-29 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1985), pp.

185-203.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Basic Statistics:

1977 National Resources Inventory (NRI), revised

February 1980 (Washington DC: 1980).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water Quality

Program Plan To Support the President’s Water

Quali~ Initiative, U.S. Department of Agriculture

and Cooperating State Agencies, July 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, “Farm Drainage in the United States—

History, Status, and Prospects,” Misc. Publication

No. 1455 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1987).
78 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, “Status of State Soil Geographic Databases,” Map Compiled Using Automated Map

Construction With the Focas Equipment, National

Cartographic Center, Fort Worth, TX, revised Nov.

20, 1989.

81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Pesticides

Included in the EPA National Pesticide Survey, ”

Apr. 14, 1988.

82. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Ground

Water Branch, “Pesticides in Ground Water Data

Base 1988 Interim Report” (Washington DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, December 1988).

83. U.S. Geological Survey, Regional Aquifer-System

Analysis (RASA) Program, Water Fact Sheet, OpenFile Report 88-118, 1988.

84. U.S. Geological Survey, “National Water Summary

1986-Hydrologic Events and Ground Water Quality,” USGS Water Supply Paper 2325 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988), pp.

69-133.

85. Urlich, G., Office of Regional Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, personal communication, 1990.

86. Wailer, Roger M., “Groundwater and the Rural

Homeowner’ (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey,

1988).

87. Zalom, F. G., Stirnma M, M. W., and Smilanick, J. M.,

“Integrated Pest Management: Potential for Reducing Agrichernical Contamination of Groundwater, ’

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, January 1990).

88. Zimmerman, P,, De Mattes, C., and Kauffman, R.,

“Underground Injection Control: Minnesota Abandoned Well Survey,” Minnesota Department of

Health, 1989, p. 117.
Chapter 4

Technologies To Improve Nutrient

and Pest Management

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS

●

●

●

●

●

●

U.S. agriculture has become highly specialized and is unevenly distributed across the

country. Potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater probably is strongly

associated with certain farming systems, and with intensity of use in those systems.

A variety of technological opportunities exist for reducing agrichemical contamination

of groundwater within the general categories of: 1) improved point source controls, 2)

improved agrichemical efficacy and application, 3) agrichemical use reduction, and 4)

nonchemical alternatives. Farming systems designed to reduce the potential for

agrichemical contamination of groundwater are likely to use a combination of

technologies within these categories.

Nutrients must be added to any cropping system intended to remain productive; however,

the source and amount of nitrogen (the plant nutrient of concern to groundwater

contamination) added may vary widely. Because nitrogen is part of a natural cycle,

reducing loss of nitrogen as nitrate from soil systems through careful management is the

primary means of reducing nitrate contamination of groundwater.

Control of agricultural pests may be accomplished through chemical or nonchemical

(biological and cultural) means, with varying and largely uncertain effects on

productivity of farming systems. However, these technologies generally are not mutually

exclusive such that, while chemical controls will likely continue to be an important

element of pest control systems, managing whole farming systems to reduce potential for

infestations and implementing of least potentially hazardous techniques can aid in pest

control without unacceptable loss of yield or income.

Although technologies related to use and management of nutrients and pesticides clearly

are relevant to reducing the potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater,

these elements of a farming system cannot be separated from consideration of crop, soil,

and water management components of farming. All interact, and thus in combination

have potential to reduce potential agrichemical contamin ation of groundwater.

Ultimately, the quality of and attention to management of a farming system is the most

important factor in enhancing the efficacy of external inputs, and reducing waste in

agricultural production. “Integrated farm management” decisionmaking will form the

basis of successful systems.
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ................................ 81

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Nitrogen Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Nitrogen Sources and Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Fertilizer Application Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Timing of Fertilizer Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Application Technology . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ... ....... 99

PEST MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

Pest Scouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

Alternative Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Integrated Pest Management .. ................... 115

CROP, SOIL, AND WATER MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . 118

Crop Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

Soil Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Agrichemical Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Livestock Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 134

Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

RESEARCH APPROACHS AGRICULTURAL

TECHNOLOGY DEVEOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Components of the U.S. Agricultural Research

System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Best Management Practices .. .. .. .. . ... . ... ...... 145

FarmStead Assessment programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Integrated Farm Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS. ... ......149

Enhancing Knowledge of the Agroecosystem . . . . . . . . 150

Priority Setting for Groundwater Protection

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Adaptive Research

153

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

ResearchCoordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

CHAPTER PREFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Boxes

Box Page

4-A. Regional Diversity of U.S. Agriculture.. . . . . . . . . . 83

4-B. Phosphorus and Potassium: Potential for Movement

to Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4-C.Summary of Best Management Praactices for

Controlling Contamination of Surface and Groundwater

From Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4-D.Computer Modeling as a Tool for Predicting Nitrogen

Contamination Potential From Agricultural Practices. 97

4-E.Biological Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

4-F. Plant Growth Regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4-G.Pesticide Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4-H.Natural Zeolites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

4-IBest Management Practices for Controlling Potential

Contamination of Surface and Groundwater From . Animal Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

4-J. Progression in Research and Development Efforts

Needed to MinimizeAgrichemical Contamination o f

Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

4-K. Maximum Economic Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

4-L. Evaluating and Revising RMSs-An Example . . . . . 149

4-M.Low Input Sustainable Agriculture ProgramIntegrating Agriculture and the Environment . . . . . . 151

Figures

Figure Page

4-1.Percentages of Cropland Used for Crops by Region,

1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4-2. Sources of Nitrogen in the Environment . . . . . . . . . . 87

4-3.Average Farm Prices of Selected Nitrogen

Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4-4.Nitrogen Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4-5. Environmental Fate Pathways for Pesticides . . . . . . 104

4-6. Evolution in Rate of Application of Insecticides . . . 105

4-7. Typical Losses of Aerial Foliar Insecticide

Application Between the Spray Nozzle and the Site

of Toxic Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4-8. Sources of Legume Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

4-9. Recovery of Fertilizer N by No-Till and

Conventionally Grown Corn... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 127

4-10. Areas of Irrigated Land in the United States . . . . . . 130

4-11. Percentage of Harvested Cropland Irrigated for

Major Program Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

4-12. Nitrate in Pullman Soil After 5 Annual Applications

of Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

4-13. Average Amount of Manure Nitrogen Defecated per

Unit Area as a Function of Animal Spacing . . . . . . . 137

4-14. Ammonia and Nitrate Present in a Feedlot Soil

Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

4-15. Infiltration Rates for Swine and Dairy Manure

Slurries over Coarse Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

4-16. Nitrates, Dry-Weight Basis Beneath Feedyard Playa. 141

Tables

Table Page

4-1. U.S. Fertilizer Application Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4-2. Projected Pesticide Use on Major U.S. Field Crops,

1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4-3. Estimated U.S. Livestock and Poultry Manure

voided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4-4. Crop Yields From Feedlot Manure Application . . . . 93

4-5. Dry Tons of Manure Needed TO Supply 100 pounds

of Available Nitrogen Over the Cropping Year . . . . 94

44. Average Concentrations of Heavy Metals in Grain

from 6 Wheat Cultivars Grown With 3 Fertilizer

Treatments at Mesa AZ in 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4-7. Total N, P, and K Concentrations in Selected Waste

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4-8. Composition of Nutrients and Heavy Metals in a

Washington, DC Area Composted Sewage Sludge . 95

4-9. The Effects of Fertilizer Application Rate on Nitrogen

Recovered in Corn and Soil in the Application Year

and Following Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

4-10. U.S. Average Farm Retail Pesticide Prices . . . . . . . . 109

4-11. Agricultural Engineering Research for Weed Control

Equipment Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

4-12. Common Crop Rotations Used on Land Producing

soybean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

4-13. Variation of Dinitrogen Fixation Capacity With

Legume Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4-14. Contamination From Pesticide Mixing and Loading

Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . ● ● . . . . . 133

4-15. Pesticide Residues After Rinsing Containers . . . . . . 134

4-16. Nitrate, Nitrite, and Ammonia Concentrations Beneath

Playa Used for Feedlot Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Chapter 4

Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management

INTRODUCTION

The agricultural sector has provided food, clothing, and shelter for the increasing U.S. population as

well as contributed to global food security. This

increased productivity has resulted from significant

scientific research and application of improved

technology ranging from the development and use of

agrichemicals to current trends in biotechnology

research and development. Advances in plant breeding using germplasm from native and exotic species

have contributed to yield enhancement and stress

tolerance of major crop plants, Similarly, research

on pest-control methods and irrigation developments have made significant contributions. However, increasing concern exists that the costs of these

advances may be greater than expected, particularly

with respect to potential adverse effects on the

environment and thus on future productivity of the

land (8).

Many agricultural production approaches seem to

have been developed without consideration of the

fundamental linkages among components of the

agroecosystem (73), often neglecting potential interactions or transformations within the agroecosystem. It is difficult, if not impossible, to account for

all of the natural site characteristics and agricultural

practices (agrichemical application rates and methods, tillage and surface shaping, cropping arrangements) that interact to determine groundwater vulnerability at a given site. However, certain patterns

have emerged in groundwater contamination, which

suggest that packages of agricultural and sitespecific parameters strongly influence groundwater

vulnerability. For example, atrazine, a nonvolatile

and widely used herbicide, has been shown to leach

at variable rates depending on the soil, geology, and

agricultural practices of different regions. Leaching

was less prevalent in silty clay and clay loam

(nonirrigated) soils in Pennsylvania than in irrigated

permeable soils in Nebraska (87).

Ultimately, the quality of management maybe the

factor of greatest importance in reducing the potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater

from agricultural production practices. Irrespective

of the nutrient source, overapplication may occur in

the absence of proper soil-testing and application

methods. Similarly, inappropriate timing of application or unsuitable application methods may easily

offset any environmental benefits that might be

realized from reducing pesticide applications.

Agricultural production often depends on manipulation of numerous agroecosystem components and

application of a broad variety of technologies. An

agroecosystem refers to the blend of biological and

physiochemical features (e.g., soil, water, nutrients)

as they are modified by agronomic practices (e.g.,

tillage and cropping systems, and agrichemical

inputs). The interactions of these local features give

rise to highly diverse site conditions such that no two

agroecosystems are identical. Similarly, farming

systems are diverse in terms of crops, cropping

patterns, and management systems (figure 4-1; box

4-A). Given the variability of agroecosystems and

farming systems, effective approaches to reduce

groundwater contamination from agricultural practices will need to be flexible and equally diverse. For

example, cover crops may offer a mechanism for

uptake of residual soil nitrate in humid regions;

however, in dry regions where nitrate leaching

potential is less, this practice may only create a soil

moisture deficit for subsequent crops.

In addition to nutrient and pest management

practices, potential for agrichemical contamination

of groundwater may also be influenced by crop,

water, and soil management practices. Cropping

pattern and cultivar choice may directly affect the

need for agrichemical use. For example, legumebased crop rotation systems may provide nitrogen

for subsequent or interplanted crops as well as

interrupting development of pest populations. Irrigation scheduling designed to reduce deep percolation

may concurrently reduce chemical movement. Tillage systems (e.g., no-till v. conventional) may have

a profound effect on agrichemical needs, and on the

rate, timing, and method of agrichemical application.

The suite of farm management decisions are not

made in isolation, rather they interrelate to such an

extent that whole farm management becomes an

integrated approach to managing the agroecosystem.

Opportunities to reduce the potential for agrichemi-

-81–
82 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 4-l—Percentages of Cropland Used for Crops by Region, 1989

Northern Plains

25.8

Lake States Northeast

10,3 3.5 n

Mountain

102

Corn Belt

241

Delta States

4.4

Southeast

3.2

SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ecm-iomk Research ser~~, “crOpland,” Ag~u/~ra/ ~es~urces: crogJ/a@

Cor?servatjon Situatjon and Out/ook Report, AR-16, September 1989.

cal contamin ation of groundwater arising from

agronomic practices center largely on:

●

●

●

improved point-source controls (e.g., mixing,

loading, storage, and disposal practices);

improved agrichemical efficacy and application (e.g., selective chemicals, enhanced efficiency in application equipment);

agrichemical use reduction; and

use of nonchemical practices (e.g., biological

pest control, crop rotation, cultivation).

Improved point-source controls focus on management practices and physical facilities for agrichemical storage, mixing, loading, and residue disposal,

and on livestock-waste management. Agrichemical

spills and leaks at commercial facilities have been

responsible for numerous detections of chemicals in

groundwater (74). Certain on-farm agrichemical

handling practices present similar, if smaller scale,

threats to groundwater. Frequent handling of large

Appalachia

4.9

Water, and

volumes of chemicals at mixing and loading sites

increases the risk of groundwater contamination at

these points. Point-source contamination also may

involve direct conduits of agrichemical entry into

groundwater, such as abandoned wells, sinkholes in

karst areas, or back-siphoning during mixing.

Improved agrichemical efficacy and application

may involve using more selective chemicals, improving rate and timing of agrichemical applications, and using improved application methods or

equipment. Agrichemical efficacy has increased

over the last several decades, allowing significant

reduction in the amount of active ingredient applied

per acre. However, little advantage is gained in using

more effective products if they do not arrive at the

target. Recent trends toward lower application rates

of pesticides and plant nutrients require more

application precision than was necessary even a

decade ago (73,60).
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 83

Box 4-A—Regional Diversity of U.S. Agriculture and Agrichemical Use

Approximately 50 percent of all cropland under cultivation in 1989 was located in the Corn Belt and Northern Plains States.

These States encompass a large land area devoted to crop production and include Iowa and Illinois, the two States ranked highest

in volumes of fertilizer and pesticides used (62). The Corn Belt also is the only area to expand its regional share of the nation’s

cropland during the 1980s (227), probably due to uneven distribution of land idled under Federal conservation programs.

Certain characteristics of agricultural production regions have implications for the degree of agrichemical use. Areas with

longer growing seasons, and areas that do not experience significant cold winter seasons or other conditions conducive to pest

eradication are more likely to maintain pest populations, For example, crop production in the warm, humid Southeast tends to

require relatively larger amounts of pesticides than crop production in the Northern United States (62).

The relative amounts and locations of land devoted to different types of crops also influence overall agrichemical use. Corn,

for example, requires comparatively larger amounts of agrichemical inputs per acre than other field crops; thus corn acreage

accounts for the greatest percentage of fertilizer and pesticide use (228,62). Most U.S. cropland acreage is used for production

of wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, rice, and feed grains such as sorghum, barley, and oats. In 1989, these crops were grown on

75 percent of the 342 million acres of U.S. cropland under cultivation (227,228). (See tables 4-1 and 4-2.)

Each year, USDA estimates the proportion of acreage treated with commercial fertilizers for corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat,

rice, and potatoes. Average nutrient application rates also are estimated. Overall, an estimated 20,5 million tons of plant nutrients

were applied in the 1988-89 crop year (228). U.S. agricultural producers use an estimated 661 million pounds of pesticide active

ingredient annually (62).

Table 4-1—U.S. Fertilizer Application Rates (pounds per acre)

Corn Wheat Soybeans Cotton

Year N P 2 0 5 K 2 O N P 2 0 5 K 2 0 N P2 0 5 K 2 O N P 2O 5 K 2 0

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 50 48 31 30 35 10 32 39 81 55 57

1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 71 72 39 30 36 14 37 51 75 55 57

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 58 67 46 35 35 15 40 53 78 50 55

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 66 86 58 39 40 17 46 70 72 46 46

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 60 84 60 35 36 15 43 72 80 46 52

1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 63 85 64 37 52 22 48 79 78 42 39

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resources: Inputs, Situation and

Out/ook, AR-15 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1989),

Table 4-2—Projected Pesticide Use on Major U.S. Field Crops, 1989

June 1

Crops Acres Herbicides Insecticides Fungicides

Million Million pounds

Row:

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.8 219 27.1 0.06

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 16 15.6 0.16

Grain/sorghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 11 1.9 0.0

Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 6 1.3 6.19

Soybeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 108 9.5 0.06

Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 1 2.7 0.35

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158.9 361 58.1 6.82

Small grains:

Barley & oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 5 0.2 0.0

Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 12 0.5 0.07

Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.7 16 2.2 0.88

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.9 33 2.9 0.95

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259.8 394 61.0 7.77

1988 total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.4 372 59.7 7.56

NOTE: June 1 planted acreage for the 10 major field crops increased from 243 million acres in 1988 to 260 million. The

area planted to corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, tobacco, and wheat went up while cotton, barley, oats, and rice

declined. Peanuts remained constant,

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Ser&ice, Agricultural Resources: Inputs, Situation and

Out/ook, AR-15 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Prlntlng Office, August 1989).
84 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Only 1 to 2 percent of pesticides used in agriculture are estimated to reach the target pest; the remainder of the volume applied is

lost to the environment, and represents a financial loss to the farmer. These losses can be reduced by improving the efficacy of

chemicals and of application equipment and methods.

Appropriate timing and placement of agrichemical applications may facilitate their uptake and use

by plants or affect their effectiveness against pests

and, thus, reduce potential for loss via leaching,

volatilization, or other environmental pathways.

Similarly, improvements in application methods

may allow achievement of a desired yield response

with fewer agrichemical inputs. For example, rather

than applying an insecticide to an entire field or

farm, pheromone baits may be used to lure insects

into a few insecticide-treated areas.

patterns that break pest cycles, crop cultivars with

greater resistance to pest infestations, and improved

management of agrichemical inputs. In addition to

these approaches, establishing and understanding of

pest tolerance levels (i.e., pest-free fields may not be

economically optimal) may contribute to reduced

agrichemical use. Adaptive research to establish

agrichemical application rates and procedures for

site-specific use might identify reduced agrichemical doses under certain conditions while maintaining

economic yields.

Agrichemical use reduction may involve using a Nonchemical practices to control pests and supvariety of techniques, including more efficacious ply plant nutrients may be used exclusively (e.g.,

agrichemicals and application methods, cropping organic farmingl

), in preference to agrichemical use

10%~c f-~m d~m~ @ USDA ~ a pr~uction system that avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticid=, and o~er

farm chemicals. Organic systems tend to rely on such inputs as crop residues, green- and livestock manures, legumes, crop rotations, mechanical

cultivation and biological pest control to supply plant nutrients and control pest populations (218).
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 85

(e.g., low chemical input farming), or in combination with agrichemical use (e.g., integrated pest

management). Farming practices that do not rely on

agrichemical inputs can be productive; however

comparative economic analysis is lacking (136).

These production systems commonly depend on

crop rotations, biological pest control, nutrients

from livestock waste or green manures, and greater

management attention.

Management practices within each of these categories can be implemented as individual Best

Management Practices, or as components of integrated farming systems. Development of comprehensive agrichemical management systems or whole

farming systems” could provide the basis for

addressing pest and nutrient management in a

coordinated fashion that minimizes adverse environmental impacts. Systems approaches designed to

operate in concert with existing natural processes are

likely to result in decreased agrichemical needs.

Current on-farm management activities that are

linked to agrichemical use and thus affect the

potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater fall into four general categories: nutrient

management, pest management, crop management,

and soil and water management. Opportunities to

reduce agrichemical losses to groundwater exist

within each of these categories, and while singly

their contributions to resource protection may be

small, collectively they may offer significant benefits.

Agricultural researchers have provided U.S. farmers with a wide array of technologies that, when

implemented properly, can help minimize groundwater contamination by agrichemicals. Some of

these technologies are in operation on farms today;

some familiar ones from the past are being readopted. Others need modernization or are undergoing research and testing, and still others remain

conceptual. What their combined impacts may be is

not yet known. What is known today, though, is that

“old’ and ‘‘new” technologies are less likely to be

viewed separately in the environmental setting of the

farm than in the past. The view today increasingly is

one that recognizes farming activities as part of the

overall environment: the agroecosystem.

This view recognizes the importance of working

within the framework of the hydrologic and other

natural cycles if groundwater contamination from

agrichemicals is to be prevented. This systems

approach is evidenced by current efforts such as

Integrated Pest Management, Integrated Farm Management Systems, Integrated Crop Management,

and the Farmstead Assessment program. It is within

these systematic approaches that new technologies

will find their role. It is unlikely that one particular

technological “black box” will be found to solve

the agrichemical/groundwater contamination problem.

“Good housekeeping, ” involving careful storage, handling, and use of agrichemicals, can play an

important role today, and already is doing so on

many farms. Farmers are conscious of the large role

economics plays in their survival and, therefore,

minimizing waste of important agrichemicals makes

good sense. Additional opportunities exist to find

new uses for old ‘‘wastes,’ like manure and sludge,

which can turn these from wastes to resources.

Central to the successful application of technologies is the understanding that the physical situation

changes from one farm site to another, e.g., soils,

geology, and topography. Because of this, technologies, packages of technologies, or systems involving

technologies have to be adapted to the local conditions at the farm site. Finally, whatever approach is

used ultimately rests with the farmer.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Addition of nutrients to a cropping system is an

accepted axiom of agricultural production. Agricultural products, whether plant or animal, remove

nutrients from the land on which they are produced.

For example, corn production in the United States is

estimated to remove nearly 5.7 billion pounds of

nitrogen annually. Hawaii exports 2,200 tons of

potassium each year in its pineapple crop alone

(212), Even well-maintained organic farms that

carefully collect and return crop residues and

livestock wastes to the soil do not replace all of the

soil nutrients without external inputs or through

rapid weathering of soil minerals.

Nutrients also are removed through a number of

other natural processes, including erosion, leaching,

and volatilization. If the nutrient supply is not

replenished, soil fertility decreases. Management

practices attempt to avoid limiting crop growth by

ensuring that sufficient nutrients exist in the soil, or

are applied, and that excessive nutrient losses to

other media do not result.
86 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 4-B—Phosphorus and Potassium: Potential for Movement to Groundwater

Unlike nitrogen, which has a relatively short residual activity in soils, phosphorus tends to accumulate in soils

in relatively insoluble inorganic forms. Thus, phosphorus fertilization leads to increased soil phosphorus levels over

time. In many intensively managed soils, particularly where high-value crops such as vegetables are grown,

phosphorus levels have become quite high.

Phosphorus buildup is of practical significance. Only a very small amount of fertilizer phosphorus is lost from

soils if erosion is controlled. Even these small amounts, however, can be significant and can accelerate surface water

eutrophication. This avenue of loss can be minimized through proper erosion control.

Although some phosphorus may be lost by movement into groundwater through leaching, the amounts

generally are insignificant from both agronomic and waterquality standpoints. However, significant phosphorus

may enter groundwater where the water table is high or approaches the plow layer. Similarly, flooding may provide

anaerobic conditions in soils, and in such cases phosphorus concentrations can be fairly large in effluent from tile

drains and can be a groundwater pollutant.

Like phosphorus, potassium from fertilizers can accumulate in soils over time. Soils in humid areas of the

United States are inherently low in potassium, so yields can be enhanced by potassium application. Many soils in

the more arid regions contain adequate potassium levels (72). Thus, as with any input, care is needed to ensure that

potassium is applied only on soils with low natural potassium levels. Potassium fertilizer does not appear to be a

source of pollution for surface or groundwater.

Plants require carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitro- releases additional nutrients, but the process is slow

gen, phosphorous, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and does not keep pace with modern agricultural

chlorine, ‘and sulfur in relatively large quantities

(and another six elements—iron, manganese, boron,

zinc, copper, and molybdenum-in small amounts).

The frost three elements are freely available in the

atmosphere and the latter four are common in

temperate soils; thus, nitrogen, potassium, and

phosphorus are the most commonly added nutrients.

Although plants may take up ammonium (NH4

, the

predominant nitrogen uptake form is nitrate (NO3

),

which is relatively mobile in the soil environment.

Because of this mobility, nitrogen (N) availability is

most often the limiting nutrient factor for plant

growth and the most common agrichemical contaminant found in groundwater. The chemical properties

of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) generally

restrict their movement through the soil profile (box

4-B), although phosphorous loading of surficial

waters can be a significant problem in certain areas

(110).

Whether soil nutrient replacement is accomplished by addition of organic (e.g., manures) or

commercial fertilizers is an individual’s choice, but

agriculture has to replace what it has taken from the

soil in order to maintain long-term crop production.

Early agriculture depended on soil- and atmospherederived nutrients and plant and animal residues to

maintain soil fertility. Legume-based systems were

introduced to increase available nitrogen in cropping

systems. Natural weathering produces new soil and

needs. Today, genetically improved, high-yielding

crop varieties require much higher nutrient levels

than are naturally available in the soil, and most U.S.

croplands are managed to sustain high yields,

normally requiring frequent nutrient inputs (208).

Nutrient sources have gradually become more

sophisticated, shifting from livestock manures to

concentrated single-element particulate formulations and to complete fertilizer combinations. Commercial fertilizers are the main source of resupply of

the soil nutrients needed for continued agricultural

production (figure 4-2). A broad variety of commercial fertilizer formulations exist, including granules,

liquids, and gaseous forms, each requiring a specific

application technology. Most forms either are applied on the soil surface or are subsurface injected,

although some liquid nutrient formulations have

been developed for foliar application and chemigation systems. The cost of fertilizing is increasing

because production is highly energy-intensive, especially for nitrogen fertilizers (figure 4-3).

Limestone, gypsum, dolomite, greensand (glauconite), rock phosphate, and granite are common

rocks that, when ground to a fine particle size, also

can be added to cropland soils to provide calcium,

magnesium, potassium, and phosphorus. These freely

ground, less soluble natural materials were the basic

inorganic soil nutrient inputs prior to industrial
Chapter &Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 87

Figure 4-2--Sources of Nitrogen in the Environment

Percent

100 -

80

60

4 0

2 0

0 . . . . . . . .

N-Fert Manure Legume Rain Soils

Nitrogen for crop production may be derived from a variety of

sources, however, commercial fertilizers comprise the main

source of resupply of the soil nutrients.

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Commission, lowa Department of

Natural Resources, Iowa Groundvafer Profedbn Strategy,

1987.

synthesis of commercial fertilizers and usually are

not included in the category “commercial fertilizers.

Nitrogen Cycle

Nitrogen in the soil and available for plant growth

is derived from atmospheric dinitrogen (N2). This

chemically unreactive nitrogen is circulated from

the atmosphere through the soil and living organisms through various processes that comprise the

nitrogen cycle (figure 4-4).

Nitrogen additions to the soil maybe the result of

several processes, biological or industrial dinitrogen

fixation, lightning fixation, and ammonification.

Biological dinitrogen fixation, conversion of atmospheric nitrogen to ammonia (N H3

), is carried out by

microorganisms, either free-living or in symbiotic

associations with other organisms. Industrial nitrogen fixation, which produces ammonia through a

natural gas and petroleum-based process, is currently the major source of nitrogen fertilizers. A

small amount of nitrogen may be freed into the soil

through the process of lightning fixation. Ammonification is the decomposition of soil organic matter

(i.e., dead animals, plants, microbes, and manures)

by soil microbes to ammonium ions (NH4

).

Soil transformations of ammonium yield nitrite2

and nitrate. Oxidation of ammonium to nitrite and

nitrate is carried out by several bacterial species in

the process of nitrification. Although nitrate is the

primary nitrogen form taken up by plants, under

acidic soil conditions with low populations of

vitrifying bacteria, plants may take up nitrogen in the

ammonium form.

Nitrogen is returned to the atmosphere from the

soil through the activities of denitrifying bacteria.

Denitrification is the anaerobic conversion of soil

nitrate to the volatile forms of nitrogen. Plants may

release small amounts of these nitrogenous forms to

the atmosphere as well, particularly under high

fertilizer application regimes (18 1).

The nitrogen cycle processes of greatest importance to agriculture are those that yield inorganic

forms of nitrogen. The processes by which organic

nitrogen is converted to inorganic forms is referred

to as mineralization ( ammonification and nitrification). Immobilization is the sequestering of applied

or extant plant-available nitrogen in organic matter.

Uncertainties regarding rates of immobilization and

mineralization complicate estimation of the amount

of nitrogen that will become available to plants

during a cropping season.

Three categories of processes control nitrogen

availability to a growing crop: 1) direct physical or

chemical effects (e.g., nitrate leaching and ammonia

volatilization); 2) direct biological effects (e.g.,

dinitrogen fixation, mineralization); and 3) indirect

biological effects (e.g., immobilization) (42). These

processes are highly dependent on specific agroecosystem traits such as microbial populations, soil

organic matter content, and soil moisture, and on the

agronomic practices that affect these traits. The first

category is of primary concern relative to the

potential for nitrate contamination of groundwater,

while the latter two categories are indirectly linked

to nitrate leaching potential since they mediate soil

nitrate levels.

Leaching is a natural pathway within the nitrogen

cycle and nitrate is a naturally occurring form of

nitrogen in water bodies. Nitrate, mineralized from

soil organic matter and dissolved in water, leaches

from the root zone of even unfertilized lands. Nitrate

concentrations in groundwater vary with amount and

timing of rainfall; soil composition, permeability,

and porosity; time of year; vegetation management;

and other site-specific factors. Measurements of

%e nirnte form of nitrogen is highly toxic to plants and is rapidly converted by bacterial action to the nitrate form.
88 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 4-3-Average Farm Prices of Selected Nitrogen Fertilizers

Dollars/ton

280 -r

240-

200-

160-

80

{

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988

SOURCE: H. Vrmmen, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Fertilizer Use and Price StatMks, 1960-1988, Statistical Bulletin No.

780 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

nitrate concentration in water may provide little

understanding of the nitrate loss from a specific field

(86).

The concentration of nitrate in groundwater is

controlled by either the rate of nitrate addition to a

constant flow of water or the rate of water flow

through a region where nitrate is steadily becoming

available. The nitrate concentration in the soil water

of unfertilized grasslands and fields commonly is

negligible, but may reach 3 ppm. It varies with the

rate of nitrate mineralization from soil organic

matter and with the rate of water percolation through

the soil.

Thus, nitrate losses from cropland maybe visualized as integrated fluxes, i.e., rate of nitrate movement from the root zone per land area per unit of

time. Viewed in this manner, in temperate lands,

unfertilized native grasslands and agricultural fields

lose about 20 lbs N/acre/year on average (range 5 to

40) as nitrate (86). How closely nitrate fluxes

through cropland approach this value depends on a

number of factors. Fertilized cropping systems lose

on average from 22 lbs N/acre/year (rainfed systems) to 50 lbs N/acre/year (irrigated systems).

These rates of loss are in part intrinsic to the nitrogen

cycle and cannot foreseeable be eliminated. Given

the natural flux, as well as the propensity for nitrate

to arrive in groundwater from numerous sources, it

seems likely that farmers will have difficulty meeting a strict groundwaterquality standard of 10

in all areas (120).

Nitrogen Sources and Formulations

A variety of amendments are applied to

cropland annually to provide nutrients for

production, including commercial fertilizers,

mg/1

U s.

crop

manures, and sewage sludge, slurry, and wastewater.

Commercial fertilizers comprise the greatest part of

these additions with an estimated 20.5 million tons

applied in the crop year 1988-89 (228).

Commercial fertilizers generally are synthesized

or manufactured through various industrial processes and contain one or more of the essential plant

nutrients (54). These include important soluble

compounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

Because commercial fertilizers are highly soluble
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 89

Fe r

Soil surface

+

tilizer

\

Volatilization

! A

Ammonia Legumes

~ Manure

N

f

Organic

{

matter

I

Crop uptake

Ammonium

Immobilization

Nitrification

/ Denitrification

Nitrate

NO

I

Leaching

Water table

SOURCE: Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture, “Groundwater and Agriculture In Pennsylvania,” Circular 341 (College Station, PA:

Pennsylvania State University, 1998).
90 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 4-C—Summary of Best Management Practices for Controlling Potential Contamination

of Surface and Groundwater From Fertilizers

● soil testing to determine soil nutrient content and appropriate fertilization and liming regimes;

. spring fertilizer applications in regions with wet soils, humid climates, and high infiltration;

. split applications may reduce potential losses by up to 30 percent compared to single applications;

. level terraces as a mechanism to reduce nitrate losses in runoff in areas with low vulnerability to nitrate

leaching, contour farming is recommended in humid regions with high vulnerability to contamination;

● drainage control to reduce nitrate losses in wet and irrigated areas; to include wise irrigation management

to prevent leaching losses;

● slow release nitrogen fertilizers;

● crop rotations, no-till, and conservation tillage to reduce surface losses of nitrogen;

● soil incorporation of broadcast fertilize

● level terraces as a phosphorus control measure;

. rotation grazing, crop rotation, cover crops, and conservation tillage to reduce phosphorus losses as

compared to continuous grazing or conventional tillage; and

. sedimentation basins and flow control in irrigation systems to reduce phosphorus losses.

SOURCE: North Carolina State University, Agricultural Extension Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, Best

Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control, II: Commercial Fertilizer (Ralei~ NC: North Carolina State

University, n.d.).

and concentrated, concern exists that they may have fertilizer nitrogen in surface runoff, this accounts for

certain long-term adverse impacts on soils, soil

biota, water supplies, and other parts of the natural

resource base (box 4-C).

Commercial Nitrogen Fertilizer

A variety of nitrogen-containing fertilizer compounds exist; however, only a few are used widely—

the “conventional nitrogen fertilizers.” These include anhydrous ammonia, urea, ammonium nitrate,

urea-ammonium nitrate solution, ammonium sulfate, monoammonium phosphate, and diammonium

phosphate (152). Anhydrous ammonia, nitrogen

solutions, and urea account for 40, 20, and 15

percent of U.S. fertilizer use, respectively (77).

Formulations vary from gaseous (anhydrous ammonia) to granule to liquid, with each formulation

requiring a specific application technology.

The rate of application of nitrogen to croplands

can influence the amount of nitrate leaving fields via

subsurface waters or drain tiles. As progressive

increments of nitrogen become less efficient in

increasing crop growth, the amount available for

runoff or leaching increases.

Most nitrogen removed by surface runoff is

organic nitrogen associated with sediment. Even

though it is possible to lose significant amounts of

only a small proportion of nitrogen lost from soils or

applied fertilizer nitrogen (127).

The amounts of fertilizer nitrogen either lost to, or

found in transit to, groundwater are quite variable.

The partitioning3 of nitrogen in the environment is

highly dependent on climatic and soil factors as well

as amendment type and application method. For

example, under anaerobic soil conditions (e.g, waterlogged soils) denitrification is favored and gaseous losses of nitrogen to the atmosphere are likely

to occur. The problem of nitrate leaching to groundwater is greater in humid or irrigated areas as compared

to dryland cultivation systems. Nitrogen fertilizer

use on irrigated sandy soils shows a high correlation

with nitrate-contaminated aquifers (192, 170).

Slow-Release Fertilizers-Slow-release fertilizers provide nitrogen to crops in a time-release

fashion in contrast to the more rapid release action

of conventional fertilizers. They operate in one of

four general ways: 1) employing a physical barrier

to control the escape of water-soluble materials

containing ammonia or nitrate into soil; 2) possessing reduced water-solubility properties and containing plant-usable nitrogen (e.g., metal ammonium

phosphates); 3) possessing low water-volubility and

releasing plant-available nitrogen during chemical

sp~tlon~g refers t. tie apw~loment of ~~ogen wl~tie fi~ogen cycle. Of g~test a~onomic interest is what pm of the applied nitrogen

remains within the soil in a form usable by plants or in organic forms tilt may be released as nitrate through mineralization.
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 91

or biological decomposition (e.g., ureaforms and

oxamides); and 4) having high water-volubility but

a chemical structure that allows materials to decompose gradually and release plant available nitrogen

(e.g., guanylurea salts). The nitrogen release rates

and nitrogen transformations in the soil may be

further modified by the addition of a nitrification or

urease inhibitor.

Coatings, encapsulations, and matrixes are used

as physical barriers to slow nitrogen release. Coatings may be impermeable or semipermeable. Impermeable coatings either may have tiny holes to allow

release or may depend on abrasion or chemical or

biological action to release nitrogen. Semipermeable

coatings depend on an influx of water to rupture or

distend the coating sufficiently to release the nitrogen. Most commercially important coatings are

waxes, polymers, and sulfur. Most uncoated varieties have low volubility and only decompose to

release plant-available nitrogen after going into

solution. This dissolution rate is affected by size of

particle, particle hardness, and degree of water

volubility.

Slow-release materials may generate a more

desirable apportionment of nitrogen among plant

parts than faster acting nitrogen sources (82). Yield

response seems to be comparable between the two

nitrogen sources, although less nitrogen is accumulated by the plant when slow-release materials are

used. This effect may be beneficial if the nitrogen

remains available for subsequent crops; however, it

also may represent a potential source of nitrate

available for movement to groundwater.

Numerous advantages have been claimed for

slow-release fertilizers, including: reduced seed,

seedling, and leaf burn damage from heavy concentrations of fertilizer salts; improved crop quality;

reduced disease infestation; reduced stalk breakage,

improved seasonal nitrogen distribution; increased

residual value of applied nitrogen; improved economy of use (e.g., single as opposed to multiple

applications); and improved storage and handling

properties (81).

Agronomic constraints to using slow-release fertilizers arise largely from their high cost and varying

rates of nutrient release. For example, while a certain

slow-release fertilizer may be appropriate to the

nitrogen accumulation pattern of one specific crop it

may not confer similar benefits to another crop or a

cultivar with a different accumulation pattern. However, for high-value crops, or crops where split

applications are problematic, slow-release fertilizers

may offer sufficient advantage to offset certain of

these constraints. Use of slow-release materials is

growing for high-value crops or those grown under

special conditions that hinder conventional fertilization techniques (e.g., crops grown using mulch in

highly permeable soils and high rainfall, such as

strawberries; and under conditions where vitrification/

denitrification is highly likely, such as in rice

paddies) (81). Increased understanding of nitrogen

uptake and use by plants may aid in identification of

specific crops and cropping situations where slowrelease nitrogen sources may be valuable.

The environmental effects of slow-release fertilizers, however, have not been assessed. For example,

these materials may continue to release their nitrogen to soil in the absence of plant growth (e.g., after

harvest), This could result in the production and

leaching of nitrate during winter and early spring

(83).

Nitrification Inhibitors—When applied nitrogen

is converted to nitrate more rapidly than plants can

accumulate it, nitrate leaching potential is increased.

Nitrification inhibitors retard this bacterial oxidation

of ammonium to nitrate. Additionally, in order to be

agronomically desirable, vitrification inhibitors

should be as mobile as ammonium in the soil, remain

effective over 1 to 2 weeks, be compatible with

fertilizers, and lack toxicity to higher plants, soil

microorganisms, and humans (82).

Vitrification inhibitors are effective at reducing

nitrate losses and thus could have a large potential

market. Identification of cropping systems in which

nitrification inhibitors would be valuable could

promote adoption of vitrification inhibitors as a

nitrogen management tool. Similarly, increased

fertilizer costs relative to the economic benefit

derived from their use could improve the costeffectiveness of nitrification inhibitors (82).

It may be desirable to reduce nitrification in soils

for environmental reasons as well. Products of

nitrification (nitrite and nitrate) may create a variety

of undesirable effects, including: 1) seedling damage from nitrite accumulation in soil, 2) nitrate

leaching out of plant root zone, and 3) increase in

subsoil acidity. Research efforts that correlate nitrate

loss rates with nitrification-inhibitor use under

various climatic conditions and cropping systems

are needed.
92 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Use of a nitrification inhibitor to maintain midseason applications of ammonium nitrogen in the plant

root system may be beneficial. On the other hand,

such research may reveal that the short-term benefits

derived by reducing nitrogen loss during the growing season may be offset in part by increased loss of

nitrogen during the fall and winter. This is because

vitrification inhibitor use often results in temporary

storage of nitrogen in microbial tissue; this nitrogen

may be released to the soil after crop harvest (83).

It is difficult to predict where use of a vitrification

inhibitor will be beneficial. However, positive yield

responses to vitrification inhibitors have been demonstrated in the field, generally under conditions

where formation of nitrate would have promoted

nitrogen loss via leaching or denitrification (e.g., in

warm, high-rainfall areas with permeable soils; soils

abnormally wet in the spring; irrigated, aerobic soils;

and paddies). The utility of nitrification inhibitors

seems highly likely under certain cropping situations, for example, in direct-seeded rice systems

where starter fertilizer is added with seed and

conditions are conducive to nitrification (81,82).

Manure

Manure is a mixture of feed residues, microorganisms, and metabolic products. Generally 40 to 60

percent of manure nitrogen is in an organic form that

is rapidly decomposed. During this decomposition

process, ammonium salts are formed and ammonium is emitted until the process ceases (81).

Although the nutrient content of manures maybe

substantial (table 4-3), nitrogen content and nitrogen

release rates may be highly variable. Under certain

conditions an estimated 50 percent of the nitrogen is

volatilized prior to field application, and 50 percent

of that applied is not recovered by plants during the

season of application, although estimates on the

amounts lost to the atmosphere vary widely (81).

Nitrogen and phosphorus accumulate in the root

zone if manure applications greatly exceed crop

nutrient requirements (135,122,168) and may be

subject to leaching. The fraction of nutrients in the

soil that actually leach, volatilize, denitrify, or are

taken up by crops for typical livestock and crop

production systems needs to be determined through

further research.

Under proper manure application rates, crop

yields that equal or exceed those from commercial

fertilizers have usually been observed (table 4-4)

(124). Yields with manure are often sustained for

several more years after manure application than

after commercial fertilizer application due to the

slower release of residual nutrients from manures

(1 14,1 13). This effect may lead to nitrogen remaining in the soil after harvest and thus increase

potential for nitrate leaching to groundwater under

humid conditions.

A method to determine proper manure application

rates based on nitrogen content was developed by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service (63). Technical guides to proper

manure application and accurate soil analyses can be

obtained from the Extension Service in most States

or from commercial laboratories. These technical

guides take into account the slow release rates of

organic nitrogen in manure. Recommended manure

application rates per 100 pounds of available nitrogen are shown in table 4-5. Application rates are

highest in the first year and then drop in future years

as mineralization releases nitrogen from the extant

soil organic matter.

With proper management, manure application

results in increased yields. However, excessive

application rates generally do not increase yields

appreciably, may increase soil nitrate levels (167,

124,247), and may even reduce the proportion of

applied nutrients accumulated by the crop. For

example, Bermuda grass took up 74 percent of the

nitrogen in manure when applied at rates meeting

plant nitrogen needs. However at application rates

four times the recommended rate, plant uptake was

only 33 percent of the nitrogen applied (197).

Clearly, manure represents a potentially significant nitrogen source for agricultural production.

However, numerous constraints exist to improved

and more widespread use of manure as a nutrient

source. The energy and labor costs associated with

improved collection and storage practices may be

prohibitive particularly for large confinement operations. Distance to potential markets and high transportation costs create additional economic constraints to such recycling. Although this problem

may be partially overcome in livestock operations

that also produce feed, excessive manure production

relative to nearby soil-loading capacity may pose

constraints to on-farm recycling.

Opportunities have been examined for developing

regional livestock waste processing facilities to

reduce the potential for nonpoint source pollution
.

Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 93

Table 4-3-Estimated U.S. Livestock and Poultry Manure Voided and

Nutrient (N,P,K) Contenta

Manure Nutrients

No. animals dry weight N P K

Species 1,000 head Million tons/year

Cattle inventory

(January 1989)

Beef cows and heifers . . . . . . . . . . .

Cattle on feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stock on pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dairy cows and heifers . . . . . . . . . . .

Hogs and pigs inventory . . . . . . . . . . .

(December 1988)

Sheep inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(January 1989)

Poultry inventory

Laying hens (December 1986) . . .

Turkeys (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Broilers (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33,669

9,408

46,190

10,217

55,299

10,802

280,500

138,300

951,900

44.917

11.813

39.872

29.088

15.542

1.762

3.276

4.543

7.644

1.776

0.467

1.576

1,091

0.734

0.065

0.174

0.235

0.382

0.476

0.125

0.422

0.228

0.456

0.013

0.061

0.087

0.104

1.097

0.288

0.974

0.703

0.734

0.052

0.063

0.091

0.139

al%is information was developed using the 1988 American Society of Agricultural Er@WirS Manure Prodwtion data

and characteristics.

binclu~s sheep and lambs on range/pasture and on feed.

SOURCE: J.M. Sweeten, “Improving Livestock Management Practi~s To Reduce Nutrient Contamination of

Groundwater,” OTA commissioned paper, 1989.

Table 4-4--Crop Yields From Feedlot Manure Application Bushland, Texas, 1969-80

Average yields, lbs/acre/year

Number of years Sorghum

grain

Corn

1975,

Wheat

1976,

Manure treatment Applied Recovery 1969-73 1977,1979 1978,1980

11

: (id.;..:.-.-:::;.’:::: 1 1

0 (N,P,K) . . . . . . . . . . 11

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

0

0

0

0

0

6

6

8

10

4,490

6,440

6,410

6,640

6,490

6,360

5,120

900

330

8,350

13,390

13,560

13,920

13,400

14,340

13,950

15,260

12,100

1,400

4,050

4,290

3,430

4,530

4,000

4,260

4,330

2,810

SOURCE: J.M. Sweeten, “Improving Livestock Management Practices To Reduce Nutrient Contamination of

Groundwater,” OTA commissioned paper, 1989.

from storage or inappropriate disposal of animal

wastes. Marketable products that might be generated

from anaerobic digestion of livestock wastes include: energy from methane production, liquid

slurry to be used as a fertilizer, and livestock bedding

materials (46),

Sludge and Wastewater

Sludge is an accumulation of the solids generated

from wastewater treatment. Septage is a sludge

produced from the individual home on-site treatment system using a septic tank and drainfield.

Forty-one percent of sewage sludge now goes to

municipal landfills and 21 percent to incinerators

with no recovery of the nutrient components. Growing levels of sludge production in the United States

(4 million tons in 1970 to 7 million tons in 1987)

coupled with declining availability of disposal sites

clearly indicate that alternative disposal methods are

needed (80). Increasing application of wastewater

treatment products on agricultural land has been

suggested as a major alternative to other disposal

methods (215).

Sludge application to agricultural and forest land

has received increased research attention; studies

indicate the potential for nutrient recycling in these

systems. While land application allows for recycling

of nutrients contained in sludge, it also provides the

opportunity for introducing undesirable components

into an agricultural system (table 4-6). Further, the
94 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 4-5-Dry Tons of Manure Needed To Supply 100 Pounds of Available

Nitrogen of the Cropping Year

Nitrogen content of manure, percent dry basis

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0

Years manure is applied Tons of dry manure/100 lb nitrogen

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 11.6 7.0 4.6 3.1 1.4

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.6 9.0 5.8 3.9 2.8 1.4

3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 7.7 5.1 3.6 2.6 1.4

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 6.9 4.7 3.4 2.5 1.3

5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 6.3 4.4 3.2 2.4 1.3

10” “ “. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 4.9 3.7 2.8 2.2 1.3

15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 4.2 3.3 2.6 2.0 1.2

SOURCE: C.B. Gilbertson, F.A. Norstadt, A.C. Mathers, R.F. HoIt, A.P. Barnett, T.M. McCalla, C.A. Onstad, R.A.

Young, L.A. Christensen, and D.L. VanDyne, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service, Animai Waste Utilization on Cropland and Pastureland: A Manual for Evaluating Agronomic and

Envimnmenta/Efkfs, URR 6 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), h: Sweeten, J. M.,

1989.

Table 4-6-Average Concentrations of Heavy Metals in Grain From Six Wheat

Cultivars Grown With Three Fertilizer Treatments at Mesa, Arizona in 1983

Cadmium Zinc Copper Lead Nickel

Fertilizer treatment mg kg-1

Suggested N, P, K from commercial fertilizer . . . . . 0.4 31.6 10.6 1.4 10.5

Sewage sludge to provide suggested N with no

additional fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 45.3 12.0 4.5 22.4

N, P, K from commercial fertilizer equal to

sewage sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 34.8 11.5 1.6 14.9

SOURCE: A.D. Day and R.K. Thom~on, “Fertilizing Wheat With Dried Sludge,” BioCyde, pp. 30-32, September 1986,

In: Moore, J.A., 1989.

nutrient content of waste byproducts can be quite

variable depending on factors such as the type of raw

material and treatment process (191) (table 4-7).

Land spreading of sludge on agricultural lands

now accounts for only 15 percent of the total

produced, but this method is growing rapidly.

Maryland now land applies at least 90 percent of the

sludge generated in the State. Concerns over negative aspects of land application (i.e., odors, toxic

heavy metals, disease vectors, surficial and groundwater contamination) have caused some communities to delay or cease land application operations.

Pathogen reduction processes are required in sludge

treatment before land application to protect public

health. Lag times between spreading and harvest,

and access limitations, also are required for certain

crops to protect the food chain. Additional support

to evaluate and monitor receiver systems and

provide expanded educational programs could foster

improved use of sludge in agriculture.

While research on the fate, availability, and

pathways of sludge constituents in the soil-plant

system is still expanding, a procedure has been

developed to determine agronomic loading rates.

Calculation of the annual and total loading rates (site

life) of a heavy metal to a site can be determined

knowing the application rate and characteristics of

the sludge.

Studies of the potential of forest ecosystems to

assimilate nutrients from liquid-sludge applications

have been very promising. Overall positive aspects

of silvicultural sludge application include:

●

●

●

●

●

low risk of food chain contamination since

forest crops are generally nonedible,

positive vegetative growth response to applications resulting in improved wildlife habitat and

nutritional quality of forage plants,

sequestering and removal of undesirable elements such as heavy metals,

reduced likelihood of surface runoff due to high

permeability of forest soils, and

reduced potential for human contact with

sludge applications due to the distance of

application sites from population centers (80).

Studies indicate sludge application to forestlands to

be economically and technologically feasible. However, the variability of nutrient cycling among
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 95

Table 4-7—Total N, P, and K Concentrations in

Selected Waste Materials

Waste material N P K

Solid or semisolid: a

Composted/shredded

refuse . .................0.57-1 .30

Waste food fiber . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00

Paper mill sludge .... ...... 0.15-2.33

Citric acid production

wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . .....0.51 -4.13

Tomato processing

wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.33

Municipal sewage sludge . . . ‹0.1 -17.6

Liquids: b

Municipal wastewater . . . . . . . . 16-37

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500

Vegetable and fruit

processing wastes . . . . . . . . 19-318

0.08-0.26 0.27-0.98

0.01 0.36

0.16-0.50 0.44-0.85

0.06-0.29 0.01-0.19

0.29 0.28

‹0.10-14.30 0.02-2.64

7-13 14-22

500 1820

4-91 —

Table 4-8-Composition of Nutrients and Heavy

Metals in a Washington, DC, Area Composted

Sewage Sludge

Nutrient components as percent of total:

Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Potassium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heavy metal concentration in parts per million:

Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

<1.50/0

<2.0%

4.2%

<4.O%

1,250.0

500.0

12.5

200.0

500.0

5.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Use of Sewage Sh@e Compost for Soii Improvement and Plant Growth, Agricultural

Reviews and Manuals,ARM-FS% 1979, 1n:Moore,J.A. 1989.

afipre=~on adry-weight basis.

bfipre=~onawe~weight basis (mmmonly called suspended sohds)

SOURCE: L.F. Sommers and P.M. Giordano, “Use of Nitrogen From

Agricultural, Industrial, and Muniapal Wastes,” Nitrogen in Crop

Production (Madison, Wl: ASA-CSSA-SSSA, 1984), pp. 207-

220.

different forest ecosystems requires that site-specific

application rates be determined to generate forest

growth benefits in an environmentally sound manner (80).

Comporting is a popular pretreatment process that

uses sewage sludge and produces an acceptable

product. Several examples exist of large comporting

operations producing and marketing the product to

lawn and garden and agricultural markets. Comporting sludge with an organic material yields a

nearly odorless humuslike material that is free of

enteric pathogens. This product can be used as a soil

amendment and is a minor source of plant nutrients

(table 4-8) (217). Composted materials have a

variety of uses, including applications for agronomic

crops, land reclamation efforts, nursery operations,

and turf grass production. These materials applied at

equivalent fertilizer nutrient rates may generate

higher yields due to the associated improvements in

soil physical properties.

Irrigation with wastewater offers another recycling mechanism. Field experiments show that

nearly 67 percent of applied nitrogen is assimilated

by corn under a wastewater irrigation regime as

compared to 58 percent of applied N from ammonium nitrate. This implies that greater efficiency is

achieved under the wastewater regime. However,

another study on nitrogen assimilation by grasses

showed no appreciable difference between wastewater or conventional fertilizer application regimes

(191).

Opportunities exist to increase the use of wastewater treatment products in an agricultural setting.

However, concerns over the addition of undesirable

sludge components (i,e., heavy metals, pathogens,

etc.) to agricultural systems require consideration. In

addition, further information is needed on the fate of

organic and inorganic nitrogen after field application of wastes to improve management practices and

determination of appropriate application rates of

wastewater treatment products.

Fertilizer Application Rates

Fertilizer application-rate information commonly

is obtained from local agriculture agency offices and

field personnel. Land-grant universities in each state

have developed “Official Fertilizer Recommendations” that are made available to the public through

the Cooperative Extension Service and maybe used

by all segments of agriculture. These recommendations are used by private soil-testing laboratories and

producers in developing fertilizer application rates.

Recommendations are in a continuing state of

review and may be revised as new information

becomes available.

Fertilizer application rates are determined based

on crop nitrogen requirements and nitrogen-use

efficiencies, yield goal, level of available soil

nitrogen, fertilizer replacement values for nutrients

in manure, legume or irrigation water inputs, cultural

practices, and other variables. Plant-available soil

nitrogen is composed of newly applied sources,

residual nitrate in the profile, and that mineralized
96 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

from soil organic matter. Rational fertilizer application regimes incorporate this information to arrive at

appropriate application rates.

Soil- and tissue-testing methods exist to quantify

residual soil nitrate, nitrogen derived from soil

organic matter, and nitrogen levels in plant tissues.

This information can be used to help determine

fertilizer needs. Complex interactions among the

variables governing the availability of soil nitrogen

to plants make accurate determination of efficient

application rates difficult.

Numerous factors affect the accuracy and use of

soil testing in determiningg fertilizer need. The lack

of a generally accepted index for mineralization

means that an accurate picture of the quantity and

release rate of nitrogen during the cropping season

may not be obtained through soil testing.

The currently used residual nitrate test identifies

how much nitrate is contained in the soil. However,

it measures only nitrate present at the time of

sampling, and thus is less useful in areas where

nitrate may be removed before plant uptake as a

result of leaching or denitrification (19). The spring

nitrate test currently under evaluation may be

applicable for humid regions; evidence is now

available to support use of the late spring soil

nitrogen test in Iowa (101). This test measures

residual nitrate and also estimates nitrate that may be

released during the growing season.

Failure to account for all of the various sources of’

nitrogen as fertilizer application rates are determined

can lead to overapplication and increased potential

for nitrogen loss from the cropping system (161).

Computer modeling may become a valuable tool in

determining fertilization schemes. To obtain maximum economic yield and optimum fertilizer-use

efficiency, and to minimize potential impacts on the

environment, a practitioner must be able to accurately manipulate a broad array of data in making

fertilizer application rate decisions. The capability

of computers in such a setting could facilitate this

process (box 4-D) (194, 183).

Nitrogen Use Efficiency

Nitrogen use efficiency describes the extent to

which nitrogen is taken up by crops relative to the

amount remaining in the soil or lost to the environment. Thus, improving nitrogen-use efficiency has

potential to reduce amounts available for leaching

and loss to groundwater. One approach to improving

nitrogen use efficiency is to control vitrification.

Nitrification of ammonium-producing substances

(e.g., fertilizers, animal manures, crop residues)

converts the relatively immobile ammonia to the

mobile form of nitrate. Further action by denitrifying

bacteria may convert nitrate to gaseous forms that

are lost to the atmosphere. Vitrification may be

controlled by:

●

●

●

●

slowing the rate at which fertilizer materials

dissolve in the soil environment,

slowing the rate at which fertilizer releases N to

the soil solution,

timing applications to match plant uptake

patterns and thus compete more effectively

with the nitrifying bacteria, and

using nitrification inhibitors (81).

Recovery of fertilizer nitrogen in the above-ground

portions of grain crops seldom exceeds 50 percent at

recommended application rates and is often lower

(19,152) (table 4-9); these figures vary however,

based on site characteristics. The remaining nitrogen

may be volatilized (denitriffied), immobilized in

microbial tissue and nitrogenous constituents of soil

organic matter, stored as nitrate in the soil profile, or

lost via erosion or leaching to groundwater. The

partitioning of fertilizer N among these fates varies

with soil, cultural, and management conditions.

Nitrogen use efficiency also may be affected by

nitrogen application practices, primarily application

rate, timing, and placement (77).

Realistic Yield Goals

Yield goals should be based on the productive

capacity of the agroecosystem and the crop nitrogen

need. However, yield goals commonly contain a

subjective value that is incorporated into the fertilizer application decision—an individual’s desire to

achieve maximum yield. Overapplication of nutrients commonly is attributed to an overestimation of

the productive capacity of the cropped area.

Fertilizer application rates based on highest yield

year(s) may in fact be inappropriate given the

numerous variables responsible for crop growth

(152). Realistic yield goals are developed by averaging production over past cropping years (generally 5

years) with the addition of no more than five percent

to that value (191). Further, this value should be

calculated on a field-by-field basis to account for the

inherent heterogeneity of the agroecosystem.
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 97

Box 4-D—Modeling as a Tool for Predicting Nitrogen Contamination Potential From

Agricultural Practices

Manipulation of a broad range of data is necessary in order to identify the potential for nitrate movement to

groundwater from agricultural activities. Computer modeling has been instrumental in illustrating agrichemical

movement through the soil profile and current effort is substantial in this field of diagnostic modeling. The following

examples describe a number of models that are helping identify the groundwater vulnerability and the fate of

agrichemicals in the soil environment.

AGNPS-Agricultural NonPoint Source-single event, cell-based model that simulates sediment and nutrient

transport from agricultural watersheds.

DRASTIC---empirical standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential by using hydrogeologic

settings; the seven parameters estimated by the NWWA to be most significant in controlling pollution potential

are: 1) Depth to water table, 2) net Recharge, 3) Aquifer material, 4) Soil, 5) Topography, 6) Impact of the vadose

zone, and 7) Conductivity of the aquifer.

EPIC—Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator-a model to determine the relation between soil erosion and soil

productivity; capable of simulating periods greater than 50 years; incorporates hydrology, weather, erosion,

nutrients, plant growth, soil temperature, tillage, economics, and plant environment control.

GLEAMS-Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems-developed to evalute the effects

of agricultural management systems on the movement of agricultural chemicals in and through the root zone for

field-size areas.

LEACHMN-Leaching Estimates and Chemistry Model Nitrogen-process-based model of water and N

movement, transformations, plant uptake, and N reactions in the unsaturated zone,

NITWAT-Nitrogen and Water Management-developed especially for corn on sandy soils; evaluates N

transformations and transport in relation to crop growth under certain weather and irrigation conditions.

NLEAP-Nitrate Leaching and Economic Analysis Package-computer application package developed to estimate

potential nitrate leaching from agricultural areas and project impacts on associate aquifers.

NTRM-Nitrogen Tillage and Residue Management—model with emphasis on management of nitrogen sources

at the soil surface in conventional and reduced till systems. N transformations and transport are detailed using

the NCSOIL submodel with active and passive N pools.

RZWQM-Root Zone Water Quality Management—in development; will compare alternative management

practices and their potential for groundwater contamination; comprehensive model includes macropore flow and

N cycle description; expert systems approach.

SOURCE: J.W.B. Stewart, R.F. Follctt, and C.V. Cole, “Lntegrationof Organic Matter and Soil Fertility Concepts Into Management Decisions,’

Soil Fertility and Organic iUarter as Critical Components of Production Systems (h4adisou WI: American Society of Agronomy,

Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of Ameriw 1987).

Soil Testing ble nitrogen in making nitrogen application rate

Soil testing is used to diagnose the soil nutrient

content prior to planting to determine fertilizer need.

Plant available nitrogen may be derived from two

soil pools: 1) mineral nitrogen, and 2) nitrogen

mineralized from soil organic matter. While characterization of mineral nitrogen is a relatively simple

procedure, quantification of mineralizable nitrogen

is more difficult (152). Tests that measure phosphorus, potassium, and mineral nitrogen (i.e., nitrate)

levels in soils are well-established laboratory procedures. Testing to assess potential mineralizable

nitrogen may require laboratory or field incubation

and chemical extraction and thus are more costly and

time consuming. Many laboratories use previous

farm management records to account for mineralizarecommendations (152).

Most laboratories conduct chemical extraction of

soils and correlate the results with various soil types

to provide a basis for determiningg fertilizer application rates to provide optimum nutrient availability to

the crop. These studies correlate soil nitrogen

content, application rate, and plant yield to establish

the validity of soil tests in the area where they are

used (194).

The correlative approach is time consuming and

expensive and depends on an assessment of actual

and potentially available nutrients prior to planting.

Further, it is so specific to crop, soil type, and

cultivation technique that transferring recommendations to other settings is inappropriate. An alterna-
98 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 4-9-Recovery of Fertilizer Nitrogen by Corn

in the Application Year and Following Year

Percent recovered Recovery in soil

in following year

N rate lb N/acre Plant soil Total percent

Goodhue Co.:

67 . . . . . . . . . . 51 32 83 5

134 . . . . . . . . . 40 34 74 7

Waseca co.:

89 . . . . . . . . . . 42 37 81 1

178 . . . . . . . . . 35 44 79 1

SOURCE: G.W. Randall, “Who’s Rasponsiide for Nitrates in Groundwater,” presented at 1986 Soils, Fertilizer, and Agricultural Pesticides Short Course, Dec. 9, 1986, Minneapolis, MN.

tive to the correlative approach is the maintenance

concept, whereby fertilizer recommendations are

based on the amount expected to be taken up by the

crop and exported by harvest.

Periodic in-field soil tests would allow farmers to

account for seasonal changes in the amounts of

available plant nutrients-for example, nitrate levels

are highly variable throughout the year as a result of

mineralization, immobilization, denitrification, leaching processes, and changes in soil moisture, temperature, and organic matter level. Thus, depending on

the timing of soil tests, an accurate picture of the

soil’s maeronutrient content may or may not be

obtained. Proper testing techniques such as sampling at appropriate soil depth, accurate delineation

of the management unit to be sampled (i.e., field),

and determining the number of samples to be taken

per management unit are critical to obtaining accurate soil test results (152).

As management changes affect the timing of

cultivation and organic matter incorporation, it will

be necessary to reevaluate existing soil tests for

applicability under the new management system—

requiring costly field experimentation to provide

correlation data. This makes it all the more compelling to understand the processes involved in nitrogen

transformations in soil (194). EPA has suggested

that a joint USDA/EPA soil-testing program be

undertaken in an effort to reduce the volume of

nitrogen applied to U.S. cropland (69).

Tissue testing of crops for overall nitrogen and

nitrate content offers another technique that may be

used to determine nitrogen deficiency or sufficiency.

Indices exist that identfy sufficiency, deficiency,

and excessive nitrogen content for specific plant

parts of numerous crops. Comparison of tissue test

results with these values then provides information

as to crop nitrogen need.

Correct timing of tissue tests and testing of correct

plant part axe critical to obtaining a representative

sample and thus accurate test results. Although

tissue sampling techniques have not been examined

as widely as those for soil tests, the number of

samples should account for heterogeneity of soils

and plant biology to obtain a representative sample

for the management unit tested (152).

Fertilizer Replacement Value

Fertilizer replacement value (nitrogen credits or

FRV) is a method to assess the N-supplying

capability of a legume preceding growth of a

nonlegume. Values represent the amount of manufactured nitrogen fertilizer that would be required to

produce a corn yield equivalent to that following a

legume under otherwise comparable test conditions

(57,91). Legumes so evaluated are interpreted as

replacing various amounts of fertilizer nitrogen for

the frost nonlegume cropping season after legume

plowdown. FRVs vary among and within cropping

regions due to site-specific factors, crop species, and

management methods. In many tests, the FRV for

perennial legumes (e.g., alfalfa) is similar to the

nitrogen fertilizer rates recommended for corn.

The FRV approach may be used to estimate the

minimum amount of fertilizer nitrogen required by

a nonlegume following a legume. One shortcoming

of the approach is that the magnitude of the FRV

estimated in a specific experiment depends strongly

on the fertilizer-use efficiency of the nonlegume.

Thus, this approach may not provide accurate

assessment of the contribution of legume N to a

succeeding crop. Recent studies involving radiolabeled N15 indicate that the FRV may in fact

overestimate the ability of a legume to provide N to

succeeding crops (86).

Timing of Fertilizer Application

Nutrient accumulation patterns vary among crops

and even among cultivars, thus, timing nutrient

application to coincide with greatest crop need

provides an opportunity to reduce nutrient loss to the

environment. Varying rates of nitrogen release from

nutrient sources may complicate efforts to match

nitrogen availability with maximum crop need.

However, reduction in the time interval between

application of fertilizers and time of maximum crop
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 99

uptake may reduce the potential for leaching and

denitrification losses (165,77).

A variety of fertilizer application regimes are

practiced including fall, spring preplant, and split.

Each regime generates slightly different benefits and

all have differing potentials for nutrient contamination of groundwater. Multiple, small applications of

fertilizer generally promote better plant uptake and

thus reduce the potential for nitrate loss via leaching

as compared to a single, large application. Fertigation (i.e., fertilizer application in irrigation water)

may be particularly advantageous for multiple

applications under certain irrigation regimes such as

sprinkler systems that allow uniform water distribution (19).

In many regions it is common to apply fertilizers

in the fall for subsequent spring crops. While this

practice reduces the demands on a grower’s time

during spring planting season, it may create potential for denitrification and in some cases leaching

losses. However, in dryer regions where leaching is

unlikely this practice may not pose a potential

hazard. Application techniques that may improve

the efficacy of fall applications include use of a

nitrification inhibitor and application after the soil

reaches a critical temperature (i.e., 45° F) that

inhibits nitrification of applied nitrogen.

Preplant applications, weeks before maximum

uptake, are common for tall-growing crops like corn

that can be damaged by application of fertilizers

later in their growing season. Such practices clearly

expose nitrate to the leaching potential of rainfall

and irrigation prior to nutrient uptake by a crop

(208).

Split applications generally entail a starter application of fertilizer with a subsequent application

later in the growing season. This method is designed

to reduce the amount of nitrogen remaining in the

soil and available for nitrification and potential

losses from the cropping system as well as to match

nitrogen availability to the time of the crops’

maximum nitrogen uptake requirements.

Application Technology

Fertilizers may be distributed before primary

tillage, at planting time, and supplementally during

the growing season. By far the majority of plant

nutrients are applied to the soil for uptake by plant

roots and are incorporated into root zone by tillage,

direct injection, or leaching with rainfall or irrigation

water (208). Dry or solid forms of urea and

ammonium nitrate may be broadcast and high-

-pressure anhydrous ammonia is injected or

“knifed” in to the soil. These forms comprise the

greatest market share of applied fertilizer materials

in the United States. Liquid fertilizer forms are also

broadcast or dribbled on soil or plant surfaces. Spray

applications are widespread in custom applications

since they allow relatively rapid coverage over large

areas (164).

A variety of methods exist for fertilizer application, including broadcast, injection, banding, in-row,

side-dress, top-dress, and foliar. Broadcast applications entail distribution of fertilizer across an entire

field surface. The fertilizer then may be mixed into

the soil or left on the surface and allowed to move

into the soil with moisture (rainfall or irrigation).

Use of nonhomogeneous particles, however, may

result in nonuniform distribution and thus over- or

under-fertilization in parts of the field (152).

Injection application methods may be used with

gaseous, liquid, or solid fertilizer materials. Gaseous

and liquid forms generally are knifed into the soil,

while solid forms may be placed in slots or furrows

created by shanks or chisels. Banding of fertilizers

may be done either at planting or after the crop has

emerged. Solid fertilizer may be placed on the soil

surface in strips between crops rows and liquid

forms may be injected below and to either side of the

seed. Fertilizer is applied during planting and

directly next to the seed in in-row application.

In-row application generally is used for starter

fertilizers.

Side-dress applications are used to apply fertilizer

to an established row crop, generally in a band

beside the row. Either surface or injection application methods may be used in side-dressing of

fertilizers. Top-dress fertilizer applications are liquid or solid forms broadcast over an established

crop. Foliar applications of fertilizers involve spraying of liquid forms onto plant foliage or application

through a sprinkler irrigation system (i.e., fertigation). Sprayed applications generally are taken up by

plant leaves while uptake under irrigation applications may largely be through the plant roots.

An important consideration in fertilizer application is the placement of the fertilizer to avoid

positional unavailability of the nutrient for the

growing crop. Depth and location of fertilizer
100 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

placement relative to the crop rhizosphere is critical

in assuring maximum nutrient uptake. In areas

where the soil surface dries out and retards root

activity, placement must be deep enough to allow

extraction by the roots (164).

Point injection of liquid fertilizers has the potential to reduce certain avenues of nitrogen loss and is

useful in conventional and conservation tillage

systems. Developed by Iowa State University, the

spoked wheel applicator injects fertilizer solution

about 4 to 5 inches below the soil surface and at

about 8-inch intervals. This method of introducing

nutrients nearly eliminates runoff potential, requires

less horsepower than conventional equipment, and

reduces disturbance to residue layer. This technology is compatible with postemergence application to

crop, thus allowing improvement in timing of

application to greatest crop nitrogen uptake. Further,

it allows positioning of nitrogen in ridges for

ridge-till systems, reducing problems of positional

unavailability of nutrients. Although testing has

demonstrated significant yield increases with this

technology, additional work is needed to bring the

applicator to market (55,183).

Precision application methods offer some potential for reducing overapplication of fertilizer materials to U.S. cropland. Soil nutrient content may be

highly variable across a single field, thus fertilization schemes that seek to ensure adequate amounts

to the least fertile segment of a given field easily may

overfertilize other parts. Application methods that

take into account the heterogeneity of soil nutrient

content can reduce overfertilization. For example, a

precision fertilizer application system is capable of

taking 3,000 soil-nitrate tests per acre and adjusting

application rates based on these tests (29). The user

determines desired soil nitrate content and the

applicator system tests the in-soil nitrate level and

then applies the amount needed to meet the predetermined level. The number of nitrate tests the system

is capable of performing can account for the

heterogeneity of soil nitrogen level in a field.

PEST MANAGEMENT

Pesticide use has changed dramatically over the

years, in terms of compounds used and amount of

cropland treated. Some of these changes seem linked

to environmental concerns (e.g., decline in organochlorine insecticides), while others may be the result

of certain agricultural programs. Prior to World War

II, agricultural pest control methods relied largely on

tillage, crop rotation, and hand removal of pests.

Available pest control chemicals were expensive

and contained inorganic, highly toxic components

(e.g., copper, lead, antimony, arsenic). Development

of new pest control chemicals during World War II,

and improvements in application technology, fostered a pest control approach that replaced older,

more labor-intensive practices (254).

Phenoxy herbicides and organochlorine insecticides became popular pest control chemicals after

World War II. However, in the mid- 1960s their use

declined in favor of triazine and amide herbicides

and carbamate and organophosphate insecticides.

The 1970s witnessed an increase in herbicide use on

major field crops, while insecticide use declined

largely in response to lower doses associated with

newly introduced pyrethroids. Pesticide use seemed

to stabilize or even decline in some cases during the

1980s, perhaps as a response to acreage diversion

programs (148).

Pesticides are applied to agricultural crops to

reduce yield losses due to insects, diseases, and

weeds that even today destroy almost one-third of all

food crops (73). Pesticide use has risen roughly

1,900 percent in the 50-year period between 1930

and 1980 (73). The percentage of herbicide-treated

cropland planted to corn, cotton, and wheat climbed

from about 10 percent in 1952 to nearly 95 percent

by 1980 (148).

Generally, pesticide applications are considered

effective if they achieve the desired degree of pest

control, and economical if the crop yield and quality

response is above and beyond the cost of chemicals

and their application. Opportunities may exist to

reduce volumes of applied agrichemicals; develop

safer effective compounds (box 4-E); and develop

improved application methods that might address

concerns over the potential adverse environmental

effects of pesticide use (93).

Pesticides are broadly classified on the basis of

the kinds of pests they control (e.g., insecticides,

herbicides, fungicides, nematicides, rodenticides,

and miticides). Chemicals used for defoliation,

desiccation, soil fumigation, and plant-growth regulation also are classified as pesticides (79)(box 4-F).

Most pesticides are organic chemicals; some are

synthetic, others are of natural origin. Many contain

chlorine, nitrogen, sulfur, or phosphorus that determine the toxicological impacts of the compounds,
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 101

Box 4-E—Biological Pesticides

Biopesticides are naturally occurring toxins and microorganisms that tend to be highly specific for a particular

pest (206), Attributes of biopesticides include target specificity, low production costs, and biodegradability (22).

Currently biopesticides comprise a small part of the overall market ($35 million); however, it is estimated that

growth will increase rapidly (22).

Persistence of biopesticides is low; generally they are proteins that degrade quickly when exposed to the

environment. This may be percieved as a drawback since multiple applications of biopesticides may be needed to

control pest infestations relative to conventional chemicals. However, new techniques in packaging might address

this feature (22).

Most biopesticides tend to be pest specific, which means that more than one agent maybe needed for multiple

infestations. However, potential exists to combine agents into one delivery vector (22). Certain biopesticides are

effective against more than one pest species. One such pesticide, an extract of the seeds of a tropical evergreen, the

neem tree (Azadirachta indica), shows promise as an insecticide with little or no toxic effects to mammals and

effectiveness against a number of pests that have resistance to other commercial chemical pesticides (97,89).

Biological herbicides have been developed that use soil bacteria and fungi to retard weed growth. A strain of

Pseudomonas is being tested by Iowa State and Texas A&M Universities as a potential bioherbicide for downy

brome (cheatgrass) in wheat. Applying the bacterium prior to planting may increase yields as much as 35 percent.

The soil fungus Gliocladium virens may have some potential as a broad spectrum herbicide. The fungus was

effective on 15 of the 16 weed species on which it was tested in University of California-Berkeley studies (1 37).

Photo credit: Colorado State University—Ralph Baker

Other biological control agents include fungal parasites

prey on other soil fungi that are pathogenic to plants. Here,

a photograph taken through a scanning electron

microscope shows how the parasite penetrates its host.

Nearly 50,000 pesticide products are now registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) (62), although only a few are used extensively. The agricultural sector accounted for at least

75 percent of all pesticides applied in the United

States in 1988 (236). Pesticide use on major crops

has grown from 225 million pounds of active

ingredient in 1964 to 558 million pounds in 1982,

with greater herbicide use accounting for a significant part of this increase (148). Projected pesticide

use for 1989 was 463 million pounds of active

ingredient (228). This decrease from previous years

may reflect a reduction in treated acres generated by “

acreage reduction programs (148) or a reduction in

total amount applied as a result of the lower

application rates allowed by newer pesticides (229).

Some 1,800 weed species cause an estimated 10

percent annual production loss in U.S. agriculture

(valued at nearly $12 billion) (7), and farmers spend

at least $8 billion annually for weed control.

Herbicides comprise the greatest part of the pesticide market and account for most pesticide detections in groundwater to date.

Pest control practices may be initiated based on

pest scouting—monitoring to determine existence of

a pest problem. Depending on the type of pest

identified, the organization of the production system, and the extent of infestation, various control

approaches may be used. Additional monitoring of

the pest population may be initiated if the extent of

infestation is deemed to be below an economic

threshhold. 4 If infestation is significant, pesticides

4Econofic ~e~hold is defm~ ~ the level at ~hich he costs of con~ol Me equivalent [o the benefi~ to be derived fmm conmol IIl&NllRS. ThiSk31Tll

also includes a subjective value-risk aversion of the producer-that makes the definition somewhat variable based on the individual.
102 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 4-F—Plant Growth Regulators

Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are organic compounds that are applied to promote, inhibit, or otherwise

modify plant physiological processes (21). Such compounds have been used on horticultural crops since the 1940s

and have been applied to agronomic crops during the last 20 years (31). Their use on agronomic crops largely is

limited to antilodging for cereals, maturation and yield enhancements in cotton, and enhancing sugar content of

sugarcane (31). Major categories of effects of PGRs include:

. yield enhancement—inhibition of certain growth patterns may stimulate greater fruit set (e.g., mepiquat

chloride used on cotton has been shown to increase cotton yields by 6 to 8 percent),

Ž conservation of energy or labor requirements-stimulation of uniform maturation allowing harvest in fewer

passes,

● quality control—stimulation of ripening promoting uniform maturation, also applications postharvest to

enhance product appearance,

● morphological control—through inhibition of certain growth patterns, application of PGRs may stimulate

a preferred growth pattern (e.g., inhibition of flowering may stimulate increased vegetative growth giving

rise to denser foliage, particularly important in ornamentals) (31) .

At least 75 percent of the cotton grown in the United States is defoliated or dessicated annually using plant

growth regulators. Other crops that commonly recieve dessication treatments to facilitate harvest include: soybeans,

rice, potatoes, grain sorghum, sunflower, lentils, trefoil, dry beans, guar, and sugarcane. Many of these defoliants

have been placed on EPA’s Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration lists (31).

PGRs commonly are applied as foliar sprays. They must be retained on the plant surfaces in order to be

effective, since the desired response depends on absorption of PGRs through the plant tissue and translocation to

the appropriate reaction site (21). However, performance of these chemicals maybe affected by numerous factors

internal and external to the plant. Lack of performance consistency has been noted in certain PGRs (31) and may

be a symptom of such effects.

Research directions in PGRs are focused on increasing plant protein content, enhancing plant stress tolerance,

promoting development of vegetative tissue, and mediating plant flowering (31). Disadvantages of some defoliants

and dessicants include expense, unpleasant odors, explosive or flammable properties, and high mammalian toxicity.

An increasingly important research area is the search for herbicide resistance. Protestants or safeners may be applied

to a crop (usually seed) so that when herbicides are applied to the crop row only the non-protected plants are killed

(214). Concern exists over this trend and the potential for accelerating herbicide use or promoting indiscriminate

use.

may be used, requiring decisions on application identify pest problems that may otherwise have been

method, timing, and rate of application. Alternative

control measures (e.g., cultural or biological controls) may be used in lieu of or in conjunction with

pesticides. All of these strategies are combined in the

development of integrated pest management (lPM)

programs (210,254).

Pest Scouting

A number of pest-scouting techniques exist,

including visual inspection, pheromone traps, and

other highly technical counting and collection methods. Once pest populations reach an economic

threshhold level, pest control methods may be

undertaken. In this way scouting can diminish the

need for certain pesticide ‘‘insurance” applications

(73), however, some pests (e.g., diseases, nematodes) may not be easily scouted. Scouting also may

unnoticed and thus result in increased pesticide use.

Scouting can help determine pest pressure and

“hot spots,” allowing selective application of a

specific pesticide based on need (73). Farm scouts or

pest consultants recommend correct pesticide application time to farmers based on accurate identification of a pest problem, stage of crop growth, weather

forecasts, and other factors (73).

Pesticides

Although pesticides are credited with a high rate

of food and fiber production at relatively low cost,

increasing concern has been expressed since the

1960s over the potential hazards and long-term

environmental impacts associated with their use.

Despite these concerns, however, overall pesticide

use has not decreased significantly.
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 103

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultureal Research Service

Insect traps loaded with pheromone are used to estimate

pest populations for integrated pest management. Here, a

research entomologist observes the night flight pattern of

a moth through infrared glasses.

The potential for groundwater contamination by

pesticides depends on pesticidal properties (e.g.,

half-life, mobility), application method, physical

and chemical soil properties, depth to groundwater,

and amount of irrigation and precipitation (159).

Impacts of pesticide use on the environment are

determined by the transport of the chemicals; their

persistence, degradation, and dissipation in the

environment; and the hazards associated with pesticides and their metabolizes (figure 4-5). Pesticide

use practices developed with these factors considered, thus, offer an opportunity to protect groundwater resources (254).

Improved efficacy of the newer pesticides has

allowed reductions in total active ingredient applied

per acre (figure 4-6); lower doses generally are

achieved through increased pesticide toxicity. The

capability for accurate delivery of such small

amounts to the target pest, however, is questioned.

For example, numerous researchers have estimated

that only 1 to 2 percent of foliar-applied insecticides

arrive at the target pest (71,156). However, the

efficiency of any pesticide application will depend

on a variety of factors, including: the method of

application, weather conditions during application,

equipment operating condition, time of year, crop

type, volume of liquid used, pesticide formulation,

and pest location and density. Further, the avenues

for loss from the time of application to the point of

contact with the active site in the target pest are

numerous (figure 4-7). Additional improvements in

intrinsic activity of pesticides may, in fact, be offset

by inefficiencies in delivery mechanisms. Thus,

despite complicating factors, it seems clear that

improvement in delivery systems, then, may offer

additional opportunities to enhance the intrinsic

activity of pesticides (73).

Concerns over the identified and potential harmful effects of pesticide chemicals in the environment

has promulgated efforts to improve current use

practices and identify alternative pest control approaches. Major research and development foci

include:

use reduction (e.g., fewer applications, lower

levels of active ingredient);

improved delivery systems (e.g., electrostatic

sprayers, pheromone baits);

environmentally more acceptable chemicals

(e.g., biopesticides); and

nonchemical approaches (e.g., cultural, genetic, or biological controls).

In addition to the current broad concern over

environmental hazards of pesticide use, several

other issues are associated with chemical pest

control, including: 1) human exposure to pesticides

(from the application process or where humans enter

recently treated areas), 2) pest resistance, and 3)

secondary pest outbreaks.

Pest Resistance—Resistance to a chemical may

develop rapidly as pest life cycles may be short—

some passing three or more generations in a single

growing season. Within pest populations some

individuals with genetic resistance to a chemical

exist. As these individuals survive and reproduce,

resistance is passed on to succeeding generations.

Ultimately, a pesticide-resistant population devel-
104 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 4-5-Environmental Fate Pathways for Pesticides

Boom sprayer

etc. )

Absorption through roots

(spacing; root geometry)

Water table

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ....0.

I

● . .0 . . ● ● .* . . ● . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . ● ● . . . . . ● ● 0 ● ● ● .0.. ● . ● . . .

Groundwater Lateral flow

contamination

(may be metabolizes or

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990. breakdown products)

ops. For this reason, most pesticides have a finite Effect on Nontarget Organisms and Secondary

effective life. For example, as of 1986, resistance Pest Outbreaks—Pesticides generally are effective

had been reported in at least 447 species of ‘insects against a broad spectrum of plant-associated orgaand mites, 100 species of plant pathogens, 48 weed nisms of which only a fraction are considered pests.

species, 5 species of rodents, and 2 nematode species Thus, while a pesticide maybe applied to control a

(61). specific pest, it may also cause declines in beneficial
Chapter &Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 105

Figure 4-6-Evolution in Rate of Application of

Insecticides

Kg/ha

I

I

20

i

1.5- ,

1.0-

●

0.5- ● ° ● 0

I

u 1 1 1

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

SOURCE: H. Geissbuhler, “Advances in Pesticide Science,” International

IUPAC Congress of Pasticide Chemistry (New York, NY:

Pergamon Press, 1981).

populations. Such adverse effects on beneficial

populations may create the conditions for secondary

pest outbreaks. For example, continued use of a

single herbicide or herbicide group may lead to

prevalence of weed species not affected by the

herbicide group (7). Also, natural control agents can

be adversely affected by chemical applications

directed toward the bona fide pest species. Secondary pest populations may then emerge as natura l

predator populations decline .

The effects of pesticides on soil fauna are highly

complex, making generalizations difficult. Controlling variables include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

the abundance of biocidal compounds from

various chemical families,

differences in persistence of pesticide compounds in the environment,

the diversity of invertebrate organisms in

different soil communities,

metabolic products of different organisms that

ingest pesticides,

chemical and physical heterogeneity of agroecosystems, and

the agricultural practices of pesticide users

(39). -

Where effects of pesticides in the soil environment have been observed and analyzed, the biotic

responses are variable. Pesticides may affect soil

fauna directly or indirectly; however, only certain

organisms are adversely affected and some populations actually may increase. Certain pesticide residues may accumulate in the tissues of some soil

organisms with no apparent ill effects, while certain

sensitive species are killed from acute or chronic

exposure. In almost all cases, the structures and

functions of soil communities are modified by

pesticide use (39),

Inhibitions of microbial activity are most pronounced from fungicides and fumigants and suppression may remain for long periods. The impact

may be so great that the natural balance among the

resident soil microbial populations is upset and new

organisms may become prominent. Moreover, certain nutrient cycles regulated by microorganisms are

inhibited by fungicides and fumigants in such a way

that significant adverse effects on plant growth and

nutrition become evident. The lack of widespread

concern for these antimicrobial agents is explained

by the fact that they are not as widely used as

insecticides and herbicides—the two major classes

of pesticides (2).

Insecticides have received most attention in the

past and are often acutely toxic as compared to other

pesticides. These compounds may be applied directly to the soil for the control of soil-borne insects,

or they may reach the soil from aerial drift or when

previously treated plant residues are incorporated

into the soil during cultivation.

While some soil microbial processes or populations may be inhibited by the presence of insecticides, the beneficial effects of insecticides in controlling insect pests argue for their use. Few instances of major suppressions of microbial activities

in the field have been noted (2); however, further

investigation of the links between pesticide use and

modification of soil microbe populations seems

warranted.

Herbicides are designed to control weed growth.

Generally, small amounts of herbicide are used per

unit of land area and the compounds are relatively

selective for target plants, so little or no inhibition of

other soil processes has been noted. In some

instances, herbicides alter microbial activities, possibly because the suppression of target plant species

may limit the availability of organic nutrients

needed by microorganisms. These effects seem

slight and have not raised questions over the use of

particular chemicals (2). Herbicide use in no-till

agriculture, however, is a matter of increasing
106 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 4-7-Typical Losses of Aerial Foliar Insecticide Application Between the Spray Nozzle and

Site of Toxic Action

Drift and

misapplication

Volatilization

leaching, and -

surface transport

Off target >

crop

Off target >

insect

Off target

area

Ground, other nontarget

surfaces in target area

Residue on

treated crop

inhalation, and

ingestion <1 0

/0

Site of toxic

action inside

insect <<1%

SOURCE: R. Von Rumker, E.W. Lawless, and A.F. Meiners, “Production, Distribution, Use, and Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides,”

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide programs, and Council on Environmental Quality, 1974.

concern because of the higher level of application Despite demonstrated problems with chemical

associated with these cultivation systems (7). How- pest-control approaches, numerous factors constrain

ever, under certain reduced-tillage systems, these use reduction (e.g., efficacy of alternative control

increases may be short-term; evidence exists show- methods, economic viability, practitioner risk pering that applications may drop significantly after 5 ceptions). The demand for perfect cosmetic appearyears (11 1). ances of food by an affluent buying public may
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 107

Box 4-G—Pesticide Best Management Practices

Pesticide management practices that may reduce the amount of agrichemicals lost to the environment and

potentially to groundwater include:

. following label instructions/documenting application practice and use patterns;

● application at the correct time per recommendations from scout/consultant;

Ž use of optimized approach rather than maximum label rate at the fill site; monitoring application so that tank

is empty at end of the field to minimize waste being disposed of at fill-up site;

● use of small nurse tanks to dilute spray mixes remaining in pump and booms-spraying of this dilute mixture

on way back to spray pads;

. tank rinsing with greatly diluted mixture to eliminate major point source contamination;

● calibration of application equipment (tagging yearly with calibration date);

. adjustment of spray volume and application rate by field, based on scouting information;

. following proper procedures for pesticide container disposal (on-farm demos by extension personnel);

● use of sound on-farm economic models to explore production/cost/crop loss relationships, thus diminishing

tendency to insure, i.e., put it in the tank just to be sure;

. proper use of irrigation and better timing of sprays based on weather predictions to minimize movement

through soil; and

● judicious management of pesticides based on selection, timing, dosage, and placement (ecological

selectivity).

SOURCE: F.R. Hall, “Improving Pesticide Management Practices, ” conmctor report prepared for the (Xtlce of Technology Assessment

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, August 1989).

contribute to continued pesticide use despite grow- transfer to target pests (73). Most of these properties

ing evidence of pest resistance, groundwater contamination, or adverse health impacts on farmworkers (73). Premium prices received for cosmetically

appealing fruits and vegetables make it difficult to

produce and market these foods profitably without

chemicals (73).

It seems likely that despite intensified and accelerated research on nonchemical pest control methods, there probably will be continued need for some

chemical pesticides in agricultural production. Analysts have suggested that agricultural pesticide use

has modified agroecosystems sufficiently such that

significant losses to pests occur when chemical use

is discontinued (43). Despite this, potential exists to

reduce some of the adverse impacts associated with

pesticide use through improving agrichemical application methods, rate and timing, and developing of

safer pest control compounds (box 4-G).

Formulation

The pesticide formulation provides for dispersion

of the product in application media (e.g., water),

product integrity/stability in storage, and ability of

the pure pesticide to move through lipid barriers to

the biological site of activity. Formulation may

affect the release rate of the active ingredient, reduce

volubility and leaching potential, and optimize dose

affect the efficacy of foliar-applied pesticides. Increased attention is now being given to formulation

chemistry with emphasis on increasing ability of

product to move through waxy layers of leaf

surfaces, thus increasing efficacy and pesticide

retention on plant surfaces (60). Formulation chemistry has an overwhelming effect on pesticide

efficacy relative to application technologies and

physical properties of spray materials (60). While

chemistry of a product may not change for years,

formulation often changes.

Pesticides are formulated in several physical

types: liquids (aqueous, oil, emulsifiable concentrates); solids (dust, wettable powders, granules,

encapsulated products); and gases (fumigants). Progress has been made toward new formulations that

enable additional products to be applied as liquid

sprays (60). For example, active ingredients that are

not easily diluted in water require specific formulation to allow mixing with water (60). The type of

formulation depends on the chemical nature of the

pesticide, target pest, and other pesticidal properties

(60,208).

The density of granular products significantly

affects pesticide performance and deposition, While

granules have less drift potential, they require

moisture to release the active ingredient to the soil.
108 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Highly magnified granule of a starch-encapsulated

herbicide shows pores through which herbicide is slowly

released. Use of slow-release agrichemical formulations

can reduce potential for high concentrations to leach to

groundwater.

Thus, the release pattern is unlikely to be uniform

because of variability in the carrier and soil.

Opportunities also exist for improving application

processes with existing equipment by improving

formulations. For example, products that improve

droplet size distribution of sprays may reduce the

potential for pesticide drift from the application area

(60). Liquid formulations, with a uniform state and

higher quality control in manufacture, may increase

uniformity of application (73). Controlled-release

formulations (e.g., starch-encapsulated herbicides,

ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers incorporated with

pesticides) may reduce leaching potential in certain

soils (73).

Formulation directly affects the physical properties of the final spray material and is an important

factor in achieving accurate flow-rate measurements

over a wide range of sprayer application rates (60).

Similarly, if formulation fails to exploit the physical

properties of a soil insecticide, delivery efficiency

may be improved by application technology (72)

and careful determination of application rates.

Pesticide Application Rates

Significant effort in terms of exhaustive field

trials under varied climatic conditions goes into

setting the recommended use rate for a pesticidethe level at which application is effective and meets

environmental acceptability standards. Setting the

application rate too low generates risk of product

failure while setting it too high risks denial of

approval by regulatory agencies (60), increases

product cost, and lowers the flexibility in meeting

food tolerance standards.

The trend toward reduction in active ingredient

applied per acre has resulted in steadily declining

application rates of insecticides from nearly 4.5

lb/acre (with carbaryl) to as low as 0.2 oz/acre with

the new synthetic pyrethroids (73). However, these

lower application rates generally indicate powerful

active ingredients that may damage the crop if

improperly applied. Small amounts of pesticides

used per acre suggests that intrusion rates into

surrounding environment would also be low. This

suggestion, however, is complicated by the fact that

off-target movement can vary widely depending on

numerous variables, including crop type, soil factors, application system, rate and frequency of

chemical application, and time of year. The capability to deliver small pesticide amounts effectively is

questioned (71), suggesting that improvement in

delivery systems should accompany efforts to enhance the intrinsic activity of pesticides.

Identification of pest tolerance levels for specific

crops and cropping systems may offer another

opportunity to reduce pesticide use. Weed-free

fields, for example, may not be economically

optimal. In a weed tolerance experiment conducted

by ARS and Colorado State University, a one-sixth

reduction in herbicide use had no effect on corn

yields (cf: 103,137). These results suggest that

reduction in chemical use may not necessarily result

in depressed yields. Label-recommended application rates are developed on a nationwide basis;

however, further work that identities what level of

application produces economic yield could assist in

revision of recommended application rates for specific sites and cropping situations.

Improved methods of delivering a pesticide to a

selected target may affect application rates as well.

Recently, the conventional practice of intermittently

banding aldicarb granules along a row of trees

(citrus) was replaced by a system based on sensing
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 109

the trees with infrared photocells and then metering

out the needed quantity of granules. Thus, the same

pest control effect was achieved using significantly

less material (73).

Pesticide Application Technology

The goal of pesticide application technology is to

allow deposition of a precise amount of a formulated

product on a specific target without exposing

nontarget organisms to the pesticide (60). However,

basic understanding of the complexities of agrichemical application technology has not kept pace with

advancements in chemicals themselves or with

public concerns for the environment (73). Chemicals

that decompose readily and rapidly in the soil are of

lesser concern than more persistent compounds that

may be distributed broadly in the environment.

In general, costs of herbicides and insecticides

have increased over the past 3 years, Pesticide

manufacturing prices and dealer costs (e.g., liability

insurance) have increased as well during this time

period (table 4-10). This trend may create some

incentive for producers to focus on more costeffective applications of pesticides.

Since the early 1980s there have been numerous

meetings and conferences focusing on agrichemical

application technology and its role in determining

the environmental fate of chemicals. The first

national conference on the subject in 1985 concentrated on the hardware aspects of application technology and a following conference in 1988 focused

on operator training and technology for improved

operation of application equipment. However, few

of the recommendations that emerged from these

meetings have been followed (60).

While the efficiency of many application techniques is known to be low, the inherent variation of

biological systems and a lack of significant research

and development efforts hinder improvement. Lack

of calibrated equipment is the number one problem

for effective pesticide management-current equipment cannot easily deliver consistently lower pesticide rates with the necessary accuracy (73). Opportunities for improvement in application technology

lie in permitting variable amounts of pesticide to be

applied within a field (60) and in improving

application accuracy. This may be done by improved

calibration, mixing calculations, and monitoring

equipment; equipment for incorporating pesticides

that need to be mixed with the soil to proper soil

Table 4-10-U.S. Average Farm Retail Pesticide Prices

Pesticidea

1987 1988 1989

Dollars per pound

(active ingredient)

Herbicides:

Alachlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.84

Atrazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20

Butylate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.04

Cyanazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.63

Metolachlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.03

Trifluralin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3

2,4-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44

Composititeb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.05

Insecticides:

Carbaryl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9

Carbofuran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.57

Chlorpyrifos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.25

Fonofos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.70

Methyl parathion.. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.82

Phorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.59

Pyrethroidsd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.8

Terbufos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.79

Compositeb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.25

5.10

2.28

3.10

4.78

6.21

6.45

2.53

4.2

4.06

9.36

8.5

8.83

2.94

6.68

50.00

9.88

10.57

5.40

2.7

3.10

5.03

6.61

6.60

2.60

4.43

4.07

9.51

9.05

8.96

3.85

6.85

53.20

10.13

10.88

aDerivgd from the April survey of farm supply dealers mnduct~ by the

NASS, USDA.

blnd~es above materi~s and other major materials, flOt prOdu*

registered in the last 2 to 3 years.

csumli~ by Fr~ Goke, MS Agricultural E.Xpf3flment station.

d Average of fenvaierate and permethnn prices b=d on 2.6 pounds of

active ingredient per gallon.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,

Agncutfmd Resources: Inputs, Situation and Outlook AR-15

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August

1989), p. 26.

depth; and education in the use of such equipment

(60).

Pesticides commonly are only as effective as the

application method (60). Changes in product packaging and formulation pose one of the greatest

challenges to development of pesticide application

equipment. Such formulation changes can affect the

physical properties of the final pesticide material

and thus affect the efficacy of the delivery mechanism. Pesticides used selectively to control specific

pests without adversely affecting beneficial organisms may require highly precise application technology capable of delivering the compound at a rate

small enough to avoid affecting beneficial organisms, yet large enough to control the pest.

Recent trends toward foliar-applied pesticides

and lower application rates will require increased

precision in application technology than was needed

a decade ago. While these new trends have potential

to decrease over application and to reduce contact of

pesticides with the soil and thus soil water, the

requirements for increased application precision
110 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

may exceed current application technology capability (60).

Simultaneous application of several pesticides

(tank mixes) has increased dramatically, placing

added requirements on pesticide application technology. This trend is particularly significant for

injection sprayer systems because up to three

different pesticides may be injected into the sprayer

boom during application. Still other requirements

are arising with the trend toward faster, lighter

weight applicators that apply pesticides at low or

ultra-low sprayer application rates and with less

diluent (water) (60).

Pesticide application technology research and

development started to increase in the 1960s and

peaked in the 1970s. However, Federal and State

research efforts have diminished significantly since

that time with herbicide application technology

effort alone decreasing from 11.1 scientist years to

2.5 between the years 1972 and 1982 (table 4-11).

Similar trends are found in equipment development

for insect and disease control (60).

Resources invested in development of application

equipment are small relative to those invested in

pesticide product development, which may range

from $20 to $40 billion over 7 to 10 years (60).

Advances in chemical technology have and continue

to outdistance research and development of application technology. Causes for this condition include

depressed equipment sales; lack of financial incentives for fundamental research by the application

equipment industry; lack of basic information about

the application process; and inadequate communication among users, manufacturers, and researchers

(73). Only recently have some of the larger chemical

companies tried to coordinate formulation development with application technology; much more effort

is needed, however (60).

Currently ARS has the largest investment in

application research effort. This is concentrated

primarily in Texas, the Southwest, and Ohio. Development of agrichemical application equipment also

is significant in the United Kingdom and some

eastern European countries. Improved granule distribution equipment has been developed in France

(60).

A few small companies, specialized to serve

different market segments, are the major developers

of pesticide application technology in the United

Table 4-n-Agricultural Engineering Research for

Weed Control Equipment Development

Year ARS State Total

(SY) (SY) (SY)

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 2.0 6.2

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 1.5 4.4

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.7 3.5

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.8 2.5

SOURCE: C.G. McWhorter and M.R. Gebhardt (eds.), Hebk2& A@cafion Te&rto/ogy (Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of

America, 1988), p iii.

States. Most large machinery manufacturers do not

consider application equipment to be an important

profit segment of the market but rather an essential

complement to other product lines. For example,

there are only two U.S. manufacturers of nozzles,

valves, screens, and other hydraulic sprayer components (60). Herbicide application technology has

lagged ever further behind that of insecticide and

fungicide application technology, even though herbicides account for most pesticide use (71).

Despite relatively small investments in development of application technology, improvement has

been made in overall accuracy of application equipment. Equipment designed to apply pesticides within

plus or minus five percent of the recommended rate

now exists. This constitutes a vast improvement

over equipment used 40 years ago. Various pesticide

applicator designs have been developed to increase

uniformity of spray coverage, reduce drift, increase

deposition at desired locations, and reduce volume

of diluent-i.e., hydraulic sprayers, pneumatic sprayers, airblast devices, propeller-driven applicators,

spinning cages, and spinning disks.

Certain application equipment development efforts are focusing on increasing the application

accuracy by improving existing sprayer components. Although basic sprayer components have not

changed, they are manufactured more accurately and

have improved hydraulic components. Further, several new components designed to improve application efficiency are now available, many of them

using modern electronics to control the application

rate and to measure the amount applied per field or

unit area. Most sprayers are now equipped with

devices to agitate the spray mixture to ensure that the

formulated pesticide stays in suspension (60).

Improved maintenance and calibration technology is the most significant short-range improvement

that can be made to agrichemical application equip-
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management Ž 111

ment, requiring no great amount of research but time

for development. Some companies now offer kits to

aid in calibration.

Technology and engineering concepts from other

sciences and industries might be applicable to

pesticide application technology; however, such

interchange has been insufficient (71). Technology

existing within the military and industrial manufacturing complex could be adapted for agricultural

applications. For example, developing automatic

guidance of sprayers and other equipment could

improve efficacy of many products by eliminating

skips and overlap. Improved flow rate measurements

could also improve agrichemical application accuracy. Many small improvements, when aggregated,

overall could have a significant beneficial effect on

reducing agrichemical waste. Such an effort, however, may be quite difficult given the current state of

the farm equipment industry (60).

Currently, three basic techniques exist for agrichemical application: ground-based, aerial, and chemigation (208). Ground-based and aerial pesticide applications generally are accomplished by spraying or

wiping liquid formulations on plant surfaces or

broadcasting pelletized forms. The majority of

pesticides are applied as sprays with ground-based

equipment using a hydraulic spray nozzle (208,60),

although aerial application of agrichemicals is

substantial (35 percent of all chemicals (73)).

Wicks, rollers, and other wiping devices offer the

best available method for effectively eliminating

application of herbicides onto the soil, but these

application methods require sufficient weed growth

to provide contact of foliage and stems with the

topical application. Since weed growth is variable,

several trips around the field may be necessary for

control. However, this technology needs further

development, especially if soil-applied (preemergence) herbicides are banned (60).

Electrostatic sprayer technology has been very

successful in the commercial painting industry, but

this technology has yet to show significant promise

for agriculture—its greatest potential is for application of insecticides to plant foliage where coverage

is very important for insect control. It may also be

important technology as postemergence herbicide

use increases (60).

The injection sprayer mixes formulated pesticides

in the boom of the sprayer on the go during field

Photo credit: USDA Agricultural Research Service,

Southern Weed Science Laboratory, Stoneville, Mississippi

Herbicide application with rope-wick applicator.

Photo credit: USDA Agricultural Research Service,

Southern Weed Science Laboratory, Stoneville, Mississippi

Close-up of rope-wick applicator.
112 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

application, thus avoiding premixing and handling;

the diluent is stored in a large tank on the sprayer.

Only the pesticide actually applied is mixed into the

spraying system-no residual material is left except

what is contained in the boom. Direct injection of

pesticides on the go should be evaluated for adoption

by sprayer manufacturers. The technology is now

commercially available (138,173) and offers an

opportunity to reduce point source contamination

from disposal of rinsate and mix-disposal problems.

Losses of agrichemicals during ground-based

spraying operations may be reduced by shrouds or

shields that reduce the effect of wind and other

environmental conditions that may affect drift or

evaporation. Such approaches may most directly

affect air quality and ultimately water quality from

atmospheric deposition.

In response to concern over environmental contamination from aerial application, the National

Agricultural Aviation Association developed Operation SAFE (Self-regulating Application and Flight

Efficiency). However, procedures for drift containment, waste disposal, rinsing, packaging, and container transfer/handling are needed to hold drift and

environmental contamination to minimum under

SAFE (73). Efficiency of aerial application could be

increased by controlling the range of droplet size and

developing pest-target-specific delivery devices (73).

Chemigation is the application of agrichemicals

to crops through an irrigation system. The pesticide

is mixed and distributed with water flowing through

the irrigation system (208). It is a relatively new

agrichemical application technology and is primarily used in conjunction with sprinkler irrigation

systems. The concept of applying plant nutrients in

irrigation water by dumping animal manure into

irrigation canals likely arose hundreds of years ago;

however, the basic concept of applying commercial

fertilizer through sprinkler irrigation emerged only

about 30 years ago. Now advances in irrigation

system design and chemical injection equipment

have produced technology for expanding chemigation to include all types of crop inputs (i.e., fertilizers

and pesticides) (208).

Advances in chemigation technology may offer

significant promise for reducing potential groundwater contamination by agrichemicals (223). Some

examples include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

wider use of advanced irrigation scheduling

techniques,

development and use of irrigation techniques

that improve uniformity of distribution,

development of agrichemical formulations particularly suited to chemigation,

performance standards and reliability testing

procedures for chemigation,

backflow prevention systems (required by EPA),

and

exploitation of agrichemical application scheduling diversity offered by chemigation (208).

By controlling the amount of water applied and

selecting a proper formulation, a chemical can be

deposited either on foliage or the soil surface or

distributed to a desired soil depth (208). However,

chemigation techniques have been shown to promote leaching of chemicals under certain conditions

such as wet years when heavy precipitation follows

chemigation (223).

Application of agrichemicals via chemigation is

subject to local, State, and Federal laws and regulations, labeling mandates, and guidelines by several

professional societies. The American Society of

Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) has described system components and presented an arrangement of

these components comprising a functional system

for minimizing potential environmental contamination and maximizing operator safety (ASAE Engineering Practice EP409). Combination of these

efforts has resulted in broad consensus on appropriate, commercially available chemigation system

components to achieve maximum practical prevention of chemical backflow into water sources (208).

Sprinkler irrigation systems, particularly center

pivot and linear move systems, are ideal for chemigation because chemicals can be applied to foliage

and soil-most insecticides and fungicides, many

herbicides, and most growth regulators need to be

applied to foliage. Chemigation via surface irrigation seems less desirable due to inherent difficulties

in uniform water distribution. It is impractical and

uneconomical with subirrigation systems (208).

Microirrigation systems with emitters or porous

pipes are effective for chemigation of soluble

nutrients and pesticides needing distribution through

the soil; such systems with miniature sprinklers can

chemigate soluble foliar-applied chemicals. However, small openings are a constraint for chemigation
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 113

with microirrigation systems, limiting utility to

soluble chemicals (208).

Advantages of chemigation relative to other

agrichemical application approaches include:

1. increased uniformity of chemical application,

2. prescription application (timing and quantity),

3. easy chemical incorporation/activation,

4. reduced operator hazards, and

5. cost-effectiveness.

Under highly efficient chemigation systems potential exists to reduce agrichemical requirements for

crop production, which could have a beneficial

effect on groundwater quality. However, such systems also require a greater degree of management

attention and further potential exists for backflow of

chemicals into the water supply (208).

Timing of Pesticide Applications

Timing of pesticide applications is critical to the

overall efficacy of use, Application during inappropriate weather or premature applications can release

chemicals into the environment and yet not accomplish the desired pest control effect. Such circumstances may lead to the need for several applications

to achieve pest control.

Timing, however, is problematic given the often

narrow windows of opportunity for pesticide applications, particularly when such timing must also fit

a custom applicator’s schedule. Application equipment is costly and the trend toward purchasing the

service of the custom applicator as opposed to

owning and operating personal agrichemical application equipment may increase difficulties in timely

agrichemical applications.

Use of economic injury levels and pheromone

traps as decision aids to improve the timing of

pesticide applications is a feature of improved

management (95). Pest-prediction models (e.g.,

prognosis models, economic injury models, crop10SS models, prediction of pathogen or aphid intensities) may improve practitioners’ ability to match

timing of crop-protection measures with pest infestations.

Alternative Control Methods

Nonchemical pest control methods such as crop

rotations, crop monitoring, use of resistant varieties,

timing of planting and harvest, and biological

controls were prevalent prior to World War II.

Insect parasites that colonize and develop within other

insects are one type of biological control. Here, a parasitic

wasp lays eggs in a tobacco budworm host.

Low-chemical-input producers use a number of

these practices to control insect and weed populations today.

Cultural controls include a broad range of production practices that render the crop environment less

favorable for the pest. Although widely used in the

past, the more labor-intensive cultural controls were

practiced less with the advent of the chemical era.

Tillage and water management are effective cultural

controls in the management of weeds. Tillage may

also bury weed seeds. Further, increases in mortality

in many insects that overwinter in the soil are likely

to result from tillage practices. The destruction of

crop residues may be important in the management

of many pests, such as navel orangeworm in almond,

late blight of potato, stem rot of rice, and pink

bollworm and boll weevil in cotton. For these,

compulsory plowdown dates exist in several regions

as part of regional pest control programs.

Manipulation of planting and harvesting dates

permit breaks in the development of pest populations in regions where pests develop throughout the

year. Crop rotation can also be used to break the life

cycles of many pest species. Applying fertilizer with

the seed of annual crops or through drip-irrigation

systems may also provide a measure of weed
114 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

control, especially in contrast to broadcast applications.

Genetic controls include the traditional breeding

of plant varieties resistant to pests and biotechnological approaches to conferring pest resistance in

crop plants (see section on cultivar improvement).

This second approach involves the introduction of

genetic material that governs resistance characteristics such as toxin production. Genetic control may

also be applied to the insect pest directly, for

example, to create sterile organisms that will interrupt the natural pest population lifecycle. This

method has been used to control screwworm in

cattle, pink bollworm in cotton, and the Mediterranean fruit fly.

Mechanical control methods, common before the

development of modern pesticides, are still used.

Many crops require cultivation several times during

the growing season. For example, soybeans in the

Midwest receive more cultivation than corn largely

due to the availability of long-lasting residual

herbicides suitable for corn and not for soybeans,

and to later planting time for soybeans (60,203).

Pheromones, viruses, bacteria, fungi, and bioengineered organisms have been touted as alternatives to

conventional pesticides; however, their use is not

widespread in part due to lengthy testing and

registration procedures required under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

(254).

Biological control is commonly considered the

cornerstone of any integrated pest management

(IPM) program. Often referred to as biocontrol, it is

a biological approach to pest control that employs

the use of natural enemies-predators, parasites, and

disease-to reduce a pest population. This may

involve the introduction of a natural enemy (classical biocontrol), rearing and periodic release of

natural enemies (augmentative biocontrol), or conservation of a natural enemy extant in the agroecosystem (conservative biocontrol).

Augmentative and conservatory approaches to

biological control often will require behavioral

changes on the part of the practitioner. Because these

methods rely on the acquisition and release of

natural predators or conservation of those extant in

the agroecosystem, respectively, such methods require an understanding of pest cycles, predator/prey

relationships, and the biotic factors responsible for

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agruculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Although commonly an agricultural pest, certain nematode

species also are useful as commercial biological control

agents. Augmenting or maintaining populations of

beneficial nematodes has been shown to be an effective

control measure for certain root weevils. Shown here are

nematode cysts on plant roots.

maintaining populations of beneficial organisms.

Thus, to promote adoption of these techniques it is

necessary to understand the factors that influence

practitioner choice of pest-control methods, such as:

1) what the long-range goals are and what external

factors affect how pest control methods are selected,

and 2) what level and type of technical assistance

will be needed and accepted by the practitioner.

Control of cottony-cushion scale on citrus in

California was achieved by importation of the

Vedalia lady beetle in 1888. Biological agents,

primarily insects and plant pathogens, currently are

applied to control as many as 100 weed species.

Substantial control has been achieved for numerous

weed species (e.g., klamath weed, prickly pear,
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 115

lantana) (151). Additional examples of successful

development and marketing of weed biocontrol

agents include the use of Collectotrichum gloeosporioides on northern joint vetch and Phytophthora on

stranglevine of citrus. Lack of funds for commercial

development of biological control agents and biological pesticides, including bacteria, fungi, and

viruses, has limited their availability and increased

their price (96). Currently, 68 U.S. suppliers participate in a $25 million market in the global distribution of biological pest-control agents (92).

The narrow foundation of basic research may pose

an obstacle to expeditious development of technologies to reduce environmental contamination b y

agrichemicals. The agricultural research foundation

could be expanded to emphasize the biological,

ecological, and systems sciences to a much greater

extent. These research areas, however, have received

comparatively little attention and funding in publicsector programs. Research funding for Integrated

Pest Management (IPM) programs, for example, has

declined in the last ten years (254).

Another obstacle to the development of alternative pest control products is the high cost of

commercializing new biological products, which

discourages firms from expanding technologies

available to farmers. Although the development

costs of one of the frost commercial mycoherbicide

(biological controls designed to combat fungal

pathogens) was approximately $2 million as compared to nearly $30 million for development of a

chemical herbicide (7), the marketing potential,

stability, shelf life, and potential for mass production

are issues of particular concern in commercializing

a biological control agent, Costs of meeting regulatory requirements for registering new products and

uncertainties as to whether or not products will be

allowed to go on the market also may provide a

disincentive to investment in new-product research.

Even when products are placed on the market,

uncertainty exists as to whether regulations will

change, causing a product to be restricted or banned.

Specialized registration procedures for alternative

pest control products (e.g., biological controls,

fungi, viruses, and bacteria) might facilitate more

rapid development and marketing of these products.

Some allowances exempting certain aspects of

registration for these products have already been

made. For example, recently a nematicide developed

from processed crustacean sheik received uncondiPhoto credit: University of California-Riverside+Vancy E. Beckage

Parasitic wasp larvae have hatched and are feeding on this

tobacco hornworm host. Use of natural predators may help

control insect pests that cause billions of dollars of

damage.

tional EPA approval (50). Although currently a

small part of the market, such ‘‘pesticides’ present

an alternative to certain traditional compounds

(254). The specificity of such compounds means that

the potential market is small in comparison to that of

traditional compounds. Grants or tax incentives

might promote development. Additional incentives

for private development and marketing of innovative

pest controls could promote this sector of the

agrichemical industry. Additional research will likely

be necessary to assess the potential for adverse

impacts generated by use of nonchemical pest

controls to the U.S. environment.

Integrated Pest Management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a systems

approach to pest control that is designed to provide

benefits (economical, environmental) to the user and

society. Where possible, IPM programs attempt to

restructure an ecosystem to minimize the likelihood

of pest damage. Programs are meant to be adaptive

with a goal of improving program efficacy overtime.

The broad goal is to maintain pest populations at

near-harmless levels by reducing population fluctuation and to improve the predictability of control

measures. IPM programs commonly are composed

of a number of the pest control tactics discussed

above.

The key concepts behind IPM are that:

●

●

a threshhold population level exists, below

which pest control is not economically practical;

integration of chemical and natural methods of

pest control is possible; and
116 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

● a sound understanding of the agroecosystem

being managed is needed (including host, pests,

natural enemies, competitors, alternate hosts,

etc.) as pest populations interact with other

ecosystem members.

The development of an IPM program requires

thorough knowledge of the ecosystem being managed, the social and economic goals or reasons for its

management, and the incentives and constraints

imposed by social, economic, political, and regulatory rules and values. This knowledge comprises the

framework within which an effective IPM program

can be built. Thus, the system being managed and its

specific needs are analyzed prior to design of the pest

management strategy.

A common perception of IPM programs is that

they represent a return to past, labor-intensive

practices. While it is true that strategies may employ

cultivation or crop-rotation practices that served to

control pest populations in early U.S. agriculture,

new techniques also are integral to modern-day IPM

programs. Further, IPM does not mean the absence

of chemical controls. Indeed, in certain instances

chemical use may even increase under IPM. This

effect sometimes may be attributed to recognition of

a theretofore unnoticed pest population.

However, IPM programs have resulted in a

significant decrease of pesticide use in several crops.

These reductions in pesticide use occur because

practitioners are trained to pay careful attention to

the actual need for the pesticide, as well as its timing

and application (254). For example, in an IPM

program implemented in Egypt to control cotton

leafworm, corn aphid, and three species of corn

borers, the area that had to be treated with chemicals

dropped from 692,000 to 22,000 acres within 5 years

(43). IPM programs frequently are characterized by

a combination of tactics designed to keep pest

populations at a level below which economic injury

would occur.

Growers may adopt IPM for a number of reasons.

The most influential factor seems to be the potential

for financial gain due to reduced inputs, increased

production, or reduced pest damage (cf: 68,248).

Recently, in response to public concern over pesticide residues in or on food, certain retailers have

begun to advertise ‘‘no detectable residues, ’ with

IPM being one of the marketing tools. The potential

for entering new or premium-price marketing channels is causing some growers to reconsider their

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

A Mexican bean beetle-a major pest of snap- and

soybeans-becomes a meal for the spined soldier-bug.

Introducing, attracting, or maintaining populations of such

natural predators in fields is one possible component of

Integrated Pest Management systems. Increased

understanding of plant-pest-predator-farming system

interactions will allow for more efficient use of such

biological controls in the future.

pesticide-use practices. For example, the New York

State regulatory agency, at the request of growers

and following guidelines being developed by the

IPM program of Cornell University, is initiating a

certification program for growers who produce crops

using IPM practices (204). It seems likely that

financial incentives or disincentives provided

through government programs would have an impact on adoption of IPM and other low-input

agricultural methods (254).

A crisis in pest control such as resistance to

pesticides (cf: 33,66,96), loss of key pest control

materials due to regulation (253), or severe secondary pest outbreaks may stimulate some producers to

adopt IPM tactics. Environmental and on-farm

health concerns were an important stimulus to IPM

research, but they have typically contributed to

adoption only because of some obvious problem or
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 117

because of regulation resulting from a concern or

problem (201). Growers rated protection of personal

and public health and reduced environmental damage as the two least important incentives for

adopting IPM in the national evaluation of extension

IPM programs (163).

A number of constraints to IPM use have been

identified in various studies (32,68). Obstacles fall

into the following categories: technical, financial,

educational, institutional, and social (246).

Technical Constraints-Insufficient development

of IPM strategies and techniques such as monitoring

guidelines, control action thresholds, biological

controls, cultural controls, and host plant resistance

for a wide variety of cropping systems comprise the

primary technical obstacles. However, the technical

constraints are regarded to be less important than

other constraints (cf: 70,151). Simplification of IPM

methodology may foster adoption of monitoring and

sampling guidelines and control-action thresholds

(5,33,65,96).

Financial Constraints-While IPM implementation commonly increases profits for adopters, there

remains a perception that it does not offer the

short-term economic advantages equal to those

generated by conventional control, largely because

of the additional labor costs from sampling and

monitoring (157). The concept of purchasing the

advice of private pest consultants and others providing IPM services still may be difficult to accept,

particularly since costs are incurred in advance of

pest problems, and even if no pest problem occurs

(254).

Financial risk may be the most important obstacle

to IPM adoption. Growers value pesticides for

reducing production risk as well as contributing to

profit. However, the more producers learn about

pests in their fields and the likelihood of resultant

damage, the more likely they are to make wise

pesticide-application decisions. The value of IPM in

terms of risk reduction may actually increase in

relation to the grower’s level of risk aversion (4).

Lack of funds for extension programs has been

cited as a constraint to IPM adoption in numerous

studies (cf: 58,202,248). Where such projects as the

Federal extension pilot projects of the 1970s and

State-supported IPM projects (e.g., California, Texas,

and New York) have been initiated, enhanced IPM

adoption can be documented. At present, most

extension IPM activity occurs at the State level with

a combination of State support and Federal formula

funds. However, Federal funds have not increased

during this decade, and the areas where major

extension efforts are occurring are those wit h

significant State contributions (254).

Educational Constraints-Implementation of IPM

requires a complex set of methods, technologies,

behaviors, and decisionmaking processes requiring

intensive education of uses. However, it has been

suggested that lack of education of IPM developers

about the perceptions and needs of growers also

comprises a significant obstacle (cf: 65,174). Such

lack of understanding can lead to development of an

inappropriate technology that is unlikely to be

adopted (254).

Institutional Constraints-The structure and codes

of regulatory, educational, and corporate or industrial institutions can influence the implementation

and expansion of IPM programs. Lack of coordination, especially among organizations, personnel, and

disciplines, may be particularly problematic (105,15 1).

Efforts to mandate or regulate IPM specifically

have not been highly successful. For example,

adoption of a mandated IPM program for lessees on

State-owned land in California declined rapidly with

the lack of enforcement (67). The cause was assessed

as a lack of experience on the part of the State agency

involved in addressing producer concern for risk

(254),

Lack of interdisciplinary collaboration in IPM

research, extension, and education has been suggested as a major constraint to more widespread use

of IPM strategies (cf: 12,17,130). A tendency for

research and education activities to be conducted

within strongly discipline-oriented departmental units

in land-grant universities has evolved in response to

institutional pressures. Individual achievements rather

than team accomplishments typically are rewarded

(155), leading to the predominance of such efforts at

the expense of multidisciplinary work. Programs

leading to interdisciplinary, professional degrees

rather than research degrees in plant health and pest

management are few, and not well supported within

higher education institutions (102).

Other organizational obstacles also exist, most

notably cosmetic standards imposed by such agencies as the Federal Food and Drug Administration,

USDA, and State departments of agriculture; corpo-
128 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

rations including processors, packers, and retailers;

and commodity associations such as cooperatives

and marketing orders (32,53). These quality standards have largely been imposed because of consumer

demands, but also may be used as market regulating

tools (254).

Social Constraints-The rate at which adoption

occurs and the ultimate level of adoption may be

affected by many social factors including demographic attributes of the agricultural population,

communication channels used by growers or managers, and growers’ perceptions of the technology.

Growers receive pest management information from

a variety of sources and in this regard chemical

controls may have a competitive advantage over

IPM. A well-established infrastructure exists for

pesticide supply and use and a high ratio of

commercial representatives exists relative to private

pest management consultants or extension IPM

personnel (237,189).

Agrichemicals are seen as easy to use despite

regulations on their use and application and associated increased costs. In addition, pesticides give

nearly immediate reinforcement in terms of pest

control. Thus, most growers have developed confidence in their use (32,96,245). Alternatively, IPM

often requires additional labor or specific knowledge, and may take longer to realize benefits.

Further, the concept of economic thresholds is

perceived as risky by many growers (155). However,

experience with IPM may change this risk perception (68).

CROP, SOIL, AND WATER

MANAGEMENT

Management of the soil and water environment

for crop production requires an understanding of the

interaction of these cropping-system components,

and of the suitability of the chosen crop(s) for the

agroecosystem. Production of crops ill-suited to a

given region may require more intensive external

inputs, such as pesticides and fertilizers, to overcome the associated plant stress responses and to

achieve acceptable yield levels. Productivity of

current crops falls far short of their potential, largely

because of production in unfavorable environments

(16).

Soil- and water-management techniques offer a

mechanism to adjust or modify the agroecosystem to

Photo credit: United Nations-M. Tzovaras

Past plant breeding efforts have been highly successful in

increasing productivity of crops such as wheat. Current

efforts are now being directed towards developing crop

varieties that are more suited to specific cropping situations

or are able to withstand a number of environmental

stresses (e.g., drought tolerance, pest tolerance). Such

efforts may reduce agrichemical inputs that are needed to

compensate for agricultural production in unfavorable

environments.

enhance crop production and thus affect the requirements for external inputs. For example, soilmanagement practices designed to improve the

friability and moisture-holding capacity of soils can

facilitate crop root development. This in turn may

improve the plants’ nutrient extraction capability,

thereby reducing the need for external nutrient

inputs.

Crop Management

Crop management refers to the numerous decisions that most directly relate to the crop, including

cropping pattern (e.g., rotation, intercropping) and
Chapter 4---Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 119

crop or cultivar choice. Certain crop-management

alternatives and techniques may complement or

enhance nutrient and agrichemical management

activities. Crop-management decisions may have

direct impacts on agrichemical use and on how such

compounds will behave and move through the

agroecosystem. Crop choice alone has instant implications for the pesticide and fertilization regime a

producer will use. For example, greater amounts of

nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides are used to produce corn and cotton than are used to produce other

crops (225,226). Similarly, certain cropping patterns

such as a legume-based crop rotation may provide a

mechanism to supply plant nutrients and break pest

cycles for a subsequent crop and thus reduce

agrichemical requirements.

Cropping Patterns

Successive planting of different crops in the same

field--crop rotation—was a common practice in

early U.S. agriculture. Practitioners maintained a

diversified production system in order to provide

livestock forage and various other crops. However,

with expanded use of chemical fertilizers and pest

control compounds and availability of high-yielding

crop varieties, the practice of crop rotation declined

in favor of continuous production of one or two

crops (6).

Crop rotation and associated crop diversity may

retard pest buildup by creating conditions that hinder

development of pest populations and enhance the

soil-nutrient content (162). Thus, such production

systems tend to have lower agrichemical require-
120 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 4-12-Common Crop Rotations Used on Land Producing Soybean-1988

Previous crop Total

1987 1986 AR GA IL IN 1A KY IA MN MS MO NE NC OH TN area

soybean

soybean

soybean

Corn

Corn

Corn

Wheat

Rice

Rice

Fallowa

Corn

Soybean

Other

Corn

soybean

Other

Other

Soybean

Other

Other

Total

Million acres planted

3.25 0.9 8.8 4.3 7.95 0.98 1.8 4.9 2.4 4.3 2.4 1.47 3.9 1.4

Percent

7 7 16 6 18 10 7 1 17 12 9 24 8

40 34 5 9 3 8 44 2 58 24 3 16 11 38

13 7 2 1 2 7 3 18 7 2 4 8 6

nr 8 11 19 7 13 4 7 nr 6 17 4 7 4

1 4 61 41 74 34 nr 51 1 24 43 32 30 9

nr 3 4 3 5 11 nr 6 nr 3 8 8 9 9

1 11 3 2 1 9 2 10 2 5 8 6 6 8

17 nr nr nr nr nr 14 nr 4 nr nr nr nr nr

5 nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

9 10 5 4 3 1 13 4 15 3 1 6 2 4

86 84 96 96 100 96 94 90 99 89 94 85 97 86

48.75

10

15

4

8

41

4

4

2

nr

5

93

aFallow includes land idled under farm Commodity program provisions.

NOTE: Entries made as nr indicate that data for that item was not reported.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agniw/tura/Resources: /nputs, Situation ati O@look AR-1 5 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Offioe, August 1989).

ments (136). Continuous cropping-planting the

same crop on the same land in successive years-has

the lowest degree of diversity and tends to be

associated with intensive agrichemical use. More

pesticides are needed to combat the pest populations

that may develop in response to the consistent food

source and field conditions. Such cropping systems

may represent a greater potential for agrichemical

contamination of groundwater in hydrogeologically

vulnerable regions because of the higher levels of

agrichemical input associated with continuous cropping.

Federal commodity programs have been said to

discourage crop rotations and diversity (136). However, continuous cropping is not as widespread as

this might suggest. Continuous cropping is most

prevalent for cotton in the Southeast, corn on

irrigated lands in Nebraska, winter wheat in Oklahoma and Texas, soybeans in Mississippi, and rice

in California. In the major corn-producing states, 38

percent of the corn acreage was in rotation, while 26

percent was in continuous cropping during 1985-88

(228).

Nevertheless, most crop rotations commonly used

by farmers in the United States do not lend a high

degree of crop diversity (table 4-12). Although at

least 80 percent of the cropland in most States is

characterized by some form of crop rotation, in many

States only two or three rotations are widely used

(228).

Sod-based crop rotations are used to minimize

wind and water erosion. They also can be used to

provide some nitrogen for later crops. Total soil loss

is greatly reduced, although soil conservation is not

equally distributed over the rotation. On many soils,

crop rotations favor higher yields and improved crop

quality (212) largely from enhanced soil structure

and composition, addition of nitrogen, and other

rotation effects. Rotation effects refer to the enhanced yield commonly associated with crop rotation beyond what might be attained under a continuous cropping regime. Such effects are noted under

legume- and nonlegume-based rotations and thus are

not necessarily solely attributable to deposition of

nitrogen (9,87,90). Improvements in soil structure

and composition, moisture storage capacity, and

organic content and reductions in pest infestations

are likely factors contributing to rotation effects

(136),

Cropping sequence influences the water content

of surface soils, on a gravimetric and volumetric

basis (1 17). The volumetric water content is significantly greater in the upper soil profile under a

legume-based rotation as compared to a fertilizerbased system (41,171). While legume-based cropping systems may increase organic content of the

soil, the improved soil texture and porosity associated with such systems may have a greater effect on

the availability of soil water to plants (86).

Legume-based crop rotations have been long

known to improve the yield of subsequent nonlegume crops (154). Legumes derive nitrogen from

three principal sources: through commercial fertilizer or manure application; by mineralization of
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 121

Figure 4-8-Sources of Legume Nitrogen

Symbiotic N

(N )

I

I

\

\

SOURCE: C.C. Sheaffer, D.K. Barnes. and G.H. Heiehel, “Annual Alfalfa in CroD Rotations,” Station Bulletin 588-1989, Minnesota Agricultural Ex~enment

Station, St. Paul, MN, 1989.

indigenous soil organic matter; and by symbiotic

nitrogen fixation (figure 4-8). The role of atmospheric nitrogen (N2 or dinitrogen) fixation by

legumes as one factor in the yield improvement

became known early in this century (56). Use of

legumes as “green manures” 5 in U.S. cropping

systems peaked in 1940, when an estimated 13.0

million acres

were planted

legumes were

gen fostered

nitrogen was

evidence that

(3.5 percent of harvested cropland)

(179). The knowledge that forage

capable of fixing atmospheric nitrothe belief that nearly all legume

derived from this process, despite

soil nitrogen substituted for atmospheric nitrogen in legume nutrition (3). Thus, the

fertilizer replacement value commonly was based on

the nitrogen content of the biomass incorporated as

a green manure (196,185), without regard to the

possible legume uptake and recycling of soil nitrogen. A net enrichment or renewal of the soil resource

by fixed nitrogen in legumes can only occur when

the legume is grown and managed with attention to

returning the above-ground plant material to the soil

rather than exporting it as hay or grain (84,85).

Different hay and pasture legumes grown on a soil

with the same initial nitrogen concentration in the

profile derive different amounts of nitrogen from

symbiosis (table 4-13). The amount of nitrogen fixed

varies with species, growth stage, and inherent soil

fertility and may be further influenced by crop

management practices, life form (i.e., annual v.

perennial), and environment. Factors that promote

high rates and high seasonal totals of nitrogen

fixation in legumes include:

●

●

●

●

●

The

optimum mineral nutrition at a pH slightly

below neutrality (pH 6.5 to 7.0),

long growing season,

low concentration of plant-available soil nitrogen,

optimum water availability, and

absence of insects or pathogens.

amount of legume-fixed nitrogen made available to a nonlegume crop depends on plant, environmental, soil, and management factors. In an intercrop situation where the legume and nonlegume are

grown concurrently, observations have indicated

that some nitrogen transfer occurs, conferring a

benefit to the nonlegume (86). The amount of

nitrogen transferred seems to vary depending on the

species intercropped. The method and mechanism of

transfer are unclear, however.

Under a rotational cropping system, several factors determine whether the nitrogen returned to the

cropping system is a net input or simply a return of

5(3men ~an~e ~efas t. p~t matefis, gener~y le~es, us~ as a nitrogen Source for Crop gro~. Ploting Uder of these ~op residues prOKIIOteS

decomposition and release of inorganic nitrogen that is then available for crop uptake.
122 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 4-13-Variation of Dinitrogen Fixation Capacity

With Legume Species

Nitrogen from

symbioses Dry matter

Species by harvesta Yield (lbs/acre)

Hay and pasture legumes:

Alfalfa b

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 6,809

Red cloverb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 6,230

Birdsfoot trefoilb . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4,880

Harvest at grain maturity

Grain legumes:

Soybeanc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2,494

Soybeand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7,837

Wean percent over three harvests.

b~tab[ish~ in soil with 3.7% organic matter and an initial nitrate

concentration of 12 ppm at the O- to 6-inch depth.

c~ablish~in soil with 1.8% organic matter and an initial nitrate

concentration of 12 ppm at the O-to 8-inch depth.

d~tab[~h~ in soil with 4.8% organic matter and an initial nhrate

concentration of 31 ppm at the 0 to 8-inch depth.

SOURCE: G.H. Heichet, “Legumes as a Source of Nitrogen in Conservation Tillage Systems,” The Role of Legumes in Conservation

Wage Systems, J.F. Power (cd.) (Ankeny, 1A: Soil Conservation Society, 1987), h: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

soil-derived nitrogen, temporarily sequestered in the

legume crop. For example, under certain conditions

only 40 percent of total accumulated nitrogen in

soybeans is freed from atmospheric nitrogen. After

harvesting the crop for grain, a net export of nitrogen

from the cropping system is observed. Under different conditions the same crop may fix nearly 90

percent of total accumulated nitrogen and postharvest soil conditions will show a net nitrogen input

(86).

Legume-based rotations remain a significant part

of agricultural production practices. Food and feed

crop legumes are the nitrogen-fining species of the

greatest agricultural importance in the United States

and totaled at least 89.7 million acres in 1986 (220).

However, the impact such systems have on nitrate

contamination of groundwater has not been well

studied. Nitrogen from legumes may appear in

groundwater due to mineralization of the organic

forms of plant nitrogen to nitrate in soil solution, and

when precipitation or irrigation sufficiently exceeds

evapotranspiration to allow water loss from the root

zone. Nitrogen may be released from legumes by: 1)

direct release from the nodules (20,1 12); 2) decomposition of dead roots or nodules; and 3) soil

incorporation of legumes. Any of these situations in

combination with a leaching event may increase the

risk that legume nitrogen will appear in groundwater

(180).

Although the circumstances that promote nitrogen loss from legumes to groundwater may be easily

predicted, only meager experimental evidence exists

for leaching of legume-derived nitrogen to groundwater in U.S. cropping systems. Available evidence

is limited in interpretation because the sources of

nitrate lost from the root zones of legumes have not

been unambiguously identified by origin-e.g.,

nitrate from living or decomposing legumes, from

mineralization of soil organic matter, from fertilizer,

or from other origins (86).

Intercropping—Intercropping refers to a variety

of cropping patterns including mixed intercropping,

strip intercropping, and relay intercropping. Mixed

intercropping describes the growing of two or more

crops simultaneously with no distinct row arrangement, while strip intercropping implies a distinct

row arrangement of the intercropped plants. Relay

intercropping is the growing of two or more crops

with the second crop planted into the frost crop a.tier

it has reached maturity but is not yet at harvest stage.

These cropping patterns are used commonly in

tropical agriculture to provide a diversity of agricultural products, to discourage the spread of pests

across a field, and to allow for greater exploitation

of the soil profile and nutrients than monoculture

systems (214).

Intercropping combinations that include a nitrogenfixing species may offer the additional benefit of

providing nitrogen to adjacent crop(s) and thus

reduce the need for nitrogen fertilizer applications.

Similarly, use of deep-rooted species, such as

alfalfa, may offer a mechanism to draw nitrate up

from the lower soil profile and thus make it available

for nearby, shallower rooted crops (152). The highly

mechanized agricultural practices common in the

contiguous United States may pose a constraint to

widespread use of intercropping techniques.

Conservation Plantings-Conservation plantings,

such as contour cropping, have been designed to

reduce soil erosion and and surface runoff. While

erosion control may have been the impetus for

development of these practices, they may also

provide beneficial effects on groundwater quality

when used in combination with new strategies such

as inclusion of nitrate-scavenging crop varieties. For

example, strip cropping using a deep-rooted crop as

one of the components may offer some potential for

reclaiming nitrate in the lower soil profile (alfalfa

roots may reach nearly 3 feet in one cropping

season). Further, as the alfalfa roots draw soil

moisture and nitrate up the profile, the nutrient
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 123

Photo credit: University of California-Berkeley-M.A. Altien

Intercropping systems offer potential for reducing agrichemical needs. Incorporation of nitrogen fixing species as one

component of the intercropping system may offer nutrient provision benefits to the adjacent crop. Other combinations may include

“trap crops” that provide barriers to pest movement through a field.

becomes available to nearby or interplanted crops as

well (190)

Certain conservation practices that have been

promoted since the 1930s as methods to reduce soil

erosion from wind and water also serve to increase

soil moisture and are valuable tools for protecting

water resources (23 1,230). Hedgerows, shelterbelts,

and field border strips consist of fast-growing,

resilient herbaceous and woody vegetation planted

between fields to trap snow on fields or to prevent

snow from collecting in vehicle travel lanes. These

plantings provide soil moisture benefits for subsequent crops and may offer additional benefits by

taking up excess nitrate. However, they are located

commonly along field edges, fencerows and tractor

paths and thus would only provide for nitrate uptake

along field perimeters, Similarly, establishment of

cover crops offer a mechanism to reduce nitrate

losses to groundwater in regions of the country

where rainfall exceeds evapotranspiration. Such

crops may take up soil nitrate remaining from the

cropping season and thus reduce the potential for

leaching to groundwater (183,207).

Riparian zones consist of vegetation typically

adapted to seasonal periods of submersion and

drying out. Riparian zones may be planted along

cultivated fields to help moderate the movement of

sediment and adsorbed chemicals into riverine

ecosystems. Agricultural nonpoint-source pollution

could be minimized by the establishment of riparian

border vegetation (184). Similarly, planting of such

areas to deep-rooted crops can create an upward flux

of soil moisture and thus ‘‘scavenge’ nitrate from

the lower soil profile (190).

Grassed terraces and waterways offer some potential to improve agricultural land productivity ( 18,2 12).

They serve as buffer areas to slow agricultural runoff
124 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

and sediment flowing toward surficial water supplies, and to further provide soil stabilization.

Terrace and waterway establishment, however, tends

to be expensive and may require soil disturbance.

Narrow-based terrace construction costs in Illinois

are about $300 to $400 per acre (18). Further,

maintenance may be required to control possible

weed outbreaks.

However, conservation plantings also may have

undesirable effects. They may compete with the crop

for soil moisture and nutrients or constitute barriers

to certain production practices (e.g., center-pivot

irrigation systems) or use of large mechanical

cultivators (213). Use of deep-rooted species as in

conservation plantings may ameliorate competition

for these resources in the upper soil profile under

some conditions.

Cultivar Improvement

Fifty percent of the overall yield increases in U.S.

agriculture have been attributed to the use of

improved crops and cultivars (16,44). While past

efforts sought to increase yields, currently research

scientists are investigating potential avenues to

reduce agrichemical losses to the environment

through a variety of cultivar development techniques (e.g., conventional breeding, genetic engineering). Developing plant varieties that are more

suited to various cropping environments, for example, may offer an opportunity to reduce agrichemical

use. Similarly, a plant able to use nutrients more

efficiently could require fewer fertilizer applications. Ongoing ARS adaptation activities include

developing crop varieties with tolerance for various

soil pH levels, salt accumulations, and water stress.

Crops less subject to stress are more likely to survive

minor pest infestations and other adverse conditions

(loo).

Genetic engineering approaches to enhance crop

productivity is of significant interest to seed, agrichemical, and biotechnology companies (59). Research

has focused on introducing genes that may enhance

stress tolerance (e.g., drought tolerance), pest tolerance (e.g., toxin production), and nitrogen selfsufficiency (e.g., introduction of nitrogen-fining

genes). Successful manipulation of a number of crop

plants has occurred already, and engineered varieties

are expected to become available in this decade (59).

Genetically, plant resistance is conditioned by

major- and minor-effect genes. Major-effect genes

are easier to manipulate and have given dramatic

results in laboratory experiments, however, their

effectiveness commonly is less in the field. Generally, major-effect genes are more effective than

minor-effect genes in heterogeneous cultivars such

as certain wheat varieties developed in Iowa and

Washington. Minor-effect genes seem to be more

successful in the homogeneous cultivars common to

Western mechanized agriculture (214). Current areas

of crop improvement research that may have implications for agrichemical use include: pest resistance,

herbicide resistance, nitrogen self-sufficiency, and

enhanced nitrogen-use efficiency.

Pest Resistance—Advances in development of

insect-resistant plants have to date been largely

achieved through the use of a protein found in the

bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.). The protein

is lethal to certain insects such as moths and butterfly

larvae and some strains produce a protein toxic to

beetle and fly larvae. Toxicity to other insects,

animals, or humans has not been noted (59).

Field tests of tomato and tobacco plants with the

B.t. gene have had positive results. In one study,

tomato plants with the B.t. gene were not adversely

affected under conditions that resulted in complete

defoliation of plants without the gene (59).

Given the potential of this technology to reduce

insecticide application, significant benefits to groundwater protection might be achieved if research were

directed toward development of such resistance for

high-use crop species. The expense of genetically

engineered varities may pose a constraint to implementation. Further, concern exists over the possibility of development of pest resistance to the toxin.

Although plant diseases are the results of bacterial, viral, or fungal infections, research efforts have

focused on developing resistance to viral infections.

Success has been achieved in developing resistance

to the tobacco mosaic virus through use of a gene

responsible for inhibiting uncoating of the virus

once inside the plant cell. Similar results have been

demonstrated against alfalfa mosaic virus, cucumber

mosaic virus, and potato X and Y viruses in

tomatoes, tobacco, and potato. Greenhouse and field

tests of tomatoes with the resistance gene showed no

yield loss after viral inoculation as compared to 23

to 69 percent loss in untreated plants (59).

Development of resistance to fungal and bacterial

infections has met with little success to date (59).
Chapter &Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 125

A. B. c.

Photo credit: Phytopathology

Wheat can be partially protected from the fungal disease “take-all” by treating seeds with Pseudomonas bacteria prior to planting.

A = plot with no fungal infection; B = treated wheat in infected plot; C = untreated wheat in infected plot.

Billions of dollars in crop losses per year are

attributed to fungal-caused disease and postharvest

spoilage (209). Given the low efficacy of fungicides

relative to other pesticides as well as the method of

application (generally soil incorporation), investigation into developing resistant plants could have

important implications for groundwater protection.

EPA recently has proposed a ban on most uses of

EBDC, a widely used fungicide, because of its

potential carcinogenicity. One of the alternatives to

EBDCs, chlorothalonil, has been detected in well

water (147).

Herbicide Resistance—Research on developing

herbicide resistance in crop plants largely has

concentrated on broad-spectrum herbicides that

exhibit low soil mobility and rapid biodegradation.

It is suggested that such development might result in

a shift in herbicide use to more environmentally safe

compounds (59).

Engineering approaches currently focus on:

1) reducing sensitivity of plant to the herbicide, and

2) conferring detoxification capability to the plant

(59). A certain herbicide may act by inhibiting

activity of an enzyme essential to plant (weed or

crop) life. To reduce sensitivity of the crop plant to

this herbicide, a gene sequence might be introduced

that would promote overproduction of the target

enzyme or production of an herbicide-tolerant variant of the enzyme. Detoxification of an herbicide is

achieved by introducing bacterial genes that produce

enzymes that inactivate the herbicide. Resistance to

certain herbicides has been achieved by the detoxfilcation and sensitivity reduction approaches (59).

However, concerns exist over the potential for

conferring herbicide resistance to weed species.

Concern also exists over the potential for increased

herbicide use stemming from availability of this

technology. Proponents of the technique argue that

the compounds for which resistance would be

developed would be more environmentally acceptable and effective and thus could result in reduced

herbicide use (59).

Alternatively, certain plant-growth regulators

(PGRs) are being investigated as a potential avenue

for herbicide resistance. These protestants or safeners may be applied to a crop (usually seed) so that

when herbicides are applied to the crop row only the

nonprotected plants are killed (214).

Examination of chemical residues and breakdown

products remains to be done for certain of the

herbicides for which resistance may be developed.

Currently, herbicide resistance research is being

conducted for such crop species as soybean, cotton,

corn, oilseed rape, and sugarbeet.

Nitrogen Self-Sufficiency-The transfer of nitrogenfixing ability to crop plants has been suggested as an

opportunity to reduce excess nitrogen in agricultural

soils that may be available for leaching, potentially

to groundwater. Nitrogen-fixing genes are found

only in certain microorganisms (procaryotes) many

of which are symbiotically associated with plant
126 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

species. Research and development efforts have

focused on development of methods to confer

nitrogen-fixation capability to crop plants and thus

create a more self-sufficient plant. To date, however,

transfer of nitrogen fixation genes to plants (i.e.,

from procaryotes to eucaryotes) largely has been

unsuccessful.

Legumes develop highly specific symbiotic associations with various species of Rhizobium. A

specific strain of the bacterium will infect only

certain groups of legumes—’ ‘cross-inoculation

groups. ’ It has been determined that certain proteins

(lectins) are responsible for allowing the plant and

bacterium to recognize each other and enter the

symbiotic association. Research has been conducted

on introducing the protein responsible for recognition from a plant in one inoculation group to a plant

in another (pea to clover). Some success was

observed in that the clover plant developed nodules,

however, they exhibited abnormalities. Nonetheless,

such results suggest that there may be potential for

genetic engineering to modify the plant genome

sufficiently to make symbiotic nitrogen fixation a

possibility (116).

These technologies remain an ongoing research

area and no guarantee exists that development of

nitrogen-fining crop plants would reduce nitrate

contamination of groundwater even if commercial

fertilizer use is reduced. Some evidence exists for

release of nitrogenous compounds from actively

growing nitrogen-fixing species and thus potential

for nitrate formation and movement to groundwater

under leaching events (86). Further, the nitrogenfixing process itself may operate at some cost to the

host plant and how this may affect crop productivity

is unclear.

Nitrogen Use Efficiency-The nitrogen use efficency of a crop plant is a significant factor in

making wise fertilizer application decisions. Nitrogen use efficiency describes the capability of a plant

to take up and assimilate available nitrogen and this

attribute may vary among species and even among

cultivars of the same species. Increased efficiency

then may be displayed either by: 1) increased crop

yield and nitrogen uptake with equal or lesser

amounts of applied fertilizer, or 2) equal crop yield

and nitrogen uptake with lesser amounts of fertilizer

(164). Crop breeding to select for greater nitrogen

use efficiency may have the potential to reduce

nutrient requirements; however, numerous environmental and management factors mediate observed

nitrogen uptake, making such selection difficult.

Nongenetic factors that affect nitrogen use efficiency include: 1) planting geometry and planting

dates, 2) tillage and residue management, and 3)

irrigation management (180).

Manipulation of genetic materials in order to

improve nitrogen accumulation is currently an area

of research. However, little success has been achieved

to date. Estimates are that development is at least

several decades away (214).

Soil Management

Agricultural productivity is clearly linked to the

management of soil resources. Certain soil characteristics can be maintained to provide alternatives to

purchased inputs and to reduce energy and labor

requirements in crop production. For example,

maintaining soil organic matter contributes to friability and “natural’ nutrient content, facilitating

cultivation and potentially reducing the need for

external inputs. Thus, soil management practices

may indirectly affect agrichemical use. However,

the tillage system effects with the greatest importance to groundwater contamination largely center

on how various systems affect water movement and

nitrogen transformations in the soil.

Tillage practices most directly affect the soil

properties that influence the movement of water in

and through the soil (e.g., structure, organic matter

content, soil microbial populations) and thus affect

potential agrichemical movement. Under conventional tillage systems (i.e., moldboard plow) water

tends to remain in the upper profile or move

laterally, whereas under reduced tillage systems that

promote moisture infiltration, deep percolation may

be an enhanced pathway (207). Environmental

variables such as intensity and duration of rainfall

and soil composition further influence the depth and

route of water movement. Similarly, different soil

types respond differently to the wide variety of

tillage systems, making only general conclusions

possible (207).

Conservation or reduced tillage systems are any of

a variety of noninversion types of tillage including

mulch-till, ridge-till, and no-till. Under these systems, seedbed preparation and planting techniques

leave protective amounts of residue mulch (e.g.,

corn stalks, wheat stubble) on the soil surface.

Initially promoted as a mechanism to reduce soil
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 127

erosion, reduced tillage also tends to produce soils

with higher levels of organic matter and soil fauna.

Because the soil is less disturbed by cultivation in

reduced tillage systems, burrowing animals (insects,

earthworms, etc.) may create extensive networks of

charnels through which water may preferentially

flow (27). One study estimated that twice as much

water flowed out of the root zone under no-till as

compared to conventional till. This effect was

attributed to reduced evaporation and increased

number of conduits from the surface through the soil

profile (190). This condition may promote movement of agrichemicals to groundwater; however,

data are limited (190,165).

Tillage systems may affect soil organic matter

content significantly. Commonly, under conventional tillage systems where the soil is significantly

disturbed, organic matter decreases through oxidation (212), whereas under reduced tillage systems

surface residue accumulation and soil organic matter

content may be quite high, Surface residue accumulations and increased soil organic matter content

common under reduced tillage systems may increase

the potential for immobilization of applied nitrogen.

Evidence suggests that this effect may be due to low

populations of the nitrifiying bacteria responsible

for the conversion of organic nitrogen to nitrogen in

the upper 15 cm of the reduced tillage soil profile

(207). While this might represent an opportunity to

retard vitrification and thus potential nitrateleaching losses, the immobilized nitrogen also may

be unavailable to the plant, potentially retarding its

growth.

As tillage and cropping practices influence the

physical soil properties, they also may affect the soil

microorganism activity necessary for mineralization

of organic nitrogen. Thus, these factors may be of

great importance to crop nutrition and groundwater

quality (41). However, strategies with which to

manage organic nitrogen mineralization in relation

to rainfall and crop nitrogen demand are lacking

(86).

The additional reliance on herbicides for weed

control in certain reduced tillage systems may

exacerbate agrichemical loss to groundwater (12 1,27).

However, field data vary widely, indicating that

environmental parameters significantly influence

the propensity for agrichemical movement. Some

analysts report that reduced tillage systems require

more herbicides only in the first few years, with

60

50

40

30

0

Figure 4-9—Recovery of Fertilizer N by No-Till and

Conventionally Grown Corn

% recovery of fertilizer N

Conventional tillage

76 151 303

Ibs N/acre

SOURCE: J.O. Legg, G. Stanford, and O.L. Bennett, “Utilization of

Labeled-N Fertilizer by Silage Corn Under Conventional and

No-Till Culture,” Agronomy Journa/, vol. 71, 1979, pp. 1009-

1015.

herbicide use declining as practitioners become

familiar with the tillage techniques. Despite these

concerns, most agronomists conclude that soil conservation benefits of conservation tillage outweigh

potential groundwater quality impacts (1 11).

Tillage systems also may affect plant recovery of

fertilizer (figure 4-9) and thus fertilization schemes.

Reduced nitrogen efficiency associated with the

various forms of reduced tillage systems initially

seems more related to volatilization and immobilization of applied nitrogen fertilizer than vitrification

and nitrate leaching. However, in moist cropping

regions, ample opportunity may exist for mineralization of immobilized N, nitrification, and subsequently nitrate leaching (166).

Although injection of fertilizers may address this

need to some extent, such application methods are

problematic in reduced tillage systems because of

maintained surface residues, A study in Indiana

showed that under no-till conditions yields were

greater when fertilizer was injected than when it was

surface applied (164). Possible reasons for the lower
128 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

yields from surface-applied fertilizers include volatilization, immobilization, or denitrification.

Fertilizer research over the last 30 years largely

has focused on conventional tillage (primary tillage

with a moldboard plow with various secondary

tillage practices). Thus, fertilizer recommendations

have been based on a crop management system that

is much different from the various reduced tillage

systems that are now gaining popularity (166).

Acreage under some form of conservation tillage

rose from four million acres to 98 million acres

between 1963 and 1986 (33 percent of total planted

cropland). The highest use of conservation tillage is

in the Corn Belt, totaling 34 percent of planted acres

in 1988 (227). Although estimated acreage under

conservation tillage has dropped by nearly 28

percent since 1986 (possibly due to acres idled under

Federal acreage reduction programs in 1987 and

1988), adoption is expected to increase again. One

SCS projection, assuming an improved farm economy in the 1990s, indicates that 63 to 82 percent of

total planted cropland acreage could be in conservation tillage by the year 2010 (228). Clearly, research

to identify the action and interactions of agrichemicals in reduced tillage systems is needed. Advance

of reduced tillage systems requires new concepts of

fertilizer and chemical placement, including significant changes in application techniques and new

equipment (73).

Water Management

An important factor in attempting to prevent

movement of agrichemicals into groundwater is

proper management of water sources-natural and

artificial-used in crop production. Water management practices in non-irrigated agricultural regions

are closely related to soil management, and are

designed to maintain soil moisture at levels sufficient to allow crop growth. Soil management

techniques that promote maintenance of soil organic

matter and increased water infiltration can contribute to enhanced soil moisture storage. In some areas,

fallow seasons are necessary to allow for soil

moisture recharge.

In humid regions, excessive water may pose a

constraint to cultivation. Under these conditions,

alternatives to reduce the flux of water and soluble

agrichemicals below the crop root zone include

cropping patterns to promote plant moisture uptake

and installation of drainage systems. Drainage

systems serve to remove excess moisture from the

soil and numerous studies have focused on the

relative amounts of agrichemicals contained in tile

drains. Potential for contamination of groundwater

largely may be related to drainage-water disposal

practices and, to a lesser extent, to improperly

functioning drainage systems (212). If drainage

outflows are disposed of through agricultural drainage wells or sinkholes they may represent significant

groundwater contamination potential (see ch. 3).

Weather prediction may play a significant role in

overall water management approaches. Accurate

and timely prediction of precipitation conditions

could allow producers to adjust their agrichemical

application plans accordingly. For example, under

drought conditions, applied fertilizers remain unused by the crop and thus excess nitrogen is

available for movement through the soil or to other

media. Alternatively, agrichemicals applied prior to

a major precipitation event maybe washed off plant

surfaces, leach through the soil profile, or run off the

land. Improved weather prediction capacity and

dissemination of this information could assist producers’ in making appropriate rate and timing

decisions for agrichemical inputs.

Under irrigation systems additional opportunities

exist to improve water management. Application of

excessive quantities of irrigation water or nonuniform distribution of irrigation water can cause runoff

or deep percolation of water and dissolved agrichemicals to groundwater (77). Most irrigation acreage

expansion since 1945 has occurred with the installation of sprinkler irrigation systems in areas located

over major groundwater aquifers. Nitrate and pesticide contamination of groundwater have been measured in several regions, with much of it likely due to

agricultural practices. Significant potential for nitrate and pesticide contamination exists in many

major U.S. groundwater areas. Vulnerable areas are

concentrated in the humid, subhumid, and Central

Great Plains regions, the same regions where sprinkler systems are the dominant mode of irrigation

(208),

Sixty-eight percent of total groundwater withdrawal is applied to the land though various irrigation systems. Irrigated acreage is concentrated

largely in the 17 western states (85 percent), the

Mississippi Delta, Florida, and South Georgia (figure 4-10). Total U.S. irrigated acreage stabilized in

the 1980’s largely due to low farm commodity prices
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 129

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Improving water-use efficiency in irrigated and

“chemigated” agriculture can reduce the potential for

agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Here, a laseraligned, traveling trickle-irrigation system is being tested in

California cotton fields.

and increasing irrigation costs, particularly energyrelated expenses. Agricultural commodities produced using irrigation systems generated 30 percent

of the total value of the U.S. market (78). Clearly,

irrigated acreage plays a significant role in U.S.

agricultural production (figure 4-1 1).

Attributes of irrigation systems that may affect

agrichemical contamination of groundwater include

scheduling, timing, rates, drainage, and system type

(e.g., sprinkler, drip, furrow). Uniformity of distribution is a key factor of major importance when

evaluating the potential for irrigation practices to

promote groundwater contamin ation. Uneven distribution across a field may result in overapplication

and thus promote deep percolation of water and

contained solutes. Advances in irrigation technology such as the Low Energy Precision Application

(LEPA) system enhance uniformity of distribution

as well as increased water use efficiency. The LEPA

system was developed by agricultural researchers in

Texas and is designed to apply irrigation water and

agrichemicals in small amounts and in precise

locations to maximize the benefits to the crop. An

economic comparison over 4 years of LEPA, drip,

sprinkler, and furrow irrigation systems showed

LEPA to be most profitable (139).

A mobile irrigation planting system (MIPS),

developed by researchers at the Texas Agricultural

Experiment Station, is an expansion on the LEPA

system. The MIPS combines the capability for seed

planting and irrigation, allowing growers to plant

and irrigate with the same equipment (139). The

system contains a facility for seed germination and

gel coating for seed protection, a transfer and

injection system, and a distribution and planting unit

(cf: 115).

Proper scheduling and rate of irrigation can

promote effective and efficient water use. Improper

scheduling can lead to the application of too much

or too little water. Overapplication of water may

result in deep percolation or runoff of water and

applied agrichemicals. While transit time for water

to move from the soil surface to the groundwater

table may range from a few days to centuries,

excessive irrigation has a great potential to hasten

this downward movement.

In the arid parts of the Western States where

rainfall is not adequate to maintain an acceptable salt

balance, irrigation may be used to flush salts below

the crop root zone. Most irrigation practices include

management practices for salinity control. Irrigation

applied to promote deep percolation of surface salts

may also transport other contaminants.

Four categories of irrigation systems are prevalent

today: surface (use of gravity to distribute water),

sprinkler (use of pressurized pipes to distribute water

to sprinklers or nozzles for discharge through air to

plants and soil), subirrigation (water supplied to crop

root zone via capillary action by raising water table

in soil using unlined surface channels or unpressurized underground pipes) and microirrigation (water

distributed in closely spaced small-diameter pres-
130 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 4-10-Areas of Irrigated Land in the United States

17

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricu/tura/ Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986), p. 374, h: Threadgill, E. D., 1989.

stied conduits above, on, or below ground, with

distribution from miniature sprinklers or emitters at

low flow rates and pressures). The sprinkler system

is the preferred type of irrigation system on most

irrigated acreage added during the last few decades

(208).

Costs of irrigation systems are quite variable,

depending on system type, soil type, topography,

field shape, and water source. Generally, capital

costs are greatest for subirrigation systems and least

for surface systems; sprinklers and microirrigation

are intermediate. The reverse seems to be true for

energy costs: surface systems are highest and

subirrigation lowest. Although certain sprinkler

systems may have high labor costs, irrigation

systems such as microirrigation and center-pivot

sprinkler systems lend themselves to automation,

thus reducing labor requirements.

Potential effects of irrigation on agrichemical

contamination of groundwater vary among the four

categories of irrigation systems. Deep percolation of

water below the root zone is more likely to occur

with surface systems than with other types. Moreover, significant quantities of water applied in

surface irrigation can run off the field and be

discharged into surface water resources unless the

water is contained or recycled into the irrigation

system. This return flow or tailwater can transport

chemicals from a variety of sources (e.g., directly

added, picked up from the soil surface).

Sprinkler systems installed in areas with high

slopes may promote runoff when improperly designed or operated. This runoff may contain chemicals from a variety of sources. Subirrigation systems

frequently are designed to irrigate and provide

drainage for the plant root zone. Although deep

percolation should not be a problem in subirrigated

areas, any drainage waters could potentially transport chemicals from the field into offsite drainage

systems (208).

Quantity and timing of irrigation have direct

impacts on the potential for movement of agrichem-
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 131

Figure 4-1 l—Percentage of Harvested Cropland

Irrigated for Major Program Crops

% of harvested cropland Irrigated

110 -

I 100.0

60

50

4 0

3 0

20

Alce cotton Peanuts Grain Corn Wheat Soy beans

for nuts sorghum for grain for grain

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989 Agricultural Chartbook,

Agricultural Handbook No. 684 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1989).

icals through the soil profile. Excessive water can

increase the amount and rate of percolation of a

water-soluble pesticide through soil into groundwater, as well as runoff of trace residues (either

dissolved in water or adsorbed to soil particles)

(73,208).

Effective management of any irrigation system

depends primarily on irrigation scheduling. Determinations of when to irrigate and the amount of

water to apply are made almost daily during growing

season. The decision of when to irrigate may need to

be made in advance if the system requires movement, or additional labor, or is dependent on placing

an order for the water. The amount of water to apply

similarly is dependent on many factors, including

soil type; stage of crop growth; precipitation since

last irrigation, or predicted during next few days; and

probable lapsed time before subsequent irrigation

can be scheduled (208).

Three basic approaches exist for irrigation scheduling: 1) allowable soil-water depletion; 2) soilwater tension; and 3) allowable plant-water stress.

Scheduling based on allowable soil-water depletion

involves irrigation before predetermined limits for

these criteria are reached (208). For example, the

predetermined limit could be when 50 percent of the

available water contained in the plant root-zone at

field capacity has been depleted. Irrigation is applied

to bring the soil moisture to field capacity, or another

desired limit.

Soil water tension is defined as the force required

for a plant root to extract moisture from the soil

complex and varies with soil type and condition.

Irrigation scheduling based on the soil-water tension

approach is designed to supplement soil water

before the plant roots can no longer effectively

extract water. The amount of water to be applied is

based on the relationship between soil-water tension

and the soil-moisture depletion and is highly field

specific.

Irrigation based on plant-water stress involves

measurement of the water stress in some part of the

plant and irrigating before a critical limit is reached.

This method only identifies when irrigation is

needed and does not define the amount of water to

be applied.

Several technologies exist to enhance imigation

scheduling decisions. For example, soil-moisture

measuring devices and automated microprocessorbased scheduling systems may improve irrigation

timing and amount. Gypsum blocks set into the soil

have been shown to be an effective mechanism for

determining relative soil moisture. Use of such

indicators can facilitate accurate determination of

soil moisture needs and thus assist in appropriate

irrigation scheduling decisions. Surge-flow and

cablegation systems can lower potential for deep

percolation and high-volume tailwater from surface

irrigation systems (208).

Clearly, existing and emerging technologies may

enhance the efficiency of irrigation practices. In

particular, significant advances could be made by

more widespread use of advanced irrigation scheduling techniques and the adoption of improved irrigation uniformity technologies. Consideration of weather

patterns may also be important in scheduling decisions to avoid excessive percolation of water and

contained solutes through the soil profile. This may

be particularly true for irrigation scheduling or

application that is not based on relative soil-moisture

content,

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Agrichemical wastes arising from certain agricultural activities have been implicated as groundwater

contaminants. Nitrate leaching from manure storage

has been noted under feedlots in numerous studies

(197). Pesticide contamination of well water also has

been linked to inappropriate mixing and loading of

pesticide application equipment near wells. Seepage
132 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

wise irrigation management is critical in reducing -

agrichemical losses under such circumstances.

of effluents from livestock-feed silage have

been noted as groundwater contaminants.

Entry of these wastes into groundwater

also

may

represent point-source contamination. In many cases,

however, leaching through soils has also been

identified as a route of entry. Such agrichemical

losses to the environment represent an economic

loss to the practitioner. Thus, approaches that

increase the efficacy of waste-management practices

should provide economic benefits to producers as

well as the environment.

Agrichemical Wastes

Pesticide and fertilizer spills and leaks at commercial facilities have been responsible for numerous

detections of chemicals in groundwater (75). In

some cases pesticide concentrations in soils and

water around the pesticide mixing, loading, and

equipment-cleaning areas of these facilities are close

to formulation concentrations (76,145) (table 4-14).

On-farm storage, mixing, and loading areas can

present a similar, although smaller scale, threat to

groundwater. For example, a typical pesticide field

application rate is one to four pounds per acre. In

terms of concentration, spilling 1/4 pound of a

chemical in a 100 sq.ft. area around a well head is

roughly equivalent to the application of 100 lbs per

acre. Improper management of on-farm mixing and

loading areas is believed to be a major factor causing

farm well-water contamination that exceeds enforcement standards of alachlor and atrazine (48).

Pesticide concentrations exceeding 50 micrograms

per liter in well water suggests that mixing, loading,

storage, and disposal sites are likely entry points

(104).

Agrichemical Storage

Pesticide labels contain brief, explicit instructions

for storage. Ideally, pesticide containers should be

stored in a fire-resistant facility on a raised pallet or

on a raised and drained concrete platform (99). Most

farmers use existing buildings for pesticide storage,

although the buildings have not necessarily been

designed for that purpose. If these buildings have an

earthen or wooden floor, spills or leaks present a

groundwater contamination threat, particularly if

they are located in areas of permeable soils and

fractured bedrock, or near a well. Guidelines for safe

storage facilities are available (cf: 40,125 ).6

Early-season buying incentives offered by agrichemical dealers tend to conflict with minimizing the

amount of pesticides stored on-farm. On the other

hand, minimal storage may represent a risk to a

producer in the event of emergencies or poor

weather windows. Opportunities to reduce agrichemical losses during storage lie in upgrading the quality

of storage areas and educating users on storage

hazards and economic benefits of planning for next

year’s production strategies (73).

6De~]ed ~lam for a ~e~ticide storage ad mixing building are available from the Midwest plan ServiCe, ties,~ 5~11.
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 133

Table 4-14--Contamination From Pesticide Mixing and Loading Areas

Maximum concentrations detected

In pools and Groundwater Local

soils in loading in affected background

and rinse areas wells and seeps groundwater

Herbicides:

Atrazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alachlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cyanizine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metolachlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metribuzin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trifluralin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Insecticides:

Carbofuran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fonofos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fumigants:

EDB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,2, dce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carbon Tet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chloroform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nitrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nitrate-Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70,000

270,000

225,000

270,000

52,000

(1,000+)

(1,000+)

(1,000+)

10-100

10-100

10-100

10-100

137-480

30-105

micrograms/liter

65.0

145.0

36.0

50.0

8.0

0.2

No

1.3

1.0

2.0

66.0

4.0

miligrams/liter

18-41

4 - 9

No-0.65

No-1.30

No-0.26

No-0.80

No

No

No

No-0.3

No

No

No

<1.0

SOURCE: G. Hallberg, “Pestiadea ndN itrate Concentrations From 8Case Studies Where Groundwater Has Been

Contaminated intheVicinity of Farm-Chemical Supply Dealerships;’ ln:Hall, F.1989.

Agrichemical Mixing and Loading Areas

Pesticides and fertilizers commonly are loaded

and mixed at the same location on the farm. Often

the site is near a well for convenience in filling spray

tanks (240), and many of these sites lack facilities for

spill containment (60). The same site is sometimes

used to rinse equipment after application. As a

result, chemical residues can accumulate in soils and

are available for leaching to groundwater (40).

Concrete pads and water tight dikes can contain

spills and allow recovery of the spilled chemical. If

the concrete pad slopes to a collection basin, the

same area can be used for rinsing application

equipment (98). However, on-farm lagoons, catchment basins, or other surface storage containment

may not be designed to prevent movement of spent

material into water sources (60).

Pesticide losses during mixing and filling of tanks

and hoppers offers much greater potential for

contamination of surface and groundwater than

losses during application. Back-siphoning from

spray equipment into wells is a common cause of

residues contaminating drinking. water. Pumping

equipment could be required to have antibackflow

devices. Technology to prevent back-siphoning is

already available; however, economic incentives or

regulation may be needed to promote its use (73).

While EPA regulations require back-siphoning equipment on chemigation wells, such regulations do not

exist for other mixing and loading practices.

Thus, a need exists to improve technology and

procedures for storage, handling, and mixing of

pesticides and other agrichemicals. The potential for

dilution and water recycling in pesticide mixing,

loading, and disposal activities needs investigation

(73). Additional commonsense strategies that may

reduce the potential for well contamin ation from

pesticide preparation include restricting mixing/

storage of agricultural chemicals within 500 feet of

a well, and continuous supervision of the sprayer/

tank during filling operations (73).

Transfer Systems

Some systems for loading, transferring, and mixing pesticides eliminate the need to open containers

and handle materials and thus may reduce the

potential for spilled materials or rinse water to

contaminate groundwater at this stage. Such systems

meter and transfer chemicals from the shipping

container to the mixing or application tanks and

commonly rinse the emptied container (15). Individual farmers have developed a variety of ways to use

couplings, valves, and hoses to transfer and mix

chemicals in a closed system (175).

Pesticides packaged in premeasured, soluble bags

that may be put directly into mixing tanks have some
134 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

potential to reduce the possibility of spillage.

Further, such packaging reduces human exposure

during the mixing process. Similarly, returnable

systems allow a producer to return the container and

remaining pesticide mix to the dealer. Such systems

are receiving increased interest and are a major

emphasis of the National Agricultural Chemical

Association’s member companies (64). However,

additional resources for research on suitable technologies for returnable systems as well as the potential

for such systems to reduce agrichemical waste are

needed to promote their development and use (73).

Disposal Practices

Three types of pesticide waste with potential to

contaminate groundwater are produced on the farm:

leftover pesticides, empty containers, and rinse

water from washing equipment and containers.

Some pesticides are listed as hazardous or acutely

hazardous wastes in the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Many other pesticides not specifically listed in Federal and State laws

are classified as hazardous because they exhibit

hazardous characteristics identified in the laws

(99,244).

Pesticides are packaged in a wide variety of

containers of varying material composition, size and

shape, creating problems for users in pouring,

storage, rinsability after use, and disposal (73).

Pesticide containers that seem empty generally

contain chemical residues. For example, several

ounces of some pesticide formulations can remain in

an unrinsed 5-gallon container despite normal efforts to empty it (40). Some residues remain even

after draining and rinsing (table 4-15). Triple-rinsed

containers can be legally disposed of in sanitary

landfills, but few landfills now accept them because

of concern over liability. However, improper disposal of empty containers or excess unused pesticides can cause localized groundwater problem in

disposal areas (73).

Rinse water from cleaning application equipment

and containers also contains chemical residues.

Rinse water includes solutions left after field spraying, water from washing the outside of the sprayer or

spray tank, and spray left in booms and hoses. Rinse

water should be sprayed on fields at the proper rate

of application for the chemical; however, often it is

simply dumped or disposed of on the ground (240).

A number of facilities have been designed and tested

for disposing of leftover pesticides and rinse water

Table 4-15-Pesticide Residues After Rinsing

Containers

Active ingredient in the 1 oz. of liquid remaining in a 5-gallon

container

Rinsing stage Pesticide residue (grams)

After draining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2

After 1st rinse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2

After 2d rinse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.003

After 3d rinse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00005

SOURCE: R. Doersch, J. Wedberg, C. Grau, and R. Flashinski, Pest

Management Principles for the Wisconsin Farmer, 2d ed.

(Madison, Wl: University of Wisccmsi~Extension, 1988), /n:

Jackson, G.W., et al., 1989

(235). These disposal systems might be feasible for

use at commercial facilities, but there is a continuing

need for inexpensive on-farm systems (240).

The most cost-effective approach to improving

the situation is to minimize the amount of waste.

Cost-effective waste effluent treatment systems

could address this need to some extent. Some such

systems have been developed (e.g., ICI Sentinel

System) aided by Federal grants; however, this

effort could be expanded to promote more rapid

development of similar systems (73).

Livestock Wastes

Animal agriculture accounted for a significant

part of the gross agricultural receipts in the United

States in 1988, exceeding the contribution of crops

($80.2 billion or 53 percent of the total) (197).

However, livestock and poultry production operations can sometimes contribute to excess nutrients,

salts, organic matter, and other constituents as

contaminants of groundwater if manure and wastewater are not properly managed. Constituents in

livestock and poultry manure that can cause groundwater contamination primarily include pathogenic

organisms, nitrate, and ammonia. Presence of such

constituents in livestock drinking water may adversely affect livestock health (34). Under special

conditions other constituents such as potassium,

sodium, chloride, and sulfate also may be leached

and impair groundwater quality.

Certain livestock production practices may promote nutrient contamination of groundwater. Potential sources of groundwater contamination include

open unpaved feedlots, runoff holding ponds, manure treatment and storage lagoons, manure stockpiles, and land application of manure and wastewater. Dead animal disposal and animal dipping-vats

may contribute to localized groundwater contamina-
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 135

Photo credit: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Improper disposal of pesticide wastes and pesticide containers may pose significant hazards to groundwater quality. Pesticide

containers that seem empty still may contain chemical residues and some residue may remain even after draining and rinsing.

tion. Manure accumulations around livestock watering locations, intermittent-use stock pens, and livestockgrazing operations that vary from sparse rangeland

to intensive pastures may also influence surface and

groundwater quality. In many cases the relationships

between the practice and pollution potential have

been identified. For these, technologies exist to

reduce the potential adverse impacts of livestock

production on groundwater resources.

To prevent discharge to surface waters, livestock

manure and wastewater may be collected, stored,

and then land applied. However, application rates

must be developed that account for the nitrogen

content existing in the soil to avoid applying

excessive amounts that may leach through the soil

profile (figure 4-12). Under wastewater irrigation

systems, application should be uniformly less than

the soil-infiltration rate to prevent surface runoff.

Further, manure and wastewater should be applied to

soils at annual rates that match crop-yield goals and

expected plant uptake of nutrients to assure that

nutrients are used efficiently and that groundwater

contamination is not likely.

Livestock and poultry manure generated from

concentrated and confined animal feeding facilities

may be a valuable resource for fertilizer, feedstuff,

or fuel. Manure is widely used as an organic

fertilizer in many areas. Certain types of manure also

may receive limited use in specialized situations as

a feedstuff, as a substrate for anaerobic digestion to

produce biogas, or as a fuel for combustion/

gasification for electric power generation. However,

these latter uses return all or a part of the original

manure fertilizer value as a residue that eventually is

applied to land.

Overall, the general routes to groundwater contamination from livestock production operations are

the same as those from other forms of agriculture:

leaching, runoff, and direct infiltration. Animal

production facilities and practices that create the

potential for such mechanisms to operate include:

intermittently occupied livestock facilities, continuous-confinement facilities, and manure stockpiles and storage bunkers;

liquid-manure storage ponds or treatment lagoons and runoff collection channels;

dead animal disposal pits;

feed silos and grain-storage pits and stockpile;

and

land application of manures, livestock insecticideapplication sites (spray pens and vats), and
136 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

as one-half or two-thirds of manure produced might

be voided on pastures, depending on the types of

production systems, season, climatic region, and

herd size. However, as dairy operations increase in

size the trend to total confinement is expected to

800

600

4 0 0

2 0 0

0

Check 10 3 0 6 0 1 2 0 2 4 0

Manure applied (T/A )

SOURCE: A.C. Mathers and B.A. Stewart, “Manure Effects on Crop Yields

and Soil Properties, ” Transactions of American Society of

Agriwttural Engineers, vol. 27, No. 4, 1984, pp. 1022-1026.

disposal sites for insecticide containers and

residues.

Indirect introduction of agrichemicals or nutrients

into groundwater may occur in a number of ways. In

addition to these, potential also exists for direct

introduction of runoff or leachate through activities

conducted in the vicinity of active or abandoned

wells.

Manure Production and Distribution

Total U.S. manure production (dry basis) by all

livestock and poultry species has been estimated at

nearly 158 million tons annually. This amount

contains some 6.5 million tons of nitrogen, nearly 2

million tons of phosphorus, and nearly 4 million tons

of potassium (197). Direct losses via volatilization,

leaching, and runoff are estimated to reduce the

nutrient content of manure significantly.

Based on land-application values from a 1974

study of manure production, current economically

recoverable manure production would supply an

estimated 184 pounds of nitrogen/acre, 67 pounds of

phosphorus/acre and 122 pounds of potassium/acre

for nearly 15 million acres of U.S. cropland (238,197).

However, according to estimates, “extensive” production of livestock on pastures and rangelands

accounts for a large proportion of the manure

produced. This manure recycles back through the

soil and plant system but is largely uncollectible and

is therefore ‘unmanageable.’ Extensive production

systems account for about 88 percent of the total for

beef cattle as well as sheep. For dairy cattle, as much

may vary by two or three orders of magnitude from

10 to 5,000 pounds liveweight per acre, depending

on climate, soils, topography, and management

intensity. Accordingly, manure voided varies from

no more than 0.5 to 7 dry tons per acre per year and

nitrogen deposition ranges from approximately 1 to

500 pounds per acre per year for sparse rangelands

and intensively grazed improved pastures, respectively (198). While nitrogen deposits may be a factor

in sustaining forage production on more intensively

grazed, improved pastureland, nutrient return may

be almost inconsequential on more extensive rangeland.

For intensive animal-production systems (predominately in confinement), the predominant sources

of voided manure seem to be dairy cattle, swine, beef

feedlot cattle, broilers, turkeys, and laying hens.

Figure 4-13 shows manure production and nitrogen

concentration (as-voided basis) within intensive

systems versus extensive livestock production systems as a function of animal density and spacing per

unit liveweight.

For purposes of water pollution control, intensive

livestock production systems are defined in the EPA

regulations for feedlots as:

. . . animal feeding operations (where animals are)

stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total

of 45 days or more in any 12 month period, and. . .

crops, vegetation, forage growth or post harvest

residues are not sustained in the normal growing

season over any portion of the lot or facility. (234)

This definition covers many animal species, types

of facility, animal densities, climate, and soils. It

uses a single, visually determined criterion—

absence of vegetation. Under such conditions, manure production and animal traffic are great enough

and frequent enough to prevent germin ation or

growth of forage. This condition implies that:

● crop uptake is not a pathway for nutrient

removal, thus runoff, volatilization, and leaching pathways may be proportionately larger

than from vegetated surfaces;
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 137

Figure 4-13-Average Amount of Manure Nitrogen Defecated per Unit Area as a Function of Animal Spacing

Manure nitrogen defecated on soil surface, lbs. /acre/year

Open

feedlot

10,000-

1000-

100 :

10:

Beef and dairy cattle

Nitrogen loading rates

for various animal spacings

and production systems

o

I

r r r I I I II I I I I I firri I I I I I 1 Ill I I f I I 1111 I I I I I 1111

.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000

Average space allocation per unit of

animal liveweight, ft. 2/lb

SOURCE: J.M. Sweeten md D.L. Redden, “Nonpoint Sources: State of the Art Overview,” Transactions of the ASAE, vol. 21, No. 3, 1978, pp. 474-483.

. runoff volume is greater and time of concentra- long after livestock are moved from the confinement

tion is shorter as compared to a vegetated area.

surface; and Livestock Waste Collection Trends

. a vegetation falter to slow and capture suspended sediments is lacking. Certain aspects of livestock production practices

have potential to influence groundwater quality

These conditions, which increase the potential for because of the waste management practices with

nutrient contamination of groundwater, may persist which they may be associated. Livestock operations
138 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

are increasingly moving toward the use of confinement buildings and larger feeding facilities and

away from labor-intensive manure-handling systems. In such confinement buildings there is increased use of manure flush systems or mechanical

scrapers, which provide for manure collection as

often as several times a day.

Flush, Lagoon Irrigation Systems—These systems use large volumes of water to remove and

transport manure from confinement areas. Lagoons

or holding ponds are needed for storage and treatment of manure prior to land application. The

effluent produced usually has considerable nitrogen

content such that land application quantities are

limited based on the soil or plant capacity to

assimilate the amount applied. Solids concentrations, however, are low and volumes generally are

sufficient to favor application by irrigation rather

than hauling. Low, frequent, uniform applications

are needed to avoid runoff and excessive nutrient

leaching.

Mechanical Scrapers, Storage Pit, Tank-Wagon

Transport Systems—These types of systems also

are used to collect livestock manure from confinement buildings on a daily basis. Mechanical scrapers

are used to remove the waste with minimal amounts

of supplemental water. Consequently a much smaller

storage structure is needed—generally concrete

tanks or small earthen pits. The relatively high solids

concentration make it convenient to use tankwagons or trucks for direct transport to fields where

application may be by surface spreading or soil

injection. Due to the relatively high nutrient concentrations, much lower volumetric application rates

per acre must be observed as compared with lagoon

effluent.

Open Feedlots With Solids Collection and Runoff Control-open feedlots may be less likely to

pose a potential hazard to groundwater quality in

areas characterized by at least a 30-inch moisture

deficit and moderate winters. Manure in solid form

is scraped at intervals (weekly, annually) and

stacked in pens or outside stockpiles prior to land

application. Rainfall runoff is collected in runoff

holding ponds and irrigated on croplands or pasturelands. In dry climates, evaporation is the method

often used for disposal of feedlot runoff.

Management Practices and Effects

on Groundwater Contamination

Leaching from feedlot surfaces, stockpiled manure, and land-applied manure and effluent, and

seepage from runoff holding ponds can potentially

contaminate groundwater. General trends toward

consolidation of ownership, more frequent manure

collection, off-site marketing of solid manure, use of

comporting to reduce volume, reduced application

rates, and expansion of land ownership by feeding

operations may reduce this potential. Land application of holding-pond effluent does not seem to be

increasing, and installation of overflow water systems that reduce storage capacities of such holding

ponds seems to be increasing.

Feedlot Surfaces—Research in several states, in

arid and humid climates, has determined that an

active feedlot surface develops a compacted manure/

soil layer (2 to 4 inches thick) that provides an

excellent moisture seal. This layer may reduce

downward water movement significantly (129,128),

thus restricting leaching of salts, nitrates, and

ammonium into the subsoil and underlying groundwater (table 4-16) (186). The compacted, inter-facial

layer is composed of bacterial cells, organic matter,

degradation products, and soil particles.

The soil surface essentially self-seals if an anaerobic layer of compacted manure is left undisturbed

above the manure/soil layer. This seal may retard the

formation and leaching of nitrate in favor of

denitrification (193,23). The best soil profile to

retard nitrate and nitrite movement and retain salts

near the surface was found to be a sand topsoil above

a clay-loam subsoil (142).

Appropriate collection practices should be used to

remove manure to avoid disrupting this surface-seal

layer. Correct use of collection machines such as

wheel loaders or elevating scrapers that leave the

manure pack will maintain the residue layer and thus

restrict leaching potential. This will result in collection of highest quality manure for crop fertilization

or energy generation (199).

Measurements of groundwater quality under 80

cattle feedlots in the Ogallala Aquifer in the Texas

High Plains indicated that about one-fourth had

contributed to nitrate levels approaching or exceeding 10 ppm in the immediate vicinity of the feedlots.

Seepage rates were estimated at 0.003 to 0.03 inches
Chapter &Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 139

Table 4-16-Nitrate, Nitrite, and Ammonium-Nitrogen Concentrations Beneath Playa

Used for Feedlot Runoff Collection (in ppm)

Feedlot playaa Non-feedlot playab

Depth (feet) Nitrate Ammonium Nitrite Nitrate Nitrite

o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8 58.7 2.8 .- - -

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.0 18.4 3.2 7.8 0.34

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 5.7 0.13 2.8 0.16

3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 5.7 0.13 2.8 0.16

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 3.3 0.03 2.5 0.13

5 3.4 3.5 0.02

6-13. : : : :: : : : : : : : : 0.3 -2.7 1.1 -2.8 0.02-0.12

aAVerage of three center observation wells.

bAverage Of ho observation wells.

SOURCE: O.R. Lehman, B.A. Stewart, and A,C. Mathers, Seepage of Feedyard Runoff Water Impounded in Playas,

MP-944 (College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, 1970), /n:

sweeten, J. M.,-l 989.

Figure 4-14—Ammonia and Nitrate Present in a

Feedlot Soil Profile

N H4-N (ppm)

SOURCE: G.E. Schuman and TM. McCalla, “Beef Cattle Feedlots: Impact

on Underlying Soil,” Abstracts (Fort Collins, CO: Western

Society of Soil Science, June 1975).

per hour under feedlot surfaces and playas used for

runoff collection (13 1).

Concentrations of nitrate and ammonia decrease

rapidly within the top foot of the feedlot soil layer

(figure 4-14) (186). Soil-water samples taken at

three feet beneath cattle feedlots showed concentrations of nitrate, phosphorus, and magnesium and

Photo credit: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Livestock wastes can be a significant source of nitrate

having the potential to contaminate groundwater.

Commonly feedlots leach little through their hard-packed

floors, but may contribute runoff to nearby surface waters

or leach through to groundwater after abandonment.

total solids similar to concentrations found under

adjacent cropland (1,49,186,36).

Feedlots that have been abandoned without manure removal may have greater potential for groundwater contamination (1 19) than active operations.

Cropping abandoned feedlots to deep-rooted crops

such as alfalfa may have some potential for capturing nitrates that have migrated through the soil

profile (212).

Holding Ponds and Lagoons—Leaching from

livestock waste-treatment lagoons and runoff holding ponds has also been studied by researchers for at

least two decades. It has been determined tha t

bacterial cells and fine organic matter generally clog

soil pore-spaces along the bottom and sides of

lagoons and holding ponds (14) creating a seal (37).
140 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

After several months of storage, soil coefficients of

permeability of wastewater pond bottoms are generally one to three orders of magnitude lower than

those of clean water ponds (177,108,13). Where the

bottom and sides of manure storage ponds and

lagoons have a moderate- to fine-textured soil the

final permeability coefficient is usually reduced

significantly (14). While infiltration time varies

depending on soil type, it also is affected by the type

of manure. For example, measurements taken of

infiltration rates of swine and dairy slurry indicate

that infiltration of swine slurry increases over time

relative to dairy (figure 4-15).

Although livestock manure and wastewater provide beneficial self-sealing on the bottom and sides

of lagoons and holding ponds, regulatory agencies

further suggest that lagoons should be placed on

relatively impermeable subsoils (45).

A study of the leaching of contaminants in

feedyard runoff below a playa lake bottom indicated

that nitrogen compounds did not move below 3 feet.

At 2 feet and below the nitrate and nitrite concentrations were only slightly higher than for playas that

did not receive feedyard runoff (109). A further

study showed that nitrate concentrations decreased

drastically within the top meter and that below one

meter, nitrate concentrations were no more than 10

mg/1 nitrate-nitrogen (figure 4-16).

The potential for groundwater contamination is

increased in arid regions when playa lake bottoms

are excavated below the natural clay layer. An

alternative is to stockpile the clay and reapply it to

a compacted depth of one foot or more over the

bottom and sides to serve as a clay liner (205).

Monitoring wells placed in the vicinity of livestock waste-treatment lagoons and holding ponds

have been used to evaluate the distribution of

groundwater contaminants caused by lagoon seepage (28,25, 187,176, 153). Nutrient or salt concentrations sometimes increase in shallow groundwater in

the immediate vicinity of lagoons or holding ponds.

However, these initial increases usually diminish

after several months. These results are reasonably

consistent with the observed reductions in permeability caused by self-sealing.

Researchers are working on new methods for

locating and quantifying groundwater pollution near

animal waste lagoons to replace expensive, timeconsuming soil-sampling techniques. An aboveFigure 4-15-infiltration Rates for Swine and Dairy

Manure Slurries Over Coarse Sand

1,000

100

10

Infiltration time, hours

SOURCE: S.F. Barrington and P.J. Jutras, “Selecting Sites for Earthen

Manure Reservoirs,” A@dtuml Waste Utilization and Management, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on

Agricultural Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1985, pp. 386-392.

ground electromagnetic (EM) sensor is used to

detect conductivity plumes or gradients that suggest

leakage of livestock waste materials from lagoons.

Efforts are under way to correlate the relationship of

specific EM signals and groundwater contamination

to form the basis for determining groundwater

pollution from waste lagoons (30).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

regulations for confined livestock and poultry operations deal with surface-water protection and do not

include requirements for groundwater protection.

Several States and local entities do have groundwater protection requirements. For example, the

Texas Water Commission regulation that governs

confined, concentrated livestock- and poultryfeeding operations considers groundwater protection for lagoons and holding ponds (205). The

regulation requires that all wastewater-retention

facilities be constructed of compacted, lowpermeability soils (e.g., a clay or clay loam) at a

minimum thickness of 12 inches.
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 141

Figure 4-1 6-Nitrates, Dry-Weight Basis Beneath

Feedyard Playa

Depth meters

2

3

!

I

41 T , T- -- , -- T-- -- J.. ,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 190

Nitrates ppm

SOURCE: R.N. Clark, “Seepage Beneath Feedyard Runoff Catchments,”

Managing Livestock Wastes, Proceedings of the Third international Symposium on Livestock Wastes, American Society of

Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Ml, pp. 289295, 1975,

Livestock waste management techniques exist

that may reduce the potential for groundwater

contamination from livestock production practices.

Further effort is needed to promote development and

adoption of such practices. Areas of significant

importance include:

●

●

●

increased development of manure treatment

and use technologies, particularly in relation to

comporting, biogas generation, thermochemical conversion, fiber recovery, and marketing

of such products (box 4-H);

development and extension of economic guidance for land application of manures, to include

soil testing to define appropriate application

rates, and understanding of nutrient-release

rates; and

quantification of the magnitude of nutrient

losses from lagoons, storage tanks, and land

application as a function of design, operation,

and climatic variables in order to develop

nutrient management plans and nutrient mass

balance models,

The design, location, and management of permanent and temporary livestock-waste storage facilities are factors that may contribute to or prevent

well-water contamination by nitrate and bacteria

(35). Storage and handling facilities will minimize

leaching if they are constructed of concrete or other

impermeable materials and properly managed. Management includes routine inspection and maintenance of above-ground systems to ensure that they

do not rupture; filling facilities only according to

design specifications; and applying the wastes so as

not to exceed the nutrient uptake capacity of the

application area (98).

Increasing the agronomic use of manure might be

fostered through joint efforts among States, cities,

industry, and agriculture to promote manure processing and use on public and private lands. Development of incentives for manure use in cropping

systems, particularly in high manure-production

areas, may offer opportunity to enhance agronomic

use of this resource as opposed to treating it as a

waste disposal problem (box 4-I).

Concomitant activities to increase awareness of

the potential of manure as a groundwater contaminant might be achieved through revision of EPA

effluent guidelines to include groundwater protection requirements. Federal and State programs that

work toward cost-sharing or other economic incentives for livestock producers to adopt and implement

water quality protection practices, particularly in

areas where greatest vulnerability exists, could

promote such adoption. Technical assistance (SCS),

education (CES), and research (ARS) must be able

to promote and support practitioner adoption and

thus may require some enhancement. For example,

demonstration livestock production operations in

areas having a high or low groundwater-pollution

potential could serve to disseminate information on

appropriate best management practices that contain

provisions for groundwater protection.

Silage

Corn, legumes, and grasses commonly are stored

in moist, partially fermented conditions for use as

livestock feed. When stored and compacted in silos

and other facilities, these wet crops lose moisture,

which drains out of the silo as effluent. Effluent

production from silage varies with the material

stored and its moisture and nitrogen content. Of

these, moisture seems to be the most important

factor affecting effluent production. Several studies

have determined that materials stored at 65 percent

moisture content or higher can produce effluent. For

grass silage, the amount produced varies from a

trickle at 75 percent moisture to 79 gallons per ton

at 85 percent moisture (195). About three-quarters of

the effluent is produced in the first 3 weeks of
142 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 4-H—Natural Zeolites: Some Potential Applications in Agricultural Waste Management

Zeolites, a suite of porous fine-grained minerals found in certain near surface, sedimentary rocks, have special

physical and chemical properties that could make them valuable to farmers in agricultural waste management.

Some 50 species of a certain group of natural minerals called zeolites have their atoms arranged so that they

form hollow cages with tiny openings through which other ions or molecules of the right size can pass. Larger ions

or molecules are screened out from the cages and channels of the zeolites. Because of these unique properties and

behavior, zeolites are referred to as “molecular sieves, ”

In addition, zeolites have the ability to hold various chemical elements (ions) loosely so that they can be

exchanged for other chemical elements. This ion exchange property of zeolites, coupled with the unique properties

of their porous structure, accounts for the interesting and potentially important usefulness of zeolites in agriculture.

With steadily increasing knowledge of zeolites and their applications (158), today it seems evident that those

minerals can play an increasingly important role in agriculture, especially in animal waste management.

Zedites could have an important role in animal waste management because they can adsorb ammonia from

animal wastes (134). Zeolites have a potential for use to help minimize water pollution from agricultural runoff and

to make animal manure easier to handle and to move from animal pens to agricultural plots.

Swine manure, for example, is malodorous and is composed of only about 10 percent solids (132), making it

difficult and undesirable to handle. A zeolite-rich mudstone was used in a swine-raising activity in Japan to reduce

the manure’s offensive odor and to improve its handling, characteristics. The zeolite-treated manure proved suitable

as a fertilizer for rice production (94).

Other work in Japan on large hog farms also illustrates the usefulness of zeolites (141). A zeolite filter

composed of a granular zeolite, used to process contaminated water remaining after initial manure/water filtration,

removed the ammonium ions and other microsubstances, and trapped many of the remaining suspended solids.

Transparency of the effluent showed marked improvement after zeolite treatment and chemical and biological

oxygen demand was significantly reduced.

Recently, Romanian researchers showed similar results to those of the Japanese (1 23). They used nonactivated,

ground volcanic tuff containing 67 percent zeolite in a series of filters, each with a different zeolite size fraction

ranging from 0.5 to 10 mm. The ammonia-nitrogen content decreased 91.3 percent and the nitrate content decreased

99 percent from the initial metallic screens through the final zeolite filter.

Such studies illustrate that zeolites can play an important role in animal waste management by trapping

ammonia. Zeolites could be spread on the floors of animal enclosures to trap ammonia and reduce the odor and

moisture content of manure. Similarly, zeolites could be placed in manure holding ponds and lagoons to trap

ammonia. Periodic removal of the nitrogen-enriched zeolites could provide a fertilizer source for croplands.

Zeolite-amended diets, in the case of poultry, have been shown to reduce the moisture content of feces by 25

percent (249). Such moisture reduction could improve the potential for using poultry manure as a nutrient source.

Swine fed a 5 percent zeolite diet produced more compact and less malodorous feces than control groups (243).

Mixing of ammonium-saturated zeolites with ground rock phosphate or other phosphorus-bearing minerals

with low volubility enhances release of phosphorus in plant-available forms (10,24,106). Greenhouse experiments

mixing ammonium-saturated zedites with ground rock phosphate in ratios of 3:1 to 4.5:1 show increased

phosphorus uptake by plants and increased biomass production (10).

Mixing livestock manures with zeolites offers an opportunity for farmers to reduce potential nitrogen leaching

through the soil profile, In addition, these materials offer a mechanism to improve soil fertility as well as promote

release of phosphorus from soil matter. Zeo-agriculture success will depend on interdisciplinary approaches

involving mineralogists, chemists, and agriculturalists. Thorough assessment of zeolite uses in animal waste

management just as in other agricultural uses is strongly needed (149).

storage, although it can continue to flow for up to 3 levels of acidity, ammonia, nitrate, and iron. Cases

months. The composition of the effluent varies with of water contamination from silage effluent have

the material stored; it may be highly acidic and been documented. In one case, thousands of gallons

corrosive to steel and concrete (200). of sweet-corn silage juices drained through a limeGroundwater contaminated with silage effluent stone sinkhole and contaminated wells a mile from

may have a disagreeable odor and show increased the site (250,25 1).
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 143

●

●

●

●

●

Box 4-I—Best Management Practices for Controlling Potential Contamination of

Surface and Groundwater From Animal Wastes

Annual soil testing to determine nutrient content and evaluation of efficiency of nitrogen use in the production

system.

Nutrient analysis of the waste prior to application to match with crop requirements.

Determination of application rates based on crop needs and soil reservoir.

Timing of application to match maximum crop uptake such as spring or summer.

Application by broadcast and incorporation or injection to avoid volatilization or loss in runoff.

Installation of vegetative filter strips to control sediment and nutrient losses in feedlot and dairy runoff.

. Restrict access of animals to streams, lakes, and other impoundments and rotational grazing to maintain sufficient

vegetative cover on pastureland.

SOURCE: North Carolina State University, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, State o~rhe Arr Review o~l?esr Alanugement

Prucfices~or AgricufruruZ J/onpoinf Source Control,]: Animal Waste (Raleigb NC: North Carolina State University, August 1982).

Silage poses little pollution threat when it is

harvested and stored properly (146). Improper handling can lead to significant effluent flow from

storage facilities. Silage commonly is stored on

uncovered ground or in structures not designed to

contain silage juices (99). Silage storage facilities

include vertical silos; trench silos; temporary stacks;

and temporary, plastic storage-tubes; none of which

were designed for groundwater protection. Collection of silage effluent in water retention structures

such as clay- or plastic-lined ponds can reduce

leaching potential.

Effluent production may be reduced by varying

cutting and harvesting time, adding a silage preservative (e.g., formic acid), and adding moistureabsorbent materials to the silage as it is stored (252).

Addition of absorbent materials has also been shown

to raise nutrient value of the silage. Allowing

materials to wilt in the field for 24 hours prior to

storage has been shown to reduce moisture content

by 10 percent and effluent production by as much as

100 percent (252).

RESEARCH APPROACHES IN

AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

DEVELOPMENT

Two concurrent thrusts for research and technology development are needed in taking a comprehensive approach to reducing groundwater contamination from agriculture. The first thrust addresses more

immediate needs to improve agrichemical management and encompasses technology categories for

point-source controls, efficient application management, and some agrichemical use reduction. This

I

short-term thrust assumes that agrichemical use will

remain the central feature of nutrient and pest

management practices in U.S. agriculture. A second

research thrust aims to increase farmers’ technology

options in the longer term and emphasizes technology categories for agrichemical use reduction and

alternative practices. The long-term thrust assumes

that farmers in the longer term will use ecological

principles and biological methods as the central

means to manage nutrients and pests in integrated

farming systems.

These two research thrusts are not mutually

exclusive, but they involve different research questions, emphasize different scientific disciplines, and

are likely to use different linkages among basic and

applied researchers, commercial fins, and agricultural producers. Moreover, the current agricultural

research and delivery system will accommodate the

short-term thrust much more easily than the longterm thrust, which requires more interdisciplinary

research and greater integration of the biological,

social, and agricultural sciences.

Because the current research and technology

delivery system is more amenable to moving the

short-term thrust forward, researchers and producers

could focus on this thrust exclusively and fail to

recognize the opportunity costs of neglecting longterm information and management needs. The agricultural research system is likely to need strong

public support and incentives to advance the longterm research thrust rapidly enough to achieve

sufficient knowlege that can be translated into

feasible practices (box 4-J).
144 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 4-J—Progression in Research and Development Efforts Needed To Minimize Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater

R&D feature Short-term thrust Long-term thrust

Study regions Identify hydrogeologically vulnerable regions.

Regional Determine extent of groundwater contaminacharacteristics tion and types and characteristics of

contaminants.

Site-specific Clarify agrichemical fate and transport to

processes groundwater.

Site-specific Develop agrichemical formulations that are

products less likely to leach in vulnerable sites,

more efficient application equipment,

and improved handling facilities.

Site-specific Development and adapt practices (e.g.,

practices BMPs) that prevent or reduce agrichemical transport to groundwater.

Site-specific Increase information dissemination on groundservices water vulnerability, appropriate agrichemical selection and management through

existing information-transfer organizations

(e.g., agricultural extension services, commercial firms, consulting services).

Farmer Facilitate agrichemical recordkeeping and

decisionmaking use of realistic yield goals.

assistance

Assistance Emphasize commercial sector and tradidelivery tional “top-down” delivery from researcher

to farmer.

Identify agroecological regions with common natural resource and agricultural

production characteristics.

Identify cross-media agrichemical management problems.

Identify agroecological processes and interactions, and agricultural productions

that affect agrichemical fate and transport.

Develop improved agrichemicals, plant varieties, biopestiades, and other products that maintain or enhance beneficial

ecoIogical processes.

Develop integrated agricultural systems Mission

that optimize beneficial ecological proc- Maximize Farmer

esses, minimize adverse environmental Options

impacts, reduce production costs, and

maintain farm profitability.

Increase information dissemination and education efforts on ecosystem processes;

offer advisory and management services for improved multi-objective decisionmaking; adapt existing extension

framework and develop new services to

provide information and advisory or

management services.

Emphasize long-term farmland resource

management planning to integrate agricultural production and natural resource

protection.

Facilitate commercial sector support of

integrated decisionmaking at the site;

encourage on-farm observation and experimentation.

Components of the U.S. Agricultural Federal Agricultural Research

Research System

Federal agricultural researchers work within the

USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) as well

Public- and private-sector agricultural researchers as research divisions of the Economic Research

play key roles in developing agricultural technolo- Service (ERS) and the Soil Conservation Service

gies and management practices. Such research (SCS) Technical Centers. Other Federal research

includes improving agrichemical products, develop- groups conducting environmentally related agriculing individual or combined management practices, tura1 research are EPA research laboratories, USGS

and designing integrated farm management systems research offices, and the Tennessee Valley Authorthat are less likely to contaminate groundwater with ity (TVA) National Fertilizer and Environmental

agrichemicals. The following discussion focuses on Research Center (NFERC). Despite extensive Fedresearchers’ roles, opportunities, and constraints in eral agricultural research, efforts have not been

developing environmentally related agricultural in- adequately coordinated and planned to ensure conprovements. 7

sistent research methodologies in the development

7A~revlou~ o~rew~~Sreviewed~e u~tedSmtes agricultural research system, its organizational s~chm% roles of r==h P~iciPan~, and

planning and finding mechanisms (21 1); and a recent Special Report covers agricultural research and technology transfer policy issues for the 1990s

(216).
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 145

of environmentally appropriate farm management

practices (140).

State Agricultural Experiment Stations

State-employed agricultural researchers work in

the land-grant universities and State Agricultural

Experiment Stations (SAESs). SAES systems are

composed of field sites, research farms, and laboratories that provide site-specific agronomic information based on a State’s climate, soil, and water

resource conditions.

Each SAES receives Federal formula (Hatch Act)

funding for agricultural research through the USDA

Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS). Individual researchers at many SAESs also receive

Federal competitive grants for specific research

projects, as well as grants from trade associations

and commodity groups for applied research and

product testing. Formula funds generally are directed toward basic and applied research that meets

the needs of each State’s producers and rural

communities. Competitive grants, on the other hand,

emphasize basic research in specific areas. Thus,

formula funds are more likely to be directed toward

development, testing, and dissemination of agricultural practices most suited to the State’s hydrogeologic, climatic, and economic conditions than are

competitive grant funds.

Investment in agricultural research to answer

questions about impacts of agriculture on environmental quality varies widely from State to State.

States that are most likely to provide timely,

site-specific information on groundwater protection

are those that allocate substantial amounts of State

funding for this type of research.

Private-Sector Research

Agricultural researchers in the private sector

apply basic research findings to the development of

commercial products and production techniques.

Commercial agricultural firms historically have

relied on basic research results from the public sector

to develop commercial crop production technologies. Public-sector research in the basic agricultural

sciences, thus, has provided the technical foundation

for commercial applied research. Since development

and commercialization of technologies resulting

from basic research may be lengthy (e.g., 10 to 20

years or more) (178), the breadth and depth of the

basic research base in the public sector is a critical

consideration for new technology development.

All components of the agricultural research system can contribute to the identification, testing, and

adaptation of practices with potential to reduce

agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Although a broad basic research base is needed,

Federal and State governments also need to devote

adequate funding to applied research that addresses

the site-specific nature of environmental problems

in agriculture. Many commercial agricultural technologies have been widely adopted because markets

are large enough to support high-volume production,

resulting in relatively low-cost products to farmers.

However, market niches for innovative agricultural

technologies designed to address specific environmental conditions may not be large enough to

encourage commercial firms to develop these technologies. Such technologies also may be too expensive for farmers in environmentally sensitive areas to

afford. Alternatively, if farmers in such areas cannot

use certain comparatively low-cost inputs (e.g.,

some pesticides), they may be at a competitive

disadvantage with farmers in other areas where

agriculture-related environmental problems are

fewer.

Best Management Practices

The agricultural Best Management Practice (BMP)

concept originated with EPA programs established

to reduce agricultural nonpoint-source pollution and

has been expanded to mean individual methods

designed to reduce adverse impacts on soil, surface

water, or groundwater resources. Best management

practices (BMPs) are defined in the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1976 as:

. . . a practice or combination of practices that is

determined by a State (or designated area-wide

planning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices and appropriate public

participation to be the most effective practicable

(including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint

sources to a level compatible with water quality

goals (52).

When this definition was written, water quality

was essentially synonymous with surface-water

quality, thus in the course of BMP development

considerations of other off-site impacts (e.g., effects

on groundwater quality) largely were unexamined.

Partial solutions to environmental pollution problems in agriculture have involved the development
146 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 4-K—Maximum Economic Yield

The Maximum Economic Yield (MEY) approach, developed and advocated by the Potash and Phosphate

Institute and the Foundation for Agronomic Research, is based on more intensive cultivation of the higher quality

land to generate equal or higher production on reduced acreage. An estimated 90 percent of the soil losses in the

United States come from 10 percent of the cultivated land. These soil losses maybe largely due to cultivation of

highly erosive lands, thus removing such lands from production is suggested as a mechanism to reducing U.S. soil

erosion.

The MEY operates on the principle that early and rapid development of a denser crop canopy will reduce soil

and nutrient losses due to runoff events. Higher yields above and below ground promote greater root proliferation

leading to soil stabilization, increased soil moisture holding capacity, and enhanced soil infiltration rates. Greater

leaf area established by the associated denser canopy reduces impact of precipitation on the soil surface. It has been

suggested that such an environment might reduce the potential for contaminants to move through the soil profile,

despite associated increases in agrichemical use. If the root mat developed under an MEY field is sufficiently dense,

it may promote plant uptake of available nitrogen. However, this effect is also dependent on the nutrient

accumulation patterns of the crop being grown as well as environmental parameters that affect leaching.

Best management practices for crops and nutrients are incorporated into the MEY concept that promotes such

techniques for nitrogen management as split applications, cover crops to reclaim residual soil nitrate, soil testing

to determine soil nutrient level, tissue testing, application of vitrification inhibitors, and accounting for nitrogen

credits. Applied crop management practices include: conservation tillage, contour stripcropping, terracing, crop

rotations, water and sediment control basins, and use of cover crops.

SOURCE: Potash and Phosphate Institute, The Viraf Role o~Phosp/Iorus in Our Environment, Publication No. 11-87-A (Atlan@ GA: 1987).

of pollution-reducing BMPs by agricultural re- tial for contamination of water sources during

searchers in the public sector. BMPs have been used

by SCS and State conservation agencies to control

soil erosion and address nonpoint-source surfacewater contamination. This approach included components that addressed: 1) structural controls such as

terraces and buffer strips to control pollutant transport in runoff, 2) source controls that affect rates of

agrichemical applications, 3) agronomic management affecting timing and placement of agrichemicals, and 4) integrated pest management (8). Private

organizations have incorporated BMPs into agricultural managment schemes as well (box 4-K).

heavy precipitation events (8).

USDA and EPA only recently have begun to

develop BMPs specifically to reduce nonpointsource contamination of groundwater. BMPs for

groundwater protection need to account for infiltration, volubility and soil affinity of the potential

contaminant, relative agrichemical loading, timing,

and the ability of the practice to alter any or all of

these conditions. Research could identify which

combinations of BMPs are best suited to a State’s

soil, hydrogeological, and agricultural conditions in

a systematic fashion.

BMPs to protect surface waters from agricultural

Groundwater contamin sources of contamination might include technolo- ants may be sorted into

gies and management practices that: two broad categories: 1) those that maybe managed

by practices affecting the physical system (e.g.,

● maintain a soil cover (crop residues, canopy

development, and/or rough surface) in order to

reduce the impact of precipitation on the soil

surface and to slow runoff velocity;

● increase soil permeability to enhance infiltration and thus minimize erosion and reduce

runoff; and

minimize or reduce soil-solution concentrations of agricultural chemicals, heavy metals,

toxics, and plant nutrients to reduce the potensediment, pathogens, and heavy metals) such as

maintaining vegetative cover and soil pH and land

leveling; and 2) those that may be managed by

practices affecting inputs (e.g., pesticides, nitrogen

and phosphorus, and easily oxidizable organics)

such as rate and timing of applications (8). Development of management plans that effectively incorporate practices designed to manage both types of

contamination may be problematic. Practices designed to manage one contaminant or resource

concern may conflict with efforts to manage another.
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 147

For example, conservation tillage (primarily designed for erosion control) is suggested to exacerbate movement of agrichemicals through the soil

profile. Although highly successful in reducing

sediment losses, it seems that this practice should be

examined for its effect on other resource conservation goals.

The broad number of environmental variables that

comprise an agroecosystem make determination of

BMPs complex, Specific practices must be developed on a site-by-site basis to account for variations

in the geologic, hydrologic, and climatic attributes

of a given agroecosystem. A key problem facing

researchers is the development of combinations of

BMPs that address several environmental pollution

problems, rather than just one. To minimize environmental impacts, BMP combinations therefore need

to fit into a total farm management system, which

considers local environmental and economic conditions. Further, the skills and motivation of the

practitioners are an added component that cannot be

extracted from the overall equation, Although no

single formula is likely to exist for developing and

implementing BMPs, the broadly stated goals of

BMP development may serve as a guide.

The initial concept of BMPs as a package of

agricultural practices designed to meet conservation

and quality goals for a specific resource may no

longer be appropriate given broadened concerns

over partitioning of agricultural chemicals to other

media (e.g., agriculturally generated nitrous oxides

and methane losses to the atmosphere). An expanded

approach that includes identification of practices

designed to mediate or mitigate losses across media

could address this need.

Farmstead Assessment Programs

Farmstead Assessment programs are under development in several States as a mechanism to: 1)

assess potential farmstead sources of groundwater

contamination; 2) educate farmers about management practices to prevent groundwater contamination; and 3) clarify the relevant laws, regulations,

and sources of assistance in farmstead management

for farmers.

Increased documentation that agriculture is a

contributor to agrichemical contamination of groundwater has focused on agronomic practices as the

major pathways of contamination. Insufficient consideration has been given to potential for farmstead

practices and structures to cause groundwater contamination (98).

Farmstead describes the area centered on the farm

residence, including: barns, silos, and related buildings; structures and facilities used for storage and

handling of agrichemicals and household and livestock waste; and potable water wells for human or

livestock use. Management and maintenance of

these structures and facilities may have a major

influence on groundwater quality in general and

most significantly on that used on the far-m itself.

As currently developed, a farmstead assessment

includes the following steps:

●

●

●

evaluation of soil, geologic, and hydrologic

conditions to identify the pollution potential of

the individual farmsite;

evaluation of farmstead structures and activities affecting pollution potential (e.g., well

design and location; agrichemical handling,

storage, and disposal; silage storage facilities

and management; petroleum-products storage

and disposal; septic system location and management; farm and household hazardous-waste

disposal and recycling; and milkhouse-waste

handling); and

integration of the above evaluations to form an

assessment of farmstead groundwater-contamination potential, and suggestions for structural

and management changes to reduce that potential.

Expertise is being developed in the assessment of

groundwater contamination potential from farmstead activities. However, current efforts lack the

support system needed to: 1 ) educate practitioners

on the links between activities and contamination

potential, 2) demonstrate the long-term management

changes needed to protect groundwater, and 3)

provide financial and technical support to implement management plans (98).

Integrated Farm Management Systems

Integrated approaches to developing farm management plans are needed. Existing resource management plans may provide a base for development

of broader management systems. For example,

integration of a farmstead assessment plan with

complementary management plans designed to reduce adverse environmental impacts from agro-
148 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

nomic activities may provide a base for development

of whole-farm management systems.

Resource Management Systems

The Resource Management System (RMS) is a

land-management concept proposed and developed

by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The RMS

combines multidisciplinary input to develop a farm

management and conservation plan coupling the

landowner’s goals for resource use and SCS goals of

reducing erosion and nonpoint-source contamination. This farm management approach links agricultural production and conservation. SCS provides

technical assistance to the farmer in developing such

farm plans. The farmer then decides on what part of

his/her land the plan will be applied.

SCS’s RMS integrates conservation practices and

management for the identified primary use of land or

water. At a minimum the RMS is supposed to

provide protection for the resource base by meeting

acceptable soil losses, maintaining water quality,

and maintaining acceptable ecological and management levels for the selected resource use in accordance with the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG).

Currently there are six resource concerns incorporated in RMS development:

●

●

●

●

●

●

erosion control-reduction of sheet and x-ill

erosion to the soil loss tolerance level for the

most vulnerable soil within the field;

water disposal-management of surface or

subsurface water in drainage systems to protect

the quality of linked water sources;

livestock waste and agrichemical management—

for pesticides: adherence to label recommendations, regulations, appropriate timing and application method, and alternative control methods in highly vulnerable areas; for nutrients:

application based on plant need, soil tests,

accounting for nitrogen credits, appropriate

timing, chemical form, and application rate;

resource management—mitigation of adverse

effects on water quality or quantity from plant

or animal production and vice versa;

water management—management of irrigation, drainage, and land to protect water quantity and quality; and

off-site effects—resource management to avoid

potential adverse effects on groundwater or

surface water from agricultural production

activities (232).

The RMS approach is undergoing revision to

broaden its application for conservation of resources. Under the revised protocol, there will be

five categories of resource concern: 1) soil, 2) water,

3) air, 4) plants, and 5) animals (233). The inclusion

of air as a resource of concern expands the RMS

approach to address potential impacts of resource

use on the atmosphere.

The RMS approach is adaptive-as new resource

concerns arise an evaluation and revision process

may be conducted. The procedure for such revision

is outlined in the SCS field office guide and involves

the following six steps:

●

●

●

●

Ž

●

assess and evaluate water-resource information

with plant and soils information,

determin e effects of agricultural production on

water quality and quantity,

evaluate current RMS on water resources,

identfy applicable practices with beneficial

effects on water resources,

evaluate combinations of practices, and

select combinations of practices.

Once the evaluation is complete, the revised RMS is

developed incorporating practices to address the

resource concern (232,233) (box 4-L).

Integrated Crop Management

An Integrated Crop Management (ICM) program

was recently approved by ASCS as an approach to

reduce excess use of nutrients and pesticides while

maintaining farm income. The practice is being

tested under the Agricultural Conservation Program

on a limited basis in 1990 with a goal of reducing

agrichemical use by 20 percent. A maximum of 20

producers from 5 counties per State may take part in

the demonstration program. These demonstration

sites are to represent a cross section of farming types

within the State. The overall program goal is to

encourage adoption of practices that integrate nutient management practices and integrated pest management into an overall crop management system.

ICM practices are intended to reduce water, land,

and atmospheric contamin ation by agrichemicals

through use reduction.

The program provides cost-sharing assistance for

development and implementation of integrated crop

management systems (224). Eligibility requirements

for participating in cost sharing include the following: 1) producers must have an ICM system developed in writing that reduces the level of agrichemi-
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 149

Box 4-L-Evaluating and Revising RMS—An Example

Below is a sample of how an RMS might be evaluated and revised given water quality concerns. The site of

production is the Southern Coastal Plains, characterized by nearly level terrain, and deep, somewhat poorly drained

soils on uplands and floodplains. Major environmental concerns were for water disposal, water management, and

resources management. Detections of nitrogen and phosphorus in farm drainage ditches raised concern about

possible contamination of ground and surface water, leading to the revision of the initial RMS. In absence of

pesticide analysis of associated water sources, it was assumed that leachable pesticides were also moving with the

water. While the initial RMS was developed based largely on site characteristics, the revised version incorporates

management practices designed to address the detections of nutrient contamination of adjacent water sources.

Animal waste

Erosion Water & Agrichem Resource Water Off-site

Resource Management Systems control disposal management management management effects

Initial RMS

Conservation cropping sequence . . X x x

Crop residue use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x

Surface drainage main or lateral . . . x x

Surface drainage field ditch . . . . . . . x x

Land smoothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Revised RMS

Conservation cropping sequence . . x

Crop residue use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

Surface drainage field main or x x

lateral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface dranage field ditch . . . . . . . x x

Land smoothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Pesticide management . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Nutrient management . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Structure for water control . . . . . . . . x x x x

Regulating water in drainage x x x x

systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Conservation Planning Division, National Planning Manual, Parti 501

(Washington, DC: 1984).

x

x

cal input historically used on the land, and 2) increase in importance. Meeting these challenges

producers must have sufficient documentation to

verify the rates and methods of agrichemical application before and after system development. Approval of the system is also dependent on the

availability of appropriate technical resources. Technical assistance may be provided by CES, SCS, or

certified private consultants. The ICM system may

incorporate such tactics as soil and tissue testing,

pest scouting, biocontrol, crop rotation, soil enhancement and conservation measures, and use of

green manures or host crops (224).

SUMMARY AND POLICY

IMPLICATIONS

The U.S. agricultural sector will be facing new

issues and opportunities in the 1990s. The agricultural research system is being called on to respond to

newly articulated environmental concerns associated with agricultural production practices; concerns

for food safety and the environment seem likely to

will require an agricultural research system with an

effective national strategy. It will also require

advances in science and technology of a scale and

scope the system has not previously experienced

(216).

Increased understanding of cross-media effects of

technology implementation will enhance the potential for developing agricultural practices that address

the broad spectrum of environmental concerns (e.g.,

soil erosion, surface water and groundwater pollution, atmospheric releases). Whether the agriculture

research and technology development base is sufficiently broad, or the current structure is adequate to

address the plethora of environmental concerns

related to agriculture, however, is under question

(216).

Integration of agriculture and environmental protection will mean that agricultural technologies and

practices cannot be designed in isolation from their

interactions within agroecosystems. Research and
150 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

development efforts will need to examine the array

of impacts arising from implementation. Integrated

approaches to the development of agricultural practices and technologies have been taken, and further

efforts are being made in this direction. For example,

USDA’s Low Input Sustainable Agriculture Program is designed to provide information on the

productivity of low-input systems and the interaction of agricultural inputs within the agroecosystem

(box4-M).

Enhancing Knowledge of the Agroecosystem

Agricultural researchers without a solid understanding of the sciences fundamental to agroecology

(e.g., agronomy, hydrogeology, ecology), or not

operating within a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary framework, may develop products or practices

without consideration of the broad array of potential

impacts that might be generated from their implementation. A systems approach is needed in developing agricultural technologies designed to minimize

agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Such

an approach is likely to depend on increased

understanding of agroecosystem components; the

general principles of cycling, transport, and fate of

agrichemicals within those systems; how certain

technologies may affect their function; and how

these interactions may affect groundwater vulnerability.

Congress could establish an Agroecosystem

Research Initiative that directs and coordinates

federally funded basic research on improved

understanding of agroecosystem components and

processes. The knowledge gained from such basic

research could then support technology research

and development efforts to design agricultural

products and practices that could contribute to

reducing groundwater contamination. An initial

step in implementing an Agroecosystem Research

Initiative could be to establish a coordinating body

responsible for outlining an overall approach to the

initiative. Topic-specific working groups could then

be established that would evaluate the extent of

knowledge on certain agroecosystem components

and their interactions and report these findings to the

coordinating body. The coordinating body could

consequently identify research priorities and protocols for gathering the necessary information. Finally, research results could be synthesized and

distributed throughout the agricultural research system.

Such an initiative could be implemented by

USDA, or through a joint effort of several Federal

agencies (e.g., USDA, EPA, USGS, NSF, and

NOAA) to ensure that the research conducted and

information gathered would support efforts to address the wide array of environmental concerns

arising from agricultural production. For example,

examination of nitrogen transformations in various

agroecosystems might be approached differently by

the various involved agencies. While one agency

might identify the importance of quantifying nitrous

oxide emissions to the atmosphere, others would

likely approach the same research from a surface or

groundwater contamination aspect, and still others

might focus on changes in crop yields or quality.

Such cross-agency discussion likely would broaden

the research question. Further, tapping expertise

housed within each cooperating agency might lead

to quicker attainment of the research goal than if the

required expertise had to be developed within any

single agency.

Working groups could be established to prepare

reports on the state of research knowledge in specific

topic areas. Each working group could: 1) analyze

the existing information base from which research

currently operates, 2) identify areas of most urgent

research need and the tasks required to fill this need,

and 3) develop common research protocols so that

experiments could be replicated across agroecosystems and thus develop a meaningful information

base. These working groups should be interdisciplinary to incorporate a systems approach in agricultural research and thereby be able to identify key

research questions related to numerous objectives.

Working groups might best be established across

Federal agencies and might follow a model such as

the Technical Integration Group, or perhaps be

based on other extant informal groups. For example,

the ARS Nitrogen Research Workshop, held in 1989

to identify the extent of current knowledge of

nitrogen in the agroecosystem, could be expanded to

into one such working group. Mechanisms would be

needed to provide for regular work group meetings,

evaluation of results, and reporting of work group

findings to relevant administrative offices for consideration in setting or revising research priorities.

Common protocols used in initial agroecosystem

research efforts could provide an information base

through which variations in ecosystem response to

agricultural technologies could be determined. This
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 151

Box 4-M—USDA Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Program

The Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) Program was created by USDA in response to the Agricultural

Productivity Research Subtitle in the 1985 Food Security Act (Public Law 99-198). The Agriculture Productivity

Act provides authority to conduct research and education programs on low-input farming systems to promote

profitable farming, conservation of natural resources, and environmental protection (225). LISA was designed to

respond to growing farmer interest for more cost-effective and environmentally oriented agricultural production

practices. The Program received initial funding for the fiscal year 1988 and USDA policy on low-input farming

systems was issued in January of 1988.

The Department encourages research and education programs and activities that provide farmers with a wide

choice of cost effective farming systems including systems that minimize or optimize the use of purchased inputs

and that minimize environmental hazards. The Department also encourages efforts to expand the use of such

systems.

Grants are provided under LISA authority for research and education projects designed to assist agricultural

producers in reducing purchased external inputs. Such projects emphasize substituting management, information,

and on-farm resources for external inputs and may include techniques such as crop rotation, farm diversification,

resource conservation practices, and mechanical and biological pest control approaches. Proposal response to the

program has been significant (e.g., finding to support acceptable LISA proposals fell short by roughly fivefold in

each of the first 2 years of the program).

LISA is administered through four regional host institutions (Northeast, North Central, Southern, Western) and

is organized and directed by the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) with the cooperation and participation

of several USDA agencies. Project proposals are reviewed in each region by committees of research scientists,

practitioners, and educators. A key feature of LISA projects is the involvement of practitioners, interdisciplinary

research teams, and private research and education programs.

Most projects are long-term studies requiring several years development and replication to generate

meaningful results. Some have added to ongoing work allowing expansion/collection of additional data. Short-term

projects designed to present known findings through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., video tapes, computer software

development) are also funded under LISA.

Funding levels for the LISA program have increased roughly 14 percent in the last 2 years ($3.9 million in 1988

and $4.45 million in 1989). However, this has been insufficient to fund all of the acceptable proposals. For example,

roughly $20 million would have been needed to fund acceptable proposals in 1989 (182).

LISA projects are providing the scientific basis for understanding the productivity of low-input systems and

providing comparisons between these and conventional systems that emphasize high yields generally through the

use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other purchased inputs. While the conventional approach tends to view resource

conservation and environmental quality as potential constraints to maximizing profits, the LISA approach strives

to integrate these aspects of agricultural production. LISA projects are demonstrating that certain low-input

production methods can be profitable when implemented properly (1 18),

Controversy exists over the ability of low-input agriculture approaches to produce sufficient food to meet

domestic and international needs; suggesting that LISA would require a significant part of the U.S. population to

return to or enter farming. Further, it is argued that ‘‘conventional agriculture’ approaches are sustainable and

environmentally sound (241 ,169). In fact, even the term LISA is subject to a variety of definitions. LISA advocates

define low-input to mean low purchased inputs, but increased management and information inputs and thus not

necessarily low total inputs (182,1 18). Critics tend to focus on the reduction of purchased inputs and suggest that

agricultural profitability and thus sustainability depend on availability and use of purchased inputs (241,169).

However, this apparent bifurcation in agricultural production approaches is not so widely divided as it may seem

on the surface. Agreement exists as to the need for a sustainable system to be profitable and that any input must be

properly managed to avoid adverse environmental and economic impacts.

Ten guiding principles of LISA

1. If a farming method is not profitable it cannot be sustainable.

2. Farmers need accurate, readily usable information on the impacts of LISA methods on farm profits,

resource productivity, and the environment.

Continued on next page
152 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Some farmers can now profitably use low-input methods.

Properly designed and executed research and education efforts can enhance profitability of low-input

methods.

Net results of adoption of low-input methods must be evaluated in terms of the whole farm system (e.g.,

labor and capital requirements, agroecological interactions, environmental impacts).

Success will depend on multiorganizational approach (e.g., interdisciplinary efforts, practitioner

involvement, public and private organizations).

CSRS and soil conservation agencies (SCS, CES) must be full partners in design and implementation of

the program.

Administration should be at the regional level to promote decisionmaking by persons with an

understanding of the site-specific conditions associated with region.

Sustainable systems are highly site-specific and their success depends on practitioner skills and attitudes.

Establishment of sustainable systems on the farm should be carefully planned and implemented gradually

(118).

effort could provide a base from which to correlate

specific ecosystem features with response differences and thus be used to identify adaptive research

needs for specific technologies across agroecosystems.

Undertaking a comprehensive Agroecosystem

Research Initiative, however, may involve some

structural and strategic changes in the participating

organizations. For example, it would likely require

increased emphasis on biological, ecological, and

systems sciences and thus might involve shifting

research funds and staffing to place higher priority

on these sciences. Research funding also probably

would have to be increased and allocation formulae

or programs modified to address priorities established by the Initiative.

Environmental research in agriculture also maybe

more costly and time consuming than production

research, requiring different research designs and

measurement techniques. In addition, jointly conducted agroecosystem research may have to incorporate a large administrative component to achieve

the level of coordination necessary for effective

planning and evaluation of results.

Federal funding levels for agricultural research

have remained relatively stable for the past three

decades due to Administration and congressional

arguments against funding increases because of

agricultural surpluses, the budget deficit, and other

competing priorities. Some new Federal funding has

been allocated under the Water Quality Initiative,

but this has not been directly aimed at increasing

understanding of agroecosystems. Redirection of

these funds could slow efforts to develop and extend

practices already identified as having beneficial

effects on reducing potential contamination of

groundwater. Still, allocation of funds to directed

research efforts under an Agroecosystem Research

Initiative would accord with expressed priorities for

addressing environmental problems in agriculture

and so may attract new appropriations.

Long-term research activities commonly are accomplished through base funding to the 57 State

Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAESs) and, less

commonly, through grants for special initiatives.

Although base funding provides for dispersed research addressing a large number of commodities

and agroecosystems, no formal mechanism exists to

direct how base funds should be spent by the States.

Thus, implementation of an Agroecosystem Research Initiative through individual SAES efforts

without additional appropriations may be problematic and lead to fragmentary efforts.

Congress could direct the General Accounting

Office (GAO) to analyze the relative merits and

costs of implementing an Agroecosystem Research Initiative through: 1) the 57 SAESs, 2)

Lead Agroecosystem SAESs, or 3) Regional

Agroecosystem Experiment Stations. Funding allocated under the Initiative could be apportioned

among the existing SAESs for conduct of specific

research tasks related to characterization of agroecosystems. However, such an extensive division of

funding could result in each station receiving too

little to conduct useful or timely research. Alternatively, appropriating substantial funding to each

station would likely have too large a price tag in this

time of budgetary austerity.
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 153

Specific SAESs could be identified to fulfill the

role of Lead Agroecosystem Experiment Station

(LAES). Stations identified as LAESs would coordinate research and funding to research units in

cooperating SAESs, and would disseminate information. However, the substantial autonomy of

SAESs could create difficulties in coordinating

efforts across State boundaries as well as in evaluation of research efforts. Further, the LAES would

likely require a substantial administrative component to organize and accomplish these new tasks

with attendant increases in staffing to allow completion of normal duties as well as the newly assumed

coordination responsibilities.

Alternatively, Regional Agroecosystem Experiment Stations could be established to centralize

research activities and reduce constraints likely to be

associated with coordinating separate stations. These

RAESs might be drawn from existing SAESs or be

newly identified sites. USDA could conduct an

assessment of the site characteristics (e.g., climate,

soils, hydrogeology) of existing agricultural research stations and categorize each station by

agroecosystem to form the base for identification of

potential RAESs or LAESs. Based on the analysis

provided by GAO, the most cost-effective approach

to providing infrastructure and staffing necessary to

implement an Agroecosystem Research Initiative

could be determined.

Priority Setting for Groundwater

Protection Programs

U.S. agriculture is highly diverse and unevenly

distributed across the country. Cropland acreage,

predominant commodity (crop or livestock), and

type and intensity of agrichemical use vary by region

(203). Some areas may be more vulnerable than

other areas to agrichemical contamination of groundwater by virtue of the larger agrichemical volumes

applied and greater land areas involved in certain

cropping systems. Similarly, centers of concentrated

livestock agriculture, with attendant high volumes

of waste production, may present areas of special

concern. Regional factors, such as climate, hydrogeology, and types of agrichemicals used, will also

affect the relationship between crop production

activities and potential for groundwater contamination.

Research priorities can be established for the

development of production practices that reduce

groundwater contamination and other adverse impacts on the environment according to: 1) geographic area, depending on agricultural production

intensity and hydrogeologic vulnerability; 2) need

for data, information, or other types of knowledge,

which depends on the number and urgency of the

purposes they would serve; and 3) need for certain

technologies and practices, which depends on the

numbers and locations of farmers who could use

them. Research priority setting would involve evaluation of the use and suitability of existing practices

and ongoing research initiatives as they operate in

the agricultural production system.

Identification of major information gaps and areas

where greatest actual or potential environmental

hazards exist offers a mechanism for developing

research priorities to reduce the adverse environmental impacts associated with agricultural production. For example, baseline information on patterns

and locations of agrichemical use could be a tool for

identifying regions with the highest potential vulnerability to groundwater contamination. Basic and

applied research efforts to reduce groundwater

cont amination potential then could focus on these

regions. Once collection of natural resource and

agrichemical use-data and assessment of the extent

of current knowledge are complete, conditions will

be improved for prioritizing needed basic research.

Some data and research gaps are known currently

and could provide a focus for certain agricultural

research activities. For example, past research on

fertilizer and pesticide efficacy and movement

largely has been conducted under conventional

tillage regimes. However, use of reduced tillage

methods is increasing. Thus, a need exists to

examine the effects of alternate tillage systems on

agrichemical movement and fate. Research conducted under USDA’s Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) program addresses this need in part.

Increased funding for LISA might shift the balance

to favor greater attention on reduced input systems

and thus promote development of products and

practices more responsive to the diversity of U.S.

farms.

Similarly, lack of understanding of mineralization

rates of soil organic matter constrains improved

nitrogen application practices. Some research within

ARS could be refocused or redirected to ensure

investigation of the fate of applied nitrogen (fertilizers, manures, and legumes) at a network of geo-
154 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

graphical sites that may be vulnerable to groundwater contamination. The focus would be on obtaining complete nitrogen balances at all sites in the

network to support development of annualized

nitrate-loss rates from cropping systems to groundwater. This information would be critical in determining a benchmark of acceptable’ nitrate loss—a

certain amount of nitrate is normally lost from

unfertilized fields and thus a loss rate set below this

level may be impossible to achieve.

Congress could direct USDA to expand information gathered under an Agroecosystem Research Initiative to develop agroecoregion maps

that would delineate agricultural regions displaying similar ecological attributes. These maps

could provide a tool for prioritizing and coordinating research efforts. Enhanced applications of

an Agroecosystem Research Initiative might include

development of ‘agroecoregion maps’ that display

areas exhibiting similar site and farming system

characteristics. Information and research results

should be broadly applicable within regions. Further, agroecoregion maps might provide a broader

base from which adaptive research could be performed and information shared.

Preliminary identification of agroecoregions could

be done today and revised as additional resource

attribute and land use data become available, and

knowledge of important agroecosystem parameters

and processes improves. For example, data from

USDA’s planned National Pesticide Use Survey and

the National Agriculture Census could be correlated

with USGS and EPA water quality data to identify

agroecoregions highly vulnerable to groundwater

contamination from agricultural sources. Based on

this analysis, priority agroecoregions might be

identified. Activities such as data collection, agroecosystem modeling, and GIS development efforts

then might be directed preferentially to these regions.

Developing priorities on an agroecoregion basis

may provide a mechanism for enhancing information sharing and avoiding duplication of certain

research efforts. Thus, establishment of applied

research priorities for the development of agricultural technologies to reduce groundwater contamination might be underpinned by characterization of

agroecoregions.

Adaptive Research

Adaptation of technologies and practices to specific environments or cropping systems is an important aspect of reducing the potential for agrichemical

contamination of the environment generally and

groundwater specifically. Given the diversity of

agricultural regions, production practices, and practitioners, the adaptation of practices suited to these

factors becomes critical. Within the Federal agricultural research system, such adaptive research is

carried out by the SAES; however, the extent of

these efforts varies widely by State.

Site-specific problems also are addressed within

farmer organizations that test and share information

on innovative practices (commonly referred to as

farmer-to-farmer referral networks). Groups such as

Practical Farmers of Iowa, for example, conduct

on-farm research with the assistance of land-grant

university researchers. This type of organization can

help fill information gaps and provide support to

farmers who want to minimize environmental pollution problems.

Several aspects of federally funded research at

SAESs may interfere with timely development of

farm practices that have positive impacts on protecting groundwater quality. Agricultural researchers at

land-grant universities and SAESs have greater

incentives to conduct basic, disciplinary research

than applied, interdisciplinary research. Because of

the substantial autonomy of each SAES and the

individual researchers, no formal mechanisms exist

to coordinate research, determine where data gaps

exist, or ensure that such gaps are addressed in

applied-research efforts (21 1). Further, a lack of

systematic evaluation of SAES research at the

national level hinders monitoring of the amount of

federally funded research being conducted on management practices to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

Individuals responsible for the conduct of adaptive research are rarely involved in development of

the initial program or practice. This factor is seen as

a major constraint to implementation of existing

IPM research and program efforts. Research programs within USDA could be enhanced through an

increased stress on the importance of transitional

and applied research, particularly with regard to the

specific constraints to adoption embodied by various

agricultural sectors. Increased staffing likely would
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 155

be required to extend current and developing IPM

technologies adequately and thus promote adoption

by growers. The extant agrichemical industry infrastructure for extending advice and products currently may overshadow developing low chemicalinput approaches to pest control. For example, in

Fresno County, 5,500 farms are serviced by over 500

licensed pest control advisors, a majority of which

are pesticide retailers. Only three Fresno County

CES staff have pest-control management responsibilities, only one direct IPM responsibilities (1 1).

Nitrogen management decisions also are dependent on information derived from site-specific, adaptive research. Policies that encourage conversion

from contemporary nitrogen-use practices to ones

posing reduced risk to groundwater should be

crafted with consideration of individual enterprises

and site conditions. Direct subsidies, tax credits,

low-interest loans, rezoning, direct buyout, coupling, cross-compliance, or combinations thereof are

potential policy tools. However, whatever policy is

adopted, procedures for compliance will have to

emerge on a farm-by-farm basis given the site

specificity of nitrogen-use decisions.

If agricultural research efforts are to address

resource protection to a greater extent, the traditional

focus of agricultural research and education on

commodity production will need to be expanded to

include farming systems that reduce adverse environmental impacts and promote resource protection

in agricultural production. Traditional incentives for

researchers in land-grant universities will probably

need to be changed to foster interdisciplinary work

and a systems approach to research. Potential for

Federal intervention in adaptive research is limited

to ‘carrots’ of finding because States have primacy

over their educational institutions, and professional

organizations are primary actors in setting incentives for researchers (21 1).

Congress could authorize and fund a new

USDA research and demonstration program to

ensure that adaptive research on agricultural

technologies is designed specifically to be suitable

to agroecological site conditions and socioeconomic adopter conditions. To accomplish this,

National Agricultural Test Sites could be established

within identified agroecoregions for site-specific,

adaptive research. Alternatively, such a role could be

fulfilled by Regional Agroecosystem Experiment

Stations identified under an Agroecosystem Research Initiative. These stations might also serve as

demonstration sites where agricultural technologies

shown to have a beneficial effect on protecting

groundwater quality could be shown to farmers.

Technology development and adaptation research

and grant proposals related to these test sites could

be required to include statements of who the

potential adopters would be, and identify mechanisms through which technology or practice adoption could be encouraged. Research finding could

be made contingent on: 1) identification of likely

adopters; 2) specification of the farming system

improvement expected (e.g., reduced agrichemical

waste); and 3) estimation of costs and benefits

accruing to the profiled adopters in terms of funds,

time, and effort. Adaptive research and extension

results could be compared to this information to

assist with development of future adaptive research

and to draw general lessons for successful adaptation

and extension activities.

Proposal specifications probably would require

increased interaction between adaptive researchers

and extension specialists. Such increased interactions could provide benefits in technology development and extension; however, they would also

increase demands on already strained work schedules. Increased research and extension staffing

might be required to ensure adequate planning,

evaluation, and extension of research results within

agroecoregions.

Research Coordination

Improved coordination among and between public and private efforts could have beneficial effects

on development of technologies designed to reduce

agrichemical contamination of groundwater (e.g.,

pesticides and application equipment). Research

coordination at the public level will be particularly

important in developing systems-oriented agricultural management practices designed to reduce

adverse impacts on soil, surface water, and groundwater resources. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

have been developed and used by SCS, EPA, and

CES. However, the approach commonly has been

designed to address a single resource concern and

thus potential adverse impacts on other resources

may have not been examined. Integrated approaches

are being developed that consider a site’s soil,

hydrogeological, and agricultural conditions to address this need. Coordinated development of such
156 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

approaches by agencies having relevant expertise or

experience would speed their development, reduce

duplicative efforts, and contribute to successful

efforts.

Coordination of federally funded agricultural

research could be improved within and among States

through mechanisms by which State and Federal

agency personnel, local governments, and producers

work together to identify public research questions. Each State’s SCS Resource Conservationist

and technical staff could work more closely with

CES, other State agencies, and producer groups to

develop appropriate management practices for conservation planning. SCS Resource Conservationists

and their staff currently conduct studies of conservation practices in cooperation with the State’s landgrant university and State agricultural experiment

station,

Congress could direct USDA, EPA, and USGS

to coordinate technology research and development efforts with State land-grant universities to

ensure conformation of farm practice recommendations. Funding could be earmarked for coordination and communication efforts needed among

land-grant and SAES researchers and the relevant

State and Federal agencies in each agroecoregion.

Coordinating groups might be drawn from topicspecific working groups established under an Agroecosystem Research Initiative, or be subgroups that

would interact with these larger working groups.

Such a structure might yield beneficial impacts for

overall research coordination and exchange of information.

One possible mechanism for research coordination is through the inter-regional groups of landgrant universities. However, researchers within regions may not formally meet to identify key research

questions and agree upon methodology, and if they

do, it may be on an ad hoc basis (83). Even if

researchers meet within or between regions, no

formal mechanism exists to evaluate their efforts and

to communicate results to other regions. Earmarked

funding could specify the coordination and communication efforts required among land-grant and

SAES researchers and among the relevant State and

Federal agencies in each region.

For example, researchers on a regional nitrogen

project could agree on research questions and

methodologies that would be replicated in selected

areas to provide the most useful information. State

agencies, SCS, and EPA regional staff could assist

researchers in selecting target areas for intensified

research efforts. Funding could be provided for

initial planning and follow-up meetings to ensure

consistency and final evaluation and communication.

However, coordination of public and private

research activities would not necessarily be improved through such a mechanism. Further, public

and private coordination may become increasingly

important in research areas receiving little public or

private funding (e.g., pesticide application technology) in order to avoid duplicative efforts and

promote complementarily of efforts.

Coordination between public and private efforts

may be critical to technology development with

potential impact on agrichemical contamination of 

groundwater. For example, Federal effort in development of pesticides or agrichemical application

equipment is small. For example, ARS efforts in

herbicide equipment development fell from 8.7 to

1.7 scientist-years between 1972 and 1982; similar

trends can be noted for insect and disease control

equipment (60). Additionally, major developers of

pesticide application equipment currently comprise

just a few small companies that specialize their

products for specialized markets (60,73).

Currently, farm equipment manufacturers are not

in a position to spend large amounts on the

development of this technology without passing

these expenditures along to the user by increasing

equipment cost. Neither do these companies have

research capability for chemical application technology and few have the resources to develop equip

ment from other technology. Thus, input from the

public sector can be critical in advancing the state of

the art in this arena.

Coordination of advances in application equip

ment with development of associated agrichemical

products could facilitate adoption of improved

agrichemical application practices. For example,

while enhanced use of chemigation techniques may

offer some potential to reduce frequency and volume

of chemical applications and promote more uniform

distribution, lack of agrichemical formulations designed specifically for chemigation systems hinders

achieving these benefits. Research shows that formula alteration of certain pesticides and subsequent

chemigation has allowed significant reduction in
Chapter &Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management . 157

amount of active ingredient applied while achieving

needed pest control (208).

Congress could direct USDA to establish a

public-private research and development coordination body that would be responsible for reviewing Federal research proposals for complementarity of activities in both sectors. The role of the

current Users Advisory Board-to identify and

report research and technology transfer problems to

Congress and USDA-could be expanded to fulfill

such a role. The mission of this group would be to

promote coordinated research and development

among the various agricultural research and development entities. It might also serve as a mechanism

to track research and development directions and,

thus, provide some input as Federal agencies set

their agricultural research priorities. For example,

continuous review of ongoing agricultural research

in the public and private sectors could facilitate

identification of areas where little effort is being

directed and these could be reviewed for a potential

increased Federal research role.

Clearly, appropriate technologies and management practices will be critical to reducing the

potential for adverse environmental impacts associated with current agricultural production practices.

However, of equal importance is development of

technology-transfer mechanisms that will promote

the adoption of such practices. Current avenues of

technology transfer may need to be improved and

expanded in order to address this aspect of integrating agricultural productivity and environmental

quality.

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

Alego, J. W., Elam, C. J., Martinez, A., and Westing,

T., ‘‘Feedlot Air, Water, and Soil Analysis, Bulletin

D, How to Control Feedlot Pollution, ” California

Cattle Feeders Association, Bakersville, CA, June

1972, /n: Sweeten, J, M., 1989.

Alexander, M,, “How Agricultural Technologies

Affect Productivity of Croplands and Rangelands

by Affecting Microbial Activity in Soil,’ contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, 1980).

Allos, W. F., and Bartholomew, W. V., “Replacement of Symbiotic Fixation by Available Nitrogen,” Soil Science, vol. 87, 1959, pp. 61-66, In:

Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Antle, J. M., ‘Integrated Pest Management: It Needs

to Recognize Risks Too,” Choices, vol. 3, No. 3,

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

1988, pp. 8-11, In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Arends, J. J., and Robertson, S. H., “Integrated Pest

Management for Poultry Production. Implementation through Integrated Poultry Companies,” Poultry Science, vol. 65, 1986, pp. 675-682, In: Zalom,

F. G., et al., 1990.

Army, T. J., ‘‘Technology Improves Tillage and Soil

Treatment,” Our American Land, 1987 Yearbook of

Agriculture, W. Whyte (cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1987), pp. 304-308.

Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Tisdell, C. A., Weed

Control Economics (Ixmdon: Academic Press, 1987).

Bailey, G. W., and Waddell, TE., “Best Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture: An

Integrated Overview,’ Best Management Practices

for Agriculture and Silviculture, R.C. Loehr, D.A.

Haith, M.F. Walter, and C.S. MartirI (eds.) Proceedings of the 1978 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor

Science Publishers Inc., 1979), pp. 33-56.

Baldoc~ J. O., Higgs, R. L., Paulson, W.H., Jackobs,

J. A., and Schrader, W. D., ‘‘Legume and Mineral N

Effects on Crop Yields in Several Crop Sequences

in the Upper Mississippi Valley, ” Agronomy Journal, vol. 73, 1981, pp. 885-890, In: Heichel, G. H.,

1989.

Barbarick, K. A., Lai, T. M., and Eberl, D. D., “Response of Sorghum Sudangrass in Soils Amended

with Phosphate Rock and NHA-Exchanged Zeolite

(Clinoptilolite),” Colorado State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agronomy, Technical Bulletin TB88-1, 1988.

Barnett, W. W., Integrated Pest Management Farm

Advisor, Central San Joaquin personal communication, April 27, 1989, In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Bamett, W. W., “Practical Aspects of Pest Management,” HortScience, vol. 16,1981, pp. 515-516, In:

Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Barrington, S. F., and Jutras, P. J., “Soil Sealing by

Manure in Various Soil Types,” Paper 83-4571,

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.

Joseph, MI, 1983, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Ba.mington, S. F., and Jutras, P. J., “Selecting Sites

for Earthen Manure Reservoirs, Agricultural Waste

Utilization and Management, Proceedings of the

5th International Symposium on Agricultural

Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1985, pp. 386-392, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Bohmont, B. L., The New Pesticide User’s Guide,

(Reston Publishing Co,: Reston, VA, 1983), In:

Jackson, G, W., et al., 1989.

Boyer, J. S., “Plant Productivity and Environment, ”

Science, vol. 218, Oct. 29, 1982, pp. 443-448.

Brader, L., “Advances in Applied Entomology,”

Annals of Applied Biology, vol. 94, 1980, pp.

349-365, In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.
158 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

18,

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Brady, S. J., ‘‘Important Soil Conservation Technologies That Benefit Wildlife,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, 1984).

Broadbent, F. E., “Minimizing Nitrogen Imsses in

Western Valley s,” paper presented at the Plant

Nutrient Use and the Environment Symposium,

Kansas City, MO, Oct. 21-23, 1985.

Brophy, L. S., Heichel, G. H., and Russelle, M.P.,

“Nitrogen Tranfer from Forage Ugumes to Grass

in a Systematic Planting Design, ’ Crop Science,

vol. 276, 1987, pp. 753-758, In: Heichel, G. H.,

1989.

Bukovac, M. J., “Plant Growth Regulators in Deciduous Tree Fruit Production: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Considerations,” Agricultural

Chemicals of the Future, J.L. Hilton (cd.) Invited

Papers Presented at BARC Symposium (Totowa,

NJ: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, 1985).

Caulder, J., “An Overview of the Biopesticides

Industry,” Reform and Innovation of Science and

Education: Planning for the 1990 Farm Bill,

Hearing testimony before the Senate Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, December

1989, pp. 87-93.

Chang, A. C., Adriano, D. C., and Pratt, P.F., “Waste

Accumulation on a Selected Dairy Corral and Its

Effect on the Nitrate and Salt of the Underlying Soil

Strata,” Journal of Environmental Quali~, vol. 2,

No. 2, 1973, pp. 233-237, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Chesworth, W., van Straaten, P., Smith, P., and

Sadura, S., “Volubility of Apatite in Clay and

Zeolite Bearing Systems: Application to Agriculture , Applied Clay Science, vol. 2, 1987, pp.

291-297.

Ciravolo, TG., Martens, D. C., Halloc~ D. L., Collins, E. R., Komegay, E.T, and Thomas, H, R.,

“Pollutant Movement to Shallow Groundwater

Tables From Anaerobic Swine Waste Lagoons,”

Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 8, No. 1,

1979, pp. 126-130, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Clark, R. N., “Seepage Beneath Feedyard Runoff

Catchments,” Managing Livestock Wastes, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on

Livestock Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 289-295, 1975.

Cohen, S. Z., “Pesticides and Nitrate in Groundwater: An Introductory Overview,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, August 1989).

Collins, E.R., Ciravolo, TG., Halloc~ D.K., Thomas, H. R., and Kornegay, E. T., ‘‘Effect of Anaerobic Swine Lagoons on GroundwaterQuality in High

Water Table Soils,” Manuging Livestock Wastes,

29,

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40. 1

Proceedings of the Third International Symposium

on Livestock Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 303-313, 1985,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Conservation Impact, “New Nitrate Tester Instantly Adjusts Nitrogen Application, ’ vol. 6, No.

1, January 1988, pp. 4-5.

Conservation Impact, ‘‘North Carolina Researchers

Develop Technique to Study Groundwater Pollution, ” vol. 8, No. 4, April 1990, p. 3.

Cooke, A. R., “The Role of Plant Growth Regulators in Agriculture, ” Agricultural Chemicals of the

Future, J.L. Hilton (cd.) Invited Papers Presented at

BARC Symposium (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, 1985).

Corbet, P. S., ‘‘Non-Entomological Impediments to

the Adoption of Integrated Pest Management, ”

Protection Ecology, vol. 3, 1981, pp. 183-202, In:

Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Corbet, P. S., and Smith, R. F., “Integrated Control:

A Realistic Alternative to Misuse of Pesticides, ”

Theory and Practice of Biological Control, C. Il.

Huffaker and P.S. Messenger (eds.) (New York

NY: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 661-682, In:

Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology

(CAST), Quality of Water for Livestock, vol. 1,

Report No. 26, Iowa State University, Ames, IA,

1972, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology

(CAST), Agriculture and Groundwater Quality,

Report No. 103, Iowa State University, Ames, IA,

1985, In: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Dantzman, C. L., Richter, M. F., and Martin, F. G.,

“Chemical Elements in Soils Under Cattle Pens,”

Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 2, No. 2,

1983, pp, 164-168, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Davis, S., Frank, W., and Weisheit, W., “Dairy

Waste Ponds Effectively Self-Sealing,” Transactions of the ASAE, vol. 16, No. 1, 1973, pp. 69-71,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Day, A. D., and Thompson, R. K., “Fertilizing

Wheat With Dried Sludge,” BioCycle, pp. 30-32,

September 1986, In: Moore, J. A., 1989.

Dindal, D. L., ‘‘Data Base Assessment of Effects of

Agricultural Technology on Soil Macrofauna and

the Resultant Faunal Impact on Crop and Range

Productivity,’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Service, 1980).

Doersch, R., Wedberg, J., Grau, C., and Flashinski,

R., Pest Management Principles for the Wisconsin

Farmer, 2d ed. (Madison, WI: University of Wis-

~onsin-Extension, 1988), In: Jackson, G, W., et al.,

1989.
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 159

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

Doran, J. W., Fraser, D. G., Culik, M. N., and

Liebhardt, W. C., “Lnfluence of Alternative and

Conventional Agricultural Management on Soil

Microbial Processes and Nitrogen Availability,”

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol.

11, 1987, pp. 99-106, In: Heichel, G. H., 1989,

Doran, J. W., and Smith, M. S., “Organic Matter

Management and Utilization of Soil and Fertilizer

Nutrients, ” Soil Fertility and Organic Matter as

Critical Components of Production Systems (Madison, WI: CSA, ASA, ASSA, 1984).

Dover, M. J., Building a Better Mousetrap: Improving Pest Management for Agriculture, World Resources Institute, Study 4 (Washington, DC: World

Resources Institute, September 1985).

Duvick, D., ‘‘Agronomic Production Efficiency for

the Next Decade: The Role of the New Biology, ”

paper presented to the 1987 meeting of the North

Central Region of the American Society of Agronomy, Ames, IA, June 29, 1987.

Dye, A., Raymond, R., Bostick, K., Clement, P,,

Cary, S., and Conrad, R., Environmental Improvement Division, New Mexico Department of Health

and Environment, Seepage Rates and Groundwater

Quality Impacts From Manure-Lined Dairy Waste

Lugoons, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1984, In: Sweeten,

J. M., 1989.

Ecology USA, “Innovative Dairy Waste Project

Could Protect Lakes and Rivers, ” vol. 17, No. 23,

NOV, 21, 1988, p. 225.

Ecology USA, “Slants and Trends,” vol. 18, No. 14,

17 July 1989, p. 131.

Ehart, O. R., Executive Assistant, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer

Protection, Madison, WI, personal communication,

Dec. 23, 1988, In: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Elliot, L. F., McCalla, T. M., Miellce, L, N., and

Travis, T. A,, “Ammonium, Nitrate, and Total

Nitrogen in the Soil Water of Feedlot and Field Soil

Profile s,’ Applied Microbiology, vol. 23, April

1972, pp. 810-813, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

En~~ironment, “Crabshells the Bane of Roundworms’ Existence, ’ vol. 30, No. 4, May 1988, p. 22.

Environmental Protection Commission, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa Grourzdwater

Protection Strategy, 1987.

Federal Code of Regulations, 40 CFR 130.2,

Protection of the Environment (1976).

Fenemore, P. G,, and Norton, G. A., “Problems of

Implementing Improvements in Pest Control: A

Case Study of Apples in the U.K., ” Crop Protection, vol. 4, 1985, pp. 51-70, In: Zalom, F.G, et al.,

1990.

Fertilizer Institute, The, The Fertilizer Handbook,

W. White and D. CollirIs (eds.), 2d ed. (Washington,

DC: The Fertilizer Institute, 1976).

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60,

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

Firth, K., “Spoked Wheel hjector Raises Yields, ”

Agricultural Consultant, February 1988, p. 19.

Fred, E. B., Baldwin, I. L., and McCoy, E., “Root

Nodule Bacteria and hguminous Plants,” Studies

in Science 5 (Madison, WT: University of Wisconsin

Press, 1932), In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Fribourg, H. A., and Bartholomew, W. V., “Availability of N From Crop Residues During the First and

Second Season After Planting, ’ Sod Science Society of America Proceedings, vol. 20, 1956, pp.

505-508, In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Frisbie, R. E., and Adkisson, P. L., “IPM: Definitions and Current Status in U.S. Agriculture, ”

Biological Control in Agricultural 1PM Systems,

M.A. Hoy and D.C, Hemog (eds.) (New York, NY:

Academic Press, 1985), pp. 41-50, In: Zalom, F. G.,

et al., 1990.

Gasser, C. S., and Fraley, R.T., “Genetically Engineering Plants for Crop Improvement, ’ Science,

vol. 244, June, 161989, pp. 293-299.

Gebhardt, M. R., ‘‘Agnchemica.1 Application Technology: Potential To Reduce Groundwater Contamination,’ contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, July 1989).

Georghiou, G.. P., “The Magnitude of the Resistance Problem, ” Pesticide Resistance: Strategies

and Tactics for Management (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1986). In: Zalom, F. G., et

al., 1990.

Gianessi, L. P., “Lack of Data Stymies Informed

Decisions on Agricultural Pesticides,” Resources,

ISSN 0048-7376, No. 89 (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Fall 1987).

Gilbertson, C. B., Norstadt, F. A., Mathers, A. C.,

Holt, R. F., Barnett, A. P., McCalla, T. M., Onstad,

C. A., Young, R. A., Christensen, L. A., and VanDyne, D. L., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Animal Waste Utilization

on Cropland and Pastureland: A Manual for

Evaluating Agronomic and Environmental E#ects,

URR 6 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), In: Sweeten, J.M., 1989.

Gilding, T, Vice President, Environmental Affairs,

National Agricultural Chemicals Association, Washington, DC, Februaxy 1990.

Goodell, G. E., “Challenges to International Pest

Management Research and Extension in the Third

World: Do We Really Want IPM to Work?”

Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America,

vol. 30, 1984, pp. 18-26, In: Zalom, F. G., et al.,

1990.

Graebner, L., Moreno, D. S., and Baritelle, J. L.,

“The Fillmore Citrus Protective District: A Case

Stow in Integrated Pest Management,’ Bulletin of
160 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

the Entomological Society of America, vol. 30,

1984, pp. 27-33, In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Gneshop, J. I., MacMullen, E., Brush, S., Pickel, C.,

and Zalom, F. G., “Promotion of Integrated Pest

Management Practices: Mandating as an Alternative, ’ manuscript accepted for publication, 1989,

In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Grieshop, J.I., Zalom, F.G., and Miyar, G., “Adoption and Diffusion of Integrated Pest Management

Innovations in Agriculture,” Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 34, No. 2, 1988,

pp. 72-78, Zn: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990,

Ground Water Monitor, “Preventing Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater, ” vol. 6, No. 4, 13

February 1990, p. 29.

Gruys, P., “Hits and Misses. The Ecological

Approach to Pest Control in Orchards,’ Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, vol. 31, 1982, pp.

70-87, In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Hall, F. R., ‘Improving Agrochemical and Fertilizer

Application Technology,” Agricultural Research

Instititute Conference, Feb. 21-23, Chevy Chase,

MD, 1985.

Hall, F.R., “Setting the Scene,” Improving OnTarget Placement of Pesticides, Proceedings of

Conference of the Agricultural Research Institute,

1988, pp. 15-22, In: Hall, F.R., 1989.

Hall, F. R., ‘Improving Pesticide Management Practices, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, August 1989).

Hallberg, G. R., “Pesticide and Nitrate Concentrations From 8 Case Studies Where Groundwater Has

Been Contaminated in the Vicinity of FarmChemical Supply Dealerships,” In: Hail, F., 1989.

Hallberg, G. R., “From Hoes to Herbicides: Agriculture and Groundwater Quality,” Journal of Soil

and Water Conservation, vol. 41, No. 6, NovemberDecember 1986, pp. 357-364.

Hallberg, G. R., “Overview of Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater, ’ Proceedings of the Conference on Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater,

(Worthington, OH: American Water Well Association, 1986), In: Jackson, G. J., et al., 1989.

Halvorson, A. D., Bock, B. R., and Meisinger, J. J.,

‘‘Advances in N Use Efficiency,” paper presented

at USDA/ARS Working Conference on Nitrogen

Research, St. Louis, MO, May 23-25, 1989.

Hanchar, J.J., “Irrigated Agriculture in the United

States: State-bvel Data,” USDA, ERS, Statistical

Bulletin No. 767, January 1989, In: Threadgill, E.D,

1989.

Harkin, J. M., Simsiman, G. V., and Chesters, G.,

“Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Effects

on the Productivity of the Croplands and RangeIands of the United States,” contractor report

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, 1980).

Hart, J. B., Nguyen, P. V., Uric, D. H., and Brockway,

D.G., “Silvicultural Use of Wastewater Sludge,”

Journal of Forestry, vol. 86, August 1988, pp.

17-24.

Hauck, R.D., “Agronomic and Technological Approaches To Minimizing Gaseous Nitrogen Lmses

From Croplands,’ Developments in Plant and Soil

Sciences, J.W. Freney and J.R. Simpson (eds.)

(Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff and Dr. W. Junk

Publishers, 1983), pp. 284-312.

Hauck, R. D., “Synthetic Slow-Release Fertilizers

and Fertilizer Amendments’ Fertilizer Technology and Use, 3d ed. (Madison, WI: Soil Science

Society of America, 1985).

Hauck, R. D., Senor Scientist, National Fertilizer

and Environment Research Center, Temessee Valley Authority, personal communication, 1990.

Heichel, G. H., “Legumes as a Source of Nitrogen

in Conservation Tillage Systems, ” The Role of

Legumes in Conservation Tillage Systems, J.F.

Power (cd.) (Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society, 1987), In: Heichel, G.H., 1989.

Heichel, G. H., “hgume Nitrogen: Symbiotic Fixation and Recovery by Subsequent Crops, ” Energy

in Plant Nutrition and Pest Control, vol. 2, Z.R.

Helsel (cd.) (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier

Science Publishers, 1987), In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Heichel, G.H., “hgumes as a Nitrogen Source:

Implications for Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater, ’ contractor report prepared for the OffIce of

Technology Assessment (Spring13eld, VA: National

Technical Information Service, July 1989).

Heichel, G. H., and Barnes, D. K., “Opportunities

for Meeting Crop Nitrogen Needs From Symbiotic

Nitrogen Fixation,” Organic Farming: Current

Technology and Its Role in a Sustainable Agriculture, D. Bezdicek and J. Power (eds.) Special

Publication No. 46 (Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1984), In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Helling, C. S., and Gish, TJ., “Soil Characteristics

Affecting Pesticide Movement Into Ground Water,’

Evaluation of Pesticides in Ground Water, W.Y.

Garner, R.C. Honeycutt, and H.N. Nigg (eds.)

(Washington, DC: American chemical Society,

1986).

Hepburn, G., “Pesticides and Drugs From the Neem

Tree,” The Ecologist, vol. 19, No. 1, 1989, pp.

31-32.

Hesterman, O. B., Russelle, M. P., Sheaffer, C. C.,

and Heichel, G. H., “Nitrogen Utilization From

Fertilizer and bgume Residues in hgume-Com

Rotations,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 79, 1987, pp.

726-731, In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.
91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 161

Higgs, R. L., Paulson, W. H., Pendelton, J. W., Peterson, A. E,, Jackobs, J. A,, and Schrader, W. D., ‘‘Crop

Rotations and Nitrogen, ” University of Wisconsin

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Research

Bulletin R2761, 1976.

Holing, D., “Looking for Mr. Goodbug,” Sierra,

January/February 1990, pp. 20-24.

Hollingworth, R. M., ‘‘Vulnerability of Pests: Study

and Exploitation for Safer Chemical Control, ’

Pesticides: Minimizing the Risks (Washington, DC:

American Chemical Society, 1987), pp. 54-76.

Honda, S., and Koizumi, M., “The Use of Zeolite

Mudstone in Hog Raising at Ikawa-Machi, Akita

Prefecture, Japan, ’ Zeolite ’76 Program Abstracts,

Tucson, AZ, 1976, p. 36.

Hull, L. A., and Beers, E. H., “Ecological Selectivity: Modifying Chemical Control Practices To

Preserve Natural Enemies,” Biological Control in

Agricultural Integrated Pest Management Systems,

1985, pp. 103-122, In: Hall, F, R., 1989.

Hussey, N. W., “Biological Control-A Commercial Evaluation, ’ Biocontrol News and Information, vol. 6, 1985, pp. 93-99, In: Zdom, F. G., et al.,

1990,

International Ag-Sieve, ‘‘Commercial Neem Insecticide, ” vol. 2, No. 2, 1989, p. 7.

Jackson, G. W., Jones, S. A., and Webendorfer, B.,

“Farrnstead Assessments—A Means To Manage

Farm Sources of Groundwater Contamination,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, May 1989).

Jackson, G. W., Keeney, D., Curwen, D., Webendorfer, B., “Agricultural Management Practices to

Minimize Groundwater Contamination,” Environmental Resources Center, University of Wisconsin--

Extension, July 1987, In: Jackson, G. W., et al.,

1989.

Kaplan, J. K., U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS,

‘‘ Adapt-a-Plant,’ Agricultural Research, vol. 37,

No. 8, August 1989, pp. 16-18.

Keeney, D. R., Director, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, personal

communication, Mar. 20, 1990.

Kendric~ J. B., “A Viewpoint on Integrated Pest

Management, “ Plant Disease, vol. 82,1988, p. 647,

In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and

Zimdahl, R. D., ‘‘Bioeconomic Modelling To Simulate Weed Control Strategies for Continuous Corn

Zea Mays,” Weed Science, vol. 34, 1986, pp.

972-979.

Klaseus, T. G., Buzicky, G. C., and Schneider, E. D.,

“Pesticides and Groundwater: Surveys of Selected

Minnesota Wells,” Minnesota Department of

Health and Minnesota Department of Agriculture,

105.

106,

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114,

115.

116.

Report to the hgislative Commission on Mhmesota Resources, 1988, In: Jackson, G. W., et al.,

1989.

Kuhr, R. J., “Regional Plaming and Coordination

of Integrated Pest Management Programs,

HortScience, vol. 16, 1981, pp. 514-515,1n: Zalom,

F. G., et al., 1990,

Lai, T., and Eberl, D. D., ‘‘Controlled and Renewable Release of Phosphorus in Soils From Mixtures

of Phosphate Rock and NHQ-Exchanged Clinoptilolite,” Zeolites, vol. 6, 1986, pp. 129-132.

Legg, J. O., Stanford, G., and Bemett, O. L., “Utilization of Labeled-N Fertilizer by Silage Corn Under

Conventional and No-Till Culture,” Agronomy

Journal, vol. 71, 1979, pp. 1009-1015, In: Heichel,

G.H., 1989.

Lehman, O. R., and Clark, R. N., “Effect of Cattle

Feedyard Runoff on Soil InfMration Rates,’ Journal of Environmental Qua[ity, vol. 4, No. 4, 1975,

pp. 437439, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Lehman, O. R., Stewart, B. A., and Mathers, A. C.,

Seepage of Feedyard Runo# Water Impounded in

Playas, MP-944, Texas Agricultural Experiment

Station, Texas A&M University, College Station,

TX, 1970, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Little, C. E., ‘‘Rural Clean Water: The Okeechobee

Story, ” Journul of Soil and Water Conservation,

vol. 43, No. 5, September/October 1988, pp. 386-

390.

Logan, T. J., “Agricultural Best Management Practices: Implications for Groundwater Protection,”

contractor report prepaml for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Sewice, December 1988).

hy, J. A,, Russelle, M. P., and Heichel, G.H.,

“Quantification of Symbiotically-Fixed Nitrogen

in Soil Surrounding Alfalfa Roots and Nodules,

Agronomy Abstracts (Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1988), In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Lund, Z. F., and Doss, B. D., ‘Coastal Berrnudagrass

Yield and Soil Properties as Affected by SurfaceApplied Dairy Manure and Its Residue, Journal of

Environmental Quality, vol. 9, 1980, pp. 157-162,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Lund, Z, F., Doss, B. D., and bwry, F.E., “Dairy

Cattle Manure--Its Effect on Yield and Quality of

Coastal Bermuda Grass,” Journal of Environmental Quali~, vol. 4, No. 3, 1975, pp. 358-362, In:

Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Lyle, W. M., and Bordovsky, J., “Planting ROW

Crops With Moving Irrigation Systems,” paper

presented at the winter meeting of American

Society of Agricultural Engineers, Asm paper

89-2687, 1989.

Lynch, J., “Microbes Are Rooting for Better

Crops,” New Scientist, April 28, 1988, pp. 4549.
162 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124,

125.

126.

127.

128. 1

MacRae, R. J., and Mehuys, G. R,, “The Effect of

Green Manuring on the Physical Properties of

Temperate-Area Soils,” Advances in Soil Science,

vol. 3, B.A. Stewart (cd.) (New York NY: Springer

Verlag, Inc., 1985), In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Madden, J.P. and O’Connell, P., “Early Results of

the LISA Program, ’ Agriuckural Libraries Information Notes, National Agricultural Library, USDA,

Beltsville, MD, ISSN: 0095-2699, vol. 15, Nos. 6/7,

June/July 1989, pp. 1-10.

Madison, R. J., and Brunett, J. O., U.S. Geological

Survey, ‘‘Overview of the Occurrence of Nitrate in

Groundwater of the United States, National Water

Sumrnary-1984, Water Quality Issues, Water Supply Paper No. 2275, Washington, DC, 1984, pp.

93-105, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Magette, W. L., Weismiller, R. A., Angle, J. S., and

Brinsfield, R. B., ‘‘A Nitrate Groundwater Standard

for the 1990 Farm Bill,” Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, vol. 44, No. 5, September-October

1989, pp. 491-494.

Magleby, R. S., and Schertz, D. L., “Conservation

Tillage-A Hot, New Idea From the Distant Past,”

[n: Whyte, W., Our American Land, 1987 Yearbook

of Agriculture (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1987), pp. 165-169.

Manges, H. L., Lipper, R. I., Murphy, L. S., Powers,

W. L., and Schmid, L. A., ‘‘Treatment and Ultimate

Disposal of Cattle Feedlot Wastes,’ EPA-660/2-75-

013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada

Oklahoma, 1975, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Marton, A., and Marlescu, R., “Natural Zeolites:

Swine Waste Water Treatment and Biomass Production, ’ Occurrence Properties and Utilization of

Natural Zeolifes, D. Kallo and H,S. Sherry (eds.)

Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 1988, pp. 729-735.

Mathers, A. C., and Stewart, B. A., ‘‘Manure Effects

on Crop Yields and Soil Properties, ’ Transactions

of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, vol.

27, No. 4, 1984, pp. 1022-1026, In: Sweeten, J. M.,

1989.

McBride, D., and Fanning, R., “Storage and Disposal of Pesticides and Containers on the Farm,”

Cooperative Extension Service, North Dakota State

University, Fargo, ND, 1986, In: Jackson, G. W., et

al., 1989.

McWhorter, C. G,, and Gerhardt, M.R. (eds.), Herbicide Application Technology (Champaign, IL: Weed

Science Society of America, 1988).

Mengel, D. B., “The Effects of I_mg-Term Fertilizer Use on Soil Productivity, ’ contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, 1980).

$fielke, L. N., and MazuralG A. P., “Infiltration of

Water on a Cattle Feedlot, ” Transaction of the

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

1

ASAE, vol. 19, No. 2, 1976, pp. 341-344, In:

Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Mielke, L. N., Swanson, N, P., and McCalla, TM.,

‘‘Soil Profile Conditions of Cattle Feedlots, ” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 13, No. 1, 1974,

pp. 14-17, In: Sweeten, J. M,, 1989.

Miller, A., “Integrated Pest Management: Psychosocial Constraints,’ Protection Ecology, vol. 5,

1983, pp. 253-268, ln: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Miller, W. D., Water Quality Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Infiltration Rates and

Groundwater Quality Beneath Cattle Feedlots, Texas

High Plains, ” Final Report No. 16060 EGS, Washington, DC, 1971, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Minor, J. R., and Stroh, R. C., “Controlling Feedlot

Surface Odor Emission Rates by Application of

Commercial Products,’ Transactions ofASAE, vol.

19, 1976, pp. 533-538.

Moore, J. A., “A Waste of Productivity: Avenues

for Improved Management and Application of

Wastes to Agricultural Lands, ” contractor report

prepared for the OffIce of Technology Assessment

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, August 1989).

Mumpton, F. A., “Using Zeolites in Agriculture, ”

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Semice, 1985).

Murphy, L. S., Wallingford, G. W., Powers, W. L.,

and Manges, H. L., ‘‘Effects of Solid Beef Feedlot

Wastes on Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, ”

Waste Management Research, Proceedings of the

Cornell University Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Ithaca, W, 1972, pp. 449-464,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

National Research Council, Alternative Agriculture

(Washington, DC: National Academy of Science,

1989).

Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society Newsletter, Issue 30, September/October, 1989, p. 2.

Nelson, R. R., and Roth, L. O., “Powder Induction

System for Field Sprayers, ” Transcripts of the

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, vol.

16, 1973, p. 44, In: Gebhardt, M. R., 1989.

New Waves, “Mobile Irrigation Planting System

Developed by TAES, ” The Research Newsletter of

the Texas Water Resources Institute, vol. 3, No. 1,

March 1990, p. 6.

Nipp, T. L., “Federal Agencies and the Pursuit of

Groundwater Protection, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment

[Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, February, 1990).

Vishimura, Y, “Properties and Utilizations of

Zeolite, ’ Nendo Kagaku (Journal of the Clay
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 163

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

Science Sociev of Japan), vol. 13, No. 1, 1973, pp.

23-34.

Norstadt, F. A., and Duke, H. R., ‘Stratified Profiles:

Characteristics of Simulated Soils in a Beef Cattle

Feedlot,” Soil Science Society of America Journal,

vol. 46, No. 4, 1982, pp. 827-832, In: Sweeten, J. M.,

1989.

North Carolina State University, Agricultural Extension Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, Best Management Practices

for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control, II. Commercial Fertilizer (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina

State University, n.d.).

North Carolina State University, Biological and

Agricultural Engineering Department, Stale of the

Art Review of Best Management Practices for

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control, I: Animal

Waste (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, August 1982).

North Carolina State University, Rura/ Clean Waler

Program: Status Report on the Ch4&E Projects,

Raleigh, NC, 1985, zn: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Odgers, E., Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,

Trade, and Consumer Protection, personal communication, Mar. 6, 1989, In: Jackson, G. W., et al.,

1989.

Oregon State University Extension Service (OSUES),

Pesticides in Groundvater in the United States of

America, A Repor~ of a 1988 Suntg of State bad

Agencies, conducted as part of the National Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, EM8406, August

1989.

Osteen, C. D., and Szmedra, P. I., Agricultural Pesticide Use Trends and Poli~ issues, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 622, Washington,

DC, 1989.

Parham, W. E., “Natural Zeolites: Some Potential

Agricultural Applications for Developing Countries, ’ Natural Resources Forum, May 1939, pp.

107-115.

Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture, “Groundwater and Agriculture in Pennsylvania, ” Circular 341 (College Station, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 1988).

Perkins, J. H., Insects, E.rperts, and the insecticide

Crisis (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1982).

Peterson, G. A., and Frye, W. W., “Fertilizer Nitrogen Management,” Nitrogen Management and

Ground Water Protection, R.F. Follett (cd.) (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers,

1989), pp. 183-219.

Phillips, P. A., and Culley, J. L. B., ‘‘Groundwater

Nutrient Concentrations Below Small-ScaIe Earthen

Manure Storage, ” Agricultural Waste Utilization

and Management, Proceedings of the Fifth Lnterna154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165

tional Symposium on Agricultural Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,

MI, pp. 672-679, 1985, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Pieters, A. J., Green Manuring Principles and Practice (New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons, 1927), In:

Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Pimentel, D. , “Perspectives of Integrated Pest

Management, Crop Protection, vol. 1, pp. 5-26,

1982.

Pimentel, D,, and Levitan, L., ‘ ‘Pesticides: Amounts

Applied and Amounts Reaching Pests, ’ Bioscience,

vol. 36, No. 2, February 1986, pp. 86-91.

Poe, S. L., ‘ ‘An Overview of Integrated Pest Management, ” HortScience, vol. 16,1981, pp. 501-506,

lrz: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Pond, W. G., and Mumpton, F.A. (eds.), ZeoAgriculture: Use of Natural Zeolites in Agriculture

and Aquiculture (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,

1984).

Porter, K. S., and Stimmann, M. W., Protecting

Groundw’ater: A Guide for the Pes~icide User

(Ithaca, NY: New Yorks State Water Resources

Institute, Cornell University, 1988), In: Zalom, F.G,

et al., 1990.

Potash and Phosphate Institute, The Vital Role of

Phosphoriis in Our En~’ironrnent, Publication No.

11-87-A (Atlanta, GA: 1987).

Power, J. F., and Broadbent, F. E., ‘‘Proper Accounting for N in Cropping System s,’ Nitrogen Management and Ground Water- Protection, R.F. Follett

(cd.) (New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishers,

1989).

Radke, J. K., Andrews, R. W., Janke, R. R., and

Peters, S. E., “bw-Input Cropping Systems and

Efficiency of Water and Nitrogen Use, ” Cropping

Strategies for Eflcient Use of ~titer and Nitrogen,

W.L. Hargrove (cd.), ASA Special Publication No.

51, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science

Society of American, Soil Science of America,

Madison, WI, 1988.

Rajotte, E. G., Kazmierczak, R. F., Lambur, M.T.,

Norton, G. W., and Allen, W. A., “The National

Evaluation of Extension’s Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Programs’ (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia

Cooperative Extension Service Publication 491-

010 through 491-024, 1987), In: Zalom, F. G., et al.,

1990.

Randall, G. W., ‘ ‘Efficiency of Fertilizer Nitrogen

Use as Related to Application Methods,’ Nirrogen

in Crop Production (Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of American, Soil Science Society of America, 1984).

Randall, G. W., “Who’s Responsible for Nitrates in

Groundwater, ’ presented at 1986 Soils, Fertilizer,

and Agricultural Pesticides Short Course, Dec. 9,

1986, Minneapolis, MN.
164 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

166,

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

172,

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

Randall, G. W., and Bandel, V. A., “Overview of

Nitrogen Management for Conservation Tillage

Systems: An Overview,” Effects of Conservation

Tillage on Groundwater Quality: Nitrates and

Pesticides, T.J. Logan (cd.) (Chelsea, MI: Lewis

Publishers, 1987).

Reddell, D. L., ‘‘Forage and Grain Production From

Land Used for Beef Manure Disposal,” Proceedings and Management of Agricultural Wastes,

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1974, pp. 464483,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Reddell, D. L., Egg, R. C., and Smith, V.L., “Chemical Changes in Soils Used for Beef Manure

Disposal, ” Paper No. 74-4060, American Society

of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, 1974, pp.

672-679, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Reetz, H. F., Jr., “Farms for the Future, ’ Environmental Forum, vol. 6, November/December 1989,

pp. 24,29-32.

Reeves, C. C., and Miller, W. D., ‘‘Nitrate, Chloride

and Dissolved Solids, Ogallala Aquifer, West

Texas, ” Ground Water, vol. 16, No. 3, 1978.

Reganold, J. P., Elliott, L. F., and Unger, Y. L.,

‘‘Long-Term Effects of Organic and Conventional

Farming on Soil Erosion,” Nature, vol. 330, 1987,

pp. 370-372, In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

Rehm, G., Daigger, L,, and Olson, R. A., ‘ ‘Crop and

Soil Response to Applied P and K in a Imng-Term

Buildup/Depletion Study, ” Soil Science Research

Report, Department of Agronomy, University of

Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 1979.

Reichard, D. L., and Ladd,T.L.,‘‘Pesticide Injection

System Mixes Chemical in Water Lines,’ The Ohio

Report, vol. 68, 1983, pp. 57-58, In: Gebhardt,

1989.

Reichelderfer, K. M., Carlson, G. A., and Norton,

G. A., Economic Guidelines for Crop Pest Control

(Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 1984), In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Reichenberger, L., and Guebert, A,, “Breez e

Through Chemical Buckets, Barrels, and Bulk, ”

Successful Farming, vol. 81, No. 5,1983, pp. 16-19,

In: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Ritter, W. F., Walpole, E. W,, and Eastburn, R. P.,

“An Anaerobic Lagoon for Swine Manure and Its

Effect on the Groundwater Quality in a SandyLoam Soil, ” Livestock Waste: A Renewable Resource, Proceedings of the Fourth International

Symposium on Livestock Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, 1981,

pp. 244-252, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Robinson, F, E., “Changes in Seepage Rates From

an Unlined Cattle Waste Digestion Pond, ’ Transactions of the ASAE, vol. 16, No. 1, 1973, pp. 95-96,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

178,

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

Rogers, E., Di@sion of Innovations (New York

NY: The Free Press, 1983).

Rogers, T. H., and Giddens, J. E., ‘‘Green Manure

and Cover Crops, ’ Soils: Yearbook of Agriculture,

A. Stefferund (cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1957), pp. 252-257, In: Heichel,

G.H., 1989.

Russelle, M. P., and Hargrove, W. L., “Cropping

Systems: Ecology and Management, ” Nitrogen

Management and Ground Water Protection, R.F.

Follett (cd.) (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier

Science Publishers, 1989), pp. 277-317.

Salisbury F. B., and Ross, C. W., Plant Physiology,

3d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadworth Publishing Co.,

1985).

Schaller, N., “LISA: A Viable Alternative,” Environmental Forum, vol. 6, November/December

1989, pp. 24,33-35.

Schepers, J. S., “Role of Cropping Systems in

Environmental Quality: Groundwater Nitrogen, ”

Cropping Strategies for Eficient Use of Water and

Nitrogen, W.L. Hargrove (cd.), ASA Special Publication No. 51 (Madison, WI: American Society of

Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil

Science of America, 1988).

Schlosser, I. J., and Karr, J. R., “Determinants of

Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds,” Water

Resources Center Research Report No. 147 @Jrbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1980).

Schmid, A. R., Cardwell, A. C., and Briggs, R. A.,

“Effect of Various Meadow Crops, Soybeans, and

Grain on the Crops Which Follow,” Agronomy

Journal, vol. 51, 1959, pp. 160-162, In: Heichel,

G. H., 1989,

Schuman, G. E., and McCalla, TM., “Beef Cattle

Feedlots: Impact on Underlying Soil, ” Abstracts

(Fort Collins, CO: Western Society of Soil Science,

June, 1975), In: Sweeten, J, M., 1989,

Sewell, J. I., ‘Dairy Lagoon Effects on Groundwater

Quality,” Transactions of the ASAE, vol. 21, No. 5,

1978, pp. 948-952, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Sheaffer, C. C., Barnes, D. K., and Heichel, G. H.,

‘‘Amual Alfalfa in Crop Rotations,’ Station Bulletin 588-1989, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment

Station, St. Paul, MN, 1989.

Smith, E. H., and Pimentel, D. (eds.), Pest Control

Strategies (New York NY: Academic Press, 1978),

in: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Smith, S.J., Schepers, J. S., and Porter, L. K., “Advances in Assessing and Managing Nitrogen Imsses

to the Environment, ” Nitrogen Research 1989:

Current Advances and Future Priorities, Technical

Report of a USDA-ARS Working Conference, St.

Louis, MO, May 23-25, 1989.

Sommers, L. F., and Giordano, P. M., ‘‘Use of

?Jitrogen From Agricultural, Industrial, and Munici-
Chapter 4-Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 165

pal Wastes,” Nitrogen in Crop Production (h4adison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop

Science Society of America, and Soil Science

Society of America, 1984), pp. 207-220.

192. Spalding, R. F., Gorrnly, J. R., Curtiss, B. H., and

Exner, M. W., “Nonpoint Nitrate Contamination of

Ground Water in Merrick County, Nebraska,”

Ground Water, vol. 16, No. 2, 1978, pp. 86-95.

193. Stewart, B. A., Viets, F. G., Hutchinson, G. L,, Kemper, K. D., Clark, F. E., Fairbourn, M. L., and Strauch,

F., Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, “Distribution of Nitrate and Other

Water Pollutants Under Fields and Corrals in the

Middle South Platte River Valley of Colorado,”

ARS 41-143, Washington, DC, 1967, In: Sweeten,

J. M., 1989.

194. Stewart, J. W. B., Follett, R. F., and Cole, C. V.,

“Integration of Organic Matter and Soil Fertility

Concepts into Management Decisions,’ Soil Fertility and Organic Matter as Critical Components of

Production Systems (Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Societ y of America,

and Soil Science Society of America, 1987).

195. Stewart, TA., “The Safe Disposal of Silage Effluent, ’ Agriculture in Northern Ireland, vol. 54,

1979, pp. 9-12, In: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

196. Stickler, F, C., Johnson, I. J., Shrader, W. D., and

Thompson, H. E., “hgume Green Manures as

Fertilizer for Corn, ” Iowa Farm Science, vol. 13,

1959, p. 709, ln: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

197. Sweeten, J., “Improving Livestock Management

Practices to Reduce Nutrient Contamination of

Groundwater, contractor report prepared for the

OffIce of Technology Assessment (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Service, February 1990).

198. Sweeten, J. M., and Redden, D. L., “NonpointSources:

State of the Art Overview,” Transactions of the

ASAE, VO]. 21, No. 3, 1978, pp. 474483, lrz:

Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

199. Sweeten, J. M., Egg, R. P,, Reddell, D, L., Varani, F.,

and Wilcox, S., “characteristics of Cattle Feedlot

Manure in Relation to Harvesting Practices, ’ Agricultural Waste Utilization and Management, Proceedings of Fifth International Symposium on

Agricultural Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St, Joseph, MI, pp. 329-337, 1985,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

200. Tang, J., Jofriet, J. S,, and Lelievre, B,, “Juice Flow

From Silages,” Canadian Agricultural Engineering, vol. 30, 1988, pp. 99-106, In: Jackson, G. W., et

al., 1989.

201. Tarlock, A. D., “Legal Aspects of Integrated Pest

Management, ” Pest Control: Cultural and Environmental Aspects, D, Pimentel and J.H. Perkins (eds.)

(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980), pp. 217-236,

In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

202, Tauber, M. J., Hey, M. A., and Herzog, D. C,, “Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems: A

Brief Overview of the Current Status and Future

Prospect s,’ Biological Control in Agricultural 1PM

Systems, M.A. Hoy and D.C. Herzog (eds.) (New

York, NY: Academic Press, 1985), pp. 41-50, In:

Zalom, F. G,, et al., 1990.

203. Taylor, H. H., Economic Research Semice, U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Use of Agricultural

Inputs and the Conservation Reserve Program,”

Agricultural Resources: Inputs, Situation and Outlook Report, AR-1 1, Washington, DC, July 1988.

204. Tette, J., Director, New York State Integrated Pest

Management Program, personal communication,

Apr. 25, 1989, In: Zalom, F. G., et al,, 1990.

205. Texas Water Commission (TWC), Control of Certain Activities by Rule, 31 TAC, ch. 321.31-

3221.41, Part IX, Texas Water Commission,

Austin, TX, Texas Register, pp. 904-909, Mar. 17,

1987, In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

206. Thayer, A. M., ‘‘Biopesticide Producers Concerned

Over Patent Protection, ” Chemical and 13ngineering News, vol. 67, No. 29, July 17, 1989, pp. 11-13.

207. Thomas, G. W., Smith, M. S., and Phillips, R. E.,

‘‘Impact of Soil Management Practices on Nitrogen

Leaching,” Nitrogen Management and Ground

Water Protection, R.F. Follett (cd.) (Amsterdam,

Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1989),

pp. 247-276.

208. Threadgill, E. D., “Irrigation/Chemigation: Implications for Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater, ’ contractor repoti prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, December 1989).

209. Timberlake, W. E., and Marshall, M. A., “Genetic

Engineering of Filarnentous Fungi,” Science, vol.

244, June 16, 1989, pp. 1313-1317.

210, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Pest Management Strategies for Crop Protection,

vol. 1, OTA-F-98 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1979).

211. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

United States Food and Agricultural Research

System, OTA-F-155 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1981).

212, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and

Range[and Productivity, OTA-F-166 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August

1982).

213. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies To Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife,

Workshop Proceedings, OTA-BP-F-34 (Washing-
166 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

214.

215.

216.

217.

218,

219.

220.

221.

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1985).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing

Structure of American Agriculture, OTA-F-285

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Facing Americas Trash: What Next for Municipal

Solid Waste? OTA-0+24 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, October 1989).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer

Policies for the 1990s, Special Report, OTA-F448

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Use of Sewage

Sludge Compost for Soil Improvement and Plant

Growth, Agricultural Reviews and Manuals, ARMNE-6, 1979, in: Moore, J. A., 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report andRecommenhtions on Organic Farming, prepared by

USDA Study Team on Organic Farrnin g (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July

1980).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1986), p. 374, In: Threadgill, E.D., 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1987), In: Heichel, G. H., 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989 Agricultural

Charfbook, Agricultural Handbook No. 684 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce,

March 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Nitrogen Research-1989: Current

Advances and Future Priorities, Technical Report

of a USDA Agricultural Research Service Working

Conference, May 23-25, 1989, St. Imuis, MO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, “Irrigate? Why Not Chemigate?”

Agricultural Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 1990, p. 15.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Notice to State

Offices (ACP-21O), Nov. 3, 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State

Research Service, ES, “Low Input/Sustainable

Agriculture: Research and Education Program,”

August 1988.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resources: Inputs,

Situation and Outlook Report, AR-1 1, Washington,

DC, July 1988.

227.

228.

229.

230.

231

232.

233.

234.

235.

236.

237,

238.

239.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resources: Inputs,

Situation and Outlook, AR-16, Washington, DC,

September 1989a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resources: Inputs,

Situation and Outlook, AR-15, Washington, DC,

August 1989b.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Outlook, January/

February 1990, p. 32.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

‘‘Shelterbelt Influence on Greate Plains Field Environment and Crops, ’ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Production Research Report

No. 61, 1962,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Consemation

Service, “Windbreaks for Conservation, ” U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 339, 1974.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, Consemation Planning Division, National

Planning Manual, Part 501, Washington, DC, 1984.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Consemation

Service, General Manual, Section 450, Part 401,

Amendment 4, Washington, DC, February 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State Program Elements Necessary for Participation in the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 40 CFR

124.82, Federal Register, p. 11460, Mar. 18, 1976,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedings: Research Workshop on the Treatment

Disposal of Pesticide Wastewater, EP~600/9-86/

001, January 1986, In: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides

Industry Sales and Usage: 1988 Market Estimates,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances (H 7503 C), February 1990.

van den Bosch, R. The Pesticide Conspiracy

(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), In: Zalom,

F. G., et al., 1990.

Van Dyne, D. L., and Gilbertson, C. B., Economics,

Statistics, and Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Estimating U.S. Livestock

and Poultry Manure and Nutrient Production,

ESCS-12, Washington, DC, 1978, In: Sweeten,

J. M., 1989.

von Rumker, R., Lawless, E. W., and Meiners, A. F.,

‘‘Production, Distribution, Use, and Environmental

Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides,” Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide

Programs, and Council on Environmental Quality,

1974.
Chapter 4--Technologies To Improve Nutrient and Pest Management ● 167

240.

241.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

247.

Voss, R., KilIorn, R., Amemiya, M., Fawcett, R. S.,

Gnmdman, D., Stockdale, H. J., Melvin, S.W.,

Duf~, M. D., and Benson, G., “Best Management

Practices to Improve Groundwater Quality in Iowa,’

Iowa Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State

University, Ames, IA, 1987, In: Jackson, G. W., et

al,, 1989.

Vroom, J. J., ‘‘Conventional Agriculture Is Sustainable, ” Environmental Forum, vol. 6, November/

December 1989, pp. 25,35.

Vroomen, H., U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, “Fertilizer Use and

Price Statistics, 1960-1988,” Statistical Bulletin

No. 780 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

Vrzgula, L., and Bartko, P., “Effects of ClinoptiIolite on Weight Gain and Some Physiological

Parameters of Swine,’ Zeo-Agriculture, W.G. Pond,

and F.A. Mumpton (eds.) (Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1984), pp. 157-162.

Wachs, A., and Hamel, M., Managing Your Hazardous Waste: A Guit& for Smai[ Quantity Generators, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

and University of Wisconsin—Extension, 1987, In:

Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Way, M. J., “Integrated Control--Practical Realities,” Outlook Agriculture, vol. 9, 1977, pp. 127-

135, In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Wearing, C. H., “Evaluating the IPM Implementation Process, ” Annual Review of Entomology)’, vol.

33, 1988, pp. 17-38, In: Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Westerman, P. W., Burns, J. C., King, L. D., Overcash, M. R., and Evans, R. O., ‘‘Swine Lagoon

248,

249,

250,

251.

252,

253.

254.

Effluent Applied to Coastal Bermudagrass, ” Project Summary, EPA-600/S2-83 -004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, 1983,

In: Sweeten, J. M., 1989.

Whalen, M. E., and Croft, B. A., “Apple IPM

Implementation in North America, ’ Annual Review

of Entomology, vol. 29, 1984, pp. 435-470, [n:

Zalom, F. G., et al., 1990.

Willis, W., Quarles, C. L., Fagerberg, D. J., and

Shutze, J. V., “Evaluation of Zeolites Fed to Male

Broiler Chickens,” poultry Science, vol. 61, 1982,

pp. 438-442.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Wastewater Management Case Records,

1983, In: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Wastewater Management Case Records,

1986, ]n: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Woolford, M. K., “The Problem of Silage Mluent , Herbage Abstracts, vol. 48, 1978, pp. 397-

401, In: Jackson, G. W., et al., 1989.

Zalom, F. G., Pickel, C., and Welch, N. C., “Recent

Trends in Strawben-y Arthropod Management in

Coastal Regions of the Western United States,”

submitted for publication, 1989, In: Zalom, F. G., et

al., 1990.

Zalom, F. G., Stimmam, M. W., and Smilanic~

J. M., “Integrated Pest Management: Potential for

Reducing Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater, contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, January 1990).
Chapter 5

Farmer Decisionmaking and

Technical Assistance

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS

● People who make decisions about nutrient and pest management in agriculture include farmers,

commercial applicators, and the individuals who advise them. A comprehensive approach to

reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater will consider the roles, opportunities, and

constraints of all types of agrichemical applicators and advisors.

Ž Agricultural applicators handle fertilizers, general-use pesticides, and restricted-use pesticides

(RUPs). EPA’s applicator certification requirements solely apply to RUP applicators, and RUPs

constitute only 20 percent of total agricultural pesticide volume used. EPA does not require States

to train applicators, and certification requirements vary widely. Expanded Federal directives for

applicator training may be needed to improve agrichemical management nationwide.

. Two of the four approaches to reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater, improved

point-source controls and improved agrichemical efficacy and application draw from a huger

information base, employ well-established information sources, and are perceived to be less risky

and easier to implement than use-reduction and nonchemical approaches.

. Farmers interested in use-reduction and nonchemical practices have noted that State Cooperative

Extension Services (CESs) have provided inadequate information on these approaches. Such

farmers seek information from other experienced fanners; these “farmer-to-farmer networks are

playing important roles in disseminating information on more complex farming system changes.

. Farmers, or private applicators, are responsible for applying at least half of all agrichemicals in

agriculture. Keeping records of the types, amounts, and locations of agrichemicals used would

provide the means for farmers to quantify nutrient and pest management costs and evaluate new

practices. Agrichemical recordkeeping may be the most important prerequisite to optimizing

agrichemical rates used.

• Farmers’ decisions are based on their fundamental objectives for farming. Although other social

and environmental factors influence objective-setting, economic factors define what is financially

possible for farmers, often forcing them to focus on the short term Institutional factors (e.g.,

commodity programs) influence farmers’ willingness and ability to implement resourceprotecting practices.

• Since most farmers hold off-farm jobs and may not have needed time or expertise, farmers could

purchase advisory services that reduce their operations’ adverse environmental impacts.

Increasing services and improving commercial employees’ environmental expertise would result

in improved nutrient and pest management decisions.

• Decisionmaking for groundwater protection represents only one aspect of societal efforts to

protect natural resources in agriculture. Programs that help farmers protect groundwater could fit

into a broader research and extension strategy that aids farmer decisionmaking to protect natural

resources overall.

. The range of assistance available to all types of agrichemical applicators will depend on the local

“mix” of Federal, State, and local programs. Technical assistance opportunities also will be

influenced by the degree of coordination among public-sector personnel and their commitment to

natural resource protection in agriculture.
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

AGRICHEMICAL APPLICATORS IN THE

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

General Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Private Applicator Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Commercial Applicator Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Applicator Certification and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

FACTORS INFLUENCING AGRICULTURAL

DECISIONMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

FACTORS INFLUENCING AGRICHEMICAL USE AND

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Lack of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Lack of Documented Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Difficulty inDemonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

DECISIONMAKING TO PROTECT GROUNDWATER . 194

Knowledge of Agrichemical Contamination . . . . . . . . . 194

Need To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination . . . . . . . 195

Ability To Comnmit Resources To Reduce Groundwater

Contamin ation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Access To Resources and Technical Assistance . . . . . . 197

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO REDUCE

AGRICHEMICAL CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . 197

Public-Sector Assistance-Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . 200

Public-Sector Assistance-State and Local Agencies . . 204

Private-Sector Assistance:Commercial Agricultural

Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Farmer Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Public-Sector Coordination To Enhance Technical

Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION TO

ENHANCE DECISIOMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Enhanced Decisionmaking for Natural Resource

Protection in Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Research and Extension Needs To Enhance

Decisionmaking .... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Enhanced Decisionmaking for Groundwater Protection. 222

POLICY OPTIONS TO SUPPORT IMPROVED

DECISIO NMAKING ON AGRICHEMICAL

USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Appendix

5-1. State Agricultural and Water Quality Cost-Share

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Boxes

Box Page

5-A. Pesticide Classification and Applicator Certification. 173

5-B. Agricultural Sector Characteristics Influencing

Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

5-C. Competency Standards for Pesticide Applicator

Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

5-D. EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

5-E. Farmer Awareness and Concerns About Groundwater

Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Page

5-F. Implications of Farm Size for Technical Assistance . 198

5-G. ATTRA: National Information Source on Agrichemical

Use Reduction and Alternative Technologies . . . . . . 206

5-H. Alternative Farming Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

5-I. Iowa’s Integrated Farm Management Demonstration

Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

5-J. Agricultural Innovations and the Legacy of Diffusion

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

5-K. Integrating Postsecondary Agricultural and

Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

5-L. Soil Survey Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Figures

Figure Page

5-1. Increase in Landscape and Horticultural Service

Finns, 1974-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

5-2. Increase in Farm Management Service Firms,

1974-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

5-3. Numbers of Farm Supply Establishments, 1974-86. . 181

5-4. Sources of Information and Advice to Farmers . . . . . 201

5-5 Federal, State, and Local Organizations With

Roles in Protecting Surface and Groundwater From

Agricultural Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Tables

Table Page

5-1. Agrichemical Applicator Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

5-2. Agrichemical Categories and Applicator Certification

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

5-3. Number of Restricted-Use Pesticide Applicator

Certifications and Estimated Number of Potential

Noncertified Applicators, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

5-4. Numbers of Farm Operators, Hired Farmworkers,

and Unpaid Farmworkers, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

5-5. Primary Employment Status of Farm Operators . . . 175

5-6. Distribution of Farms by Sales Class, Percent of

Total Cash Receipts by Sales Class, 1987 . . . . . . . . 176

5-7. Number of States in 1986 Specifically Addressing

Groundwater Concerns in Pesticide Applicator

Certification Training and Testing Programs . . . . . . 183

5-8. Number of States and Territories That Required

Training for Restricted-Use Pesticide Applicators

in 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

5-9. Applicator Certification and Training Provisions

in Ten States With Highest-Volume Agrichemical

Use, 1986 Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

5-10. Production Inputs for Nitrogen Management . . . . . . 192

5-11. Constraints To Reducing Herbicide Use . . . . . . . . . . 193

5-12. Land Ownership and Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

5-13. Sources of Information and Technical Assistance . . 200

5-14. Types of Programs Conducted by Conservation

Districts and Their Priority Rankings in 1990 . . . . . 207

5-15. Numbers of Agricultural Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

5-16. OTA Survey Respondents: Private Nonprofit

Organizations Associated With Farmer-to-Fanner

Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Chapter 5

Farmer Decisionmaking and Technical Assistance

To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

INTRODUCTION

Farmers use agrichemicals to save time and labor,

increase productivity, and reduce the uncertainty

and risk involved in obtaining consistent, desired

yields. Groundwater contamination by agrichemicals, however, may occur when: 1) agrichemicals are

mismanaged, regardless of the area’s intrinsic hydrogeologic vulnerability; or 2) hydrogeologic vulnerability is so great that even proper management

practices may not prevent groundwater entry by

certain types of agrichemicals. Although a wide

range of management practices, technologies, and

cropping systems is available to reduce agrichemical

contamination of groundwater, their adoption and

use ultimately depend on decisions made by individual farmers. Thus, farmer decisionmaking is particularly important to consider when assessing the costs,

feasibility, and effectiveness of management practices to reduce groundwater contamination.

Management changes to protect groundwater can

be grouped into four approaches:

agrichemical management to reduce pointsource contamination (mixing, loading, storage

and disposal practices);

improved agrichemical application management (agrichemical selection, application rate,

timing, method, and equipment);

agrichemical use reduction; and

use of nonchemical practices (biological and

cultural).

Each of these approaches is associated with different

constraints that will influence adoption by farmers.

Regardless of the approach, however, farmers’

selection and maintenance of groundwater-protecting practices will be a critical link in reducing

agrichemical contamination of groundwater, whether

this is done through voluntary, cross-compliance, or

regulatory programs.

AGRICHEMICAL APPLICATORS IN

THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Today’s agricultural production methods rely on

agrichemical use, and a large but unknown number

of individuals within the agricultural work force

mix, apply, and dispose of agrichemical products.

Farmers apply agrichemicals themselves or pay for

custom application services. Thus, strategies to

reduce groundwater contamination should consider

the numbers, types, and roles of private and commercial agrichemica1 applicators, their relative contributions to agrichemical management overall, and their

specific constraints and opportunities.

Agrichemical applicators area highly heterogeneous group and include part- and full-time farm

operators, hired farmworkers, unpaid farmworkers,

hired farm managers. and custom applicators (table

5-1). Agrichemical applicators differ in terms of

occupational setting, business objectives, available

resources, and management skills. Policies and

program which address the different objectives,

needs, and skills of all agrichemical applicator

groups are more likely to result in improved

agrichemical management and reduced groundwater

contamination than policies that are generalized and

uniformly applied.

General Categories

Classifying agrichemical applicators by group is

useful in identifying specific constraints and opportunities to improve agrichemical management. Agricultural applicators handle three general categories

of agrichemicals: 1) fertilizers; 2) general-use pesticides; and 3) restricted-use pesticides. Persons using

Table 5-1—Agrichemical Applicator Groups in the

Agricultural Sector

Private agricultural sector Commercial agricultural sector

Farm operators (full-time; Independent custom applicators

part-time)

Farmworkers (hired; unpaid) Custom applicators employed by:

Farmer cooperatives

Farm managers employed Franchised dealerships

by banks, real estate firms, Independent dealerships

etc. Fertilizer plants with sales outlet

Independent farm managers Farm management service firms

Independent farm management consultants

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

–171–
172 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

fertilizers are typically not subject to applicator

certification requirements. Persons using generaluse pesticides are also not subject to certification

requirements, except for commercial applicators in

some States (table 5-2). All persons handling

restricted-use pesticides (RUPs), however, must

either be certified or under the direct supervision of

a certified applicator (see box 5-A). Thus, RUP

applicators are of three general types: 1) private

certified; 2) commercial certified; and 3) noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a

certified applicator.

Private v. Commercial Applicators

Private agricultural applicators use or supervise

the use of agrichemicals on property they own or

rent, and they may apply agrichemicals on another

grower’s property without financial compensation

as a way of trading personal services. Commercial

applicators use or supervise the use of agrichemicals

as a business service and are licensed or registered

to conduct business in their States. Depending on

their business volumes, commercial applicators are

often responsible for applying agrichemicals over

larger land areas than private applicators and are

subject to more certification and reporting requirements. However, private applicators working on

Table 5-2—Agrichemical Categories and Applicator

Certification Requirements

Certification needed to apply

Type of General-use Restricted-use

applicator Fertilizers Pesticides Pesticides

Private No’ No Yes

Commercial No Yes, in some Yes

States only

aAn ex~ption is Nebrask, where farmers in some Natural Resources

Districts with documented groundwater contamination by nitrates are

required to undergo training on fertilizer application procedures.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

large farm operations may also apply agrichemicals

over thousands of acres.

Overall, private applicators are responsible for

applying at least half of all agrichemicals in agriculture, with commercial firms and contractors applying the remainder. Custom-applied fertilizer accounts for about 47 percent of the tonnage sold by

bulk blend and fluid fertilizer plants, and 32 percent

of the tonnage sold by retail outlets (56). About 40

percent of total farm expenditures for either commercial fertilizers or pesticides in 1986 were for

custom applications, which included materials and

application costs (158).

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service

EPA estimates that 2.3 million persons applied restricted-use pesticides in U.S. agriculture in 1988. This estimate does not include

applicators of general-use pesticides or fertilizers.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 173

Box 5-A—Pesticide Classification and Applicator Certification

The 1972 FIFRA amendments authorized EPA to set conditions for pesticide use through a two-tiered pesticide

classification system. EPA classifies pesticides for general-use if it determines that the pesticide will not cause

unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment if applied according to label directions or commonly

recognized practice. EPA classifies pesticides for restricted-use if they may cause unreasonable adverse effects under such

conditions.

FIFRA requires restricted-use pesticides (RUPs) to be applied only by persons who are: 1) certified as competent in

handling pesticides, or 2) under direct supervision of a certified applicator (39). Persons using general-use pesticides need

not be certified but they are legally required to follow pesticide label directions. For certain pesticides, some uses (but not

all) may be classified as restricted, depending on the pesticide’s acute toxicity and the site and purpose of use. States also

have the authority to classify additional pesticides used within their borders as “restricted-use’ or “limited-use.”

The number of EPA-designated RUPs varies, depending on new products, new restrictions, and product cancellations.

As of July 1988, EPA restricted 102 federally registered pesticides:

Number restricted as Percent total volume of

Type of pesticide of July 1988 RUPs used in 1987

Insecticide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 10.6

Herbicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.4

Fumigant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ●

Vertebrate control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ●

Wood preservative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71.3

Fungicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Use data not available

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ●

“Collectively, 11 fumigants, 11 vertebrate controls (3 avicides and 8 rodenticides) and 1 molluscicide accounted for 10.6

percent of restricted-material volume.

SOURCE: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Certification and Training Branch,

“Certification and Training Program, Update,” 1989.

General-use pesticides constituted 80 percent of the estimated 2.5 billion pounds of active pesticide ingredients used

in all sectors of the United States in 1987 (167). This total included 1.5 billion pounds of wood preservatives, sulfur, and

disinfectants, and about 1 billion pounds of ‘‘conventional” pesticides, U.S. agriculture used about 75 percent of all

conventional pesticides that year, and RUPs constituted only about 19 percent of the volume of agricultural pesticides used.

Because each State varies in the number of additional pesticides which are State-restricted, ’ this percentage estimate may

be low for some States.

Type of pesticide Estimates of pounds used in 1987

Total “conventional” pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,085 million

Agricultural pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 milliona

Maximum estimate for agricultural pesticides classified

by EPA as RUPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 millionb

Volume of agricultural pesticides not covered by

EPA certification requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934 million

aSOLJRCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Economic Analysis Branch,

Pesticide Musky sales and Usage: 1988Market Estimates, February 1990.

bEpA estimat~ that 526 mil[ion pounds of restricted-use materials were used in 1987, of which 71 percent were wood

preservatives (167). Assuming that the remainder, or 29 percent, of restricted-use materials were pesticides ued in

agriculture would yield 151 million pounds. Note that this is a maximum estimate, because RUPS used outside of

agriculture would be inchded.

Thus, the major share of agricultural pesticides are not covered by Federal applicator certification requirements. Lack

of coverage means that most pesticides can be applied by people who are not required to demonstrate their knowledge of

pesticide hazards to a government agency. Although in practice many general-use pesticide applicators are certified, the

low number of Federal restrictions requiring applicator certification reflects a low level of national commitment to

supporting proper pesticide use. Although it is still possible for a certified applicator to mismanage pesticides, certified

applicators are at least exposed to a State examination procedure that conveys the importance of proper management to

the applicator. Stricter Federal applicator requirements applied to a greater number of pesticides would provide more

incentives for proper management of pesticides in agriculture.

EPA is authorized to classify pesticides for restricted-use if they cause groundwater contamination, but som e

pesticides that have been found in groundwater have not been classified as restricted-use at the Federal level. In the absence

of stricter Federal restrictions, States may act to protect groundwater resources by classifying for restricted use all

pesticides found in groundwater. States could also require applicators to receive training on pesticide impacts and

management methods to minimize groundwater contamination.
174 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Certified v. Noncertified Applicators

The terms “certified” and “noncertified” refer

only to RUP applicators. Certified applicators hold

EPA-approved State certifications to apply RUPs by

having demonstrated a standard level of competence

in pesticide handling. Certified applicators also are

allowed to supervise RUP use by noncertified

applicators, who are typically employees. Private

applicators fall under one certification category—

agricultural pest control (12 1). Commercial applicators, on the other hand, can receive certification in at

least 10 different categories:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

agricultural pest control (plant and animal);

forest pest control;

ornamental and turf pest control;

seed treatment;

aquatic pest control;

right-of-way pest control;

industrial, institutional, structural, and healthrelated pest control;

public health pest control;

regulatory pest control; and

demonstration and research pest control.

Approximately 1.27 million applicators held valid

certifications in 1988; 1 million of these were private

certifications (all agricultural) and 254,000 were

commercial, of which 72,000 were for agricultural

pest control (table 5-3). The EPA estimates that each

certified private applicator supervises one noncertified applicator; each certified commercial agricultural applicator supervises three to four noncertified

applicators (61 ). Thus, an estimated 50 to 55 percent

of all agricultural RUP applicators were noncertified

in 1988 (121).

No estimates exist for the number of persons

applying general-use pesticides. Many farmers apply

both general-use and restricted-use pesticides, although some farmers avoid using RUPs, which

eliminates the need to be certified. Differences

among agrichemical applicator groups with respect

to certification, supervision, and private v. commercial work setting imply that some applicators are

more experienced or better prepared to manage

agrichemicals than others. Poorly trained, inexperienced, or hurried applicators are more likely to

mismanage agrichemicals. Agrichemical mismanagement is the intentional or unintentional mishanTable 5-3-Number of Restricted-use Pesticide

Applicator Certifications and Estimated Number of

Potential Noncertified Applicators, 1988

Applicator category Number of certifications

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Plant pest control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Animal pest control . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-agricultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private (essentially all agricultural)a . . .

Total certificationsb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Potential noncertified applicators

(includes commercial and private):

Agricultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-agricultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

250,268

72,350

63,832

8,968

177,918

1,019,978

1,270,246

1,300,000

1,000,000

aNationa] figures conlpil~ from reported numbers Of State Certificatiofl%

personal communication with Charles Reese, Chief, Certification and

Training Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Oct. 24, 1989.

bEpA e~timate~ that abut on~thi~ of ~1 ~ertifi~ indiv~uals hold both

private and commercial certifications (personal communication, Yvette

Hopkins, Economic Analysis Branch, Offi~ of Pesticide Programs, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 29, 1989).

cFrom “certification and Training Program,” unpublished b’efing outline

prepared for Linda Fisher, Office of Pestiade Programs, by Certification

and Training Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, June 22, 1989.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

dling of agrichemicals, including improper mixing,

inappropriate timing of application, use of excess

application rates, mixing or disposal in areas at high

risk of contaminating water sources, application

under inappropriate weather conditions, and improper disposal. Applicator certification and training

programs can help applicators manage agrichemicals safely and properly, but current programs

primarily assist RUP users rather than applicators of

general-use pesticides or fertilizers.

Private Applicator Groups

Private agricultural applicators comprise farm

operators, who manage their own farm businesses,

and farmworkers, who work for farm operators and

may be assigned to apply fertilizers or pesticides as

part of their job responsibilities. Of the 7.7 million

people employed on farms either full-time, parttime, or seasonally in 1987 (table 5-4), EPA

estimated that approximately one-fourth of the total

used restricted-use pesticides that year (61).1 However, the proportion of private agricultural workers

using all types of agrichemicals, including fertilizers

and general-use pesticides, is probably higher.

lln 1988, EpA began ~ompil~g mtio~ fiWeS from State repo~ on tie n~~s of ce~ied resrncted-use pesticide applicators. Based on

certifications, the number of individuals using restricted-use pesticides in agriculture that year was estimated at 2.3 million (121).
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 175

Table 5-4-Numbers of Farm Operators, Hired

Farmworkers, and Unpaid Farmworkers, 1987a

Group Number

Farm operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,753,000 b

Hired farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,463,000c

Unpaid farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,559,000d

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,687,000e

aThese numbers do not include estimates of foreign nationais or illegal

aliens who worked on farms in the United States in 1987. No reliable

estimates of the numbers of illegal aliens exist, although one USDA

estimate of Illegal aliens in the early 1980s was 10 to 15 percent of all hired

farmworkers (from ‘Trends in Farm Labor,” Agricdtura/ Outbok, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September

~~~4~umber of farm operators is slightly higher than the National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimate for the number of farms

(2,1 73,000), because the NASS definition of a farm permits only one

operator to be counted per farm, About 24 percent of farm operator

households have more than one operator. The number of farm operator

households (2,1 78,000) in 1987 IS similar to the number of farms (from

table 532, Agricultural StakstiLs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988).

@fall hired farmworkers, 1.6 million had 25 or more days of hired farmwork.

dof all unpaid farmworkers, 1.2 mllhon had 25 or more days of farmwork.

~otal number of Individuals [n the agricultural work force is less than the

sum of farm operators, hired farmworkers, and unpaid farmworkers,

because some individuals are included in more than one group.

SOURCE: Compiled from Victor J. Olivelra and E, Jane Cox, The

Agricultural Work Force of 1987: A Statistic/ Profile, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May

1989.

Farm Operators

Farm operators are individuals directly responsible for a farm’s routine purchasing, marketing, and

management decisions, and they can be owners,

tenants, or corporate managers. The total number of

farm operators in the United States in 1987 was

estimated at 2.7 million (153). That year, only 43

percent of all farm operators reported their primary

employment status as operating a farm, with 37

percent reporting primary employment in off-farm

jobs (table 5-5) (105). Operators of farms in small

and part-time ‘‘sales classes’ are more numerous

than moderate- and large-size farm operators, although they account for only about one-fifth of all

farm products sold (table 5-6), Small and part-time

farm operators are more likely to hold off-farm jobs

than large-farm operators, since farms in smaller

sales classes often provide lower net incomes.

Numbers of farm operators are decreasing due to the

overall decline in farm numbers, a trend reviewed in

a previous OTA report (144).

The number of farm operators who use agrichemicals can be estimated from USDAs Farm Costs and

Table 5-5—Primary Employment Status of

Farm Operators, 1987

Farm operators

Primary employment status Thousands Percent

In labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,298 83.5%

Operating a farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,183 43.0

Non-farmworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,107 36.9

Hired farmworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2.1

Unpaid farmworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1.1

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 0.4

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 16.50/0

Keeping house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 7.6

Attending school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2.2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 6.8

Total farm operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,753 100.0

SOURCE: Victor J. Olweira and E. Jane Cox, The Agricultural Work Force

of 1987: A Stafistica/ F’rofi/e, table 14, U.S. Department of

Agriculture Economic Research Service, May 1989.

Returns Survey,2 which gives the number of farms

reporting expenditures on fertilizers and pesticides

(assuming at least one farm operator per farm). An

estimated 57 percent of all farms in 1986 had

pesticide expenditures, and 75 percent had fertilizer

expenditures (158). However, since farm operators

of commercial-sized crop farms are more likely to

use agrichemicals than operators of livestock operations, organic farms, and small hobby farms (all of

which were included in the survey), these percentages would be higher if they were based on

commercial-sized crop farms only. Percentages of

commercial-sized crop farms using certain types of

agrichemicals (e.g., herbicides) are likely to be

higher--+. g., at least 95 percent of all corn, cotton,

and soybean acres in the United States had been

treated with herbicide in 1987 (107).

Regardless of the type of farm, farm operators and

managers are more likely than farmworkers to select

and purchase agrichemicals applied, because they

make the financial decisions for their farms. In the

case of larger farms owned by more than one

operator, several individuals may be involved in

making decisions about agrichemical use and associated changes in farm practices. Farm size and

ownership arrangements thus could affect farm

operators’ abilities to respond to environmental

concerns. A sole proprietor of a farm business, for

example, would probably have more autonomy in

making farm management changes to reduce groundwater contamination than individual partners in a

~SDA and the States’ Departments of Agriculture coordinate the Farm Costs and Returns Survey, conducted in February-March of each year on

a sample of 24,000 to 26,000 farmers, who respond on a voluntary basis. Responses from the sample are statistically expanded to represent national totals.

The survey collects information on costs of production, earnings, debts and assets , and some production practices.
176 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 5-&Distribution of Farmsa by Sales Classb and Percent of Total Cash

Receipts by Sales Class, 1987C

Value of farm Number of Percent of Percent of total

Sales class products sold farms all farms cash receipts

Small, part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <$20,000 1,380,000 63.4% 5.2%0

Part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,000-99,999 495,000 22.8 17.3

Moderate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100,000-249,999 201,000 9.2 22.0

Large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$250,000-499,999 71,000 3.2 17.9

Very large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2$500,000 29,000 1.3 37.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2,176,000 100.0 100.0

aA farm iS defingd as an establishment that sold or would normally have sold $1,000 Or more Of agriUJhUrd produds

during the year.

bcategonzation of farms into ~Ae~ ~=ses is ~s~ on the gro~ market value of ail agrtcultual pti~ of farms that

are sold, placed under government loan programs, or otherwise removed from the farm. It excludes the value of direct

government payments, farm-related income, and nonmoney inoome.

Csal= d~s distributions for 1987 are bad on the 1982 census of Agriculture (U.S. Department Of commerce,

Bureau of the Census, SfdMca/AMract of the United States, December 1988).

SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic hdicdors of the

Farm Sector, National Finanaa/ Summary, 1987, tables 28 and 31, 1988.

farm partnership. Trends in the changing structure of

agriculture and their farm impacts will also influence farm operators’ decisions on agrichemical use

and management (see box 5-B).

Farmworkers

Farmworkers may be either hired or unpaid, and

as a group they vary greatly in demographic features,

employment status, and earnings. Hired farmworkers are persons 14 years or older who earn money by

doing farm work at any time during the year, even for

one day. The number of hired farmworkers in 1987

was estimated at 2.5 million (table 5-4). Only about

18 percent of all hired farmworkers worked for 250

days or more, and about 35 percent worked fewer

than 25 days during the year (105). Hired farmworkers constitute a greater percentage of total farm

employment than they did 10 years ago, because

unpaid family labor has declined as a proportion of

the total agricultural labor force. In the last 10 years,

numbers of hired farmworkers has remained steady,

with an increasing proportion of hired farmworkers

working more days per year.

Unpaid farmworkers do not receive cash payments for farm work but may receive a token

allowance, room and board, or payment-in-kind.

USDA estimated that the number of unpaid farmworkers in 1987 was 3.6 million and that 65 percent

of these worked fewer than 25 days during the year,

with their labor concentrated during peak harvesting

or planting seasons (105).

EPA estimated that 18 percent of all hired

farmworkers applied RUPs in 1987 (61), but no

other estimates are available for the number of

farmworkers using other categories of agrichemicals. Farmworkers are probably involved more in

agrichemical mixing, application, and equipment

maintenance than in selecting the agrichemicals

used. Training in proper handling procedures and

supervision are key issues in the use of agrichemicals by farmworkers. Short terms of employment,

lack of familiarity with equipment, and inadequate

communication between the farmworker and farm

operator are factors that can increase the chances of

agrichemical mismanagement.

Commercial Applicator Groups

Many farmers hire outside contractors or custom

applicators to apply agrichemicals to their fields and

orchards. Farmers purchase custom application services because they may not own needed application

equipment or they want to save time or labor.

Approximately 30 percent of the farms having

fertilizer expenditures and 22 percent of the farms

having pesticide expenditures in 1986 paid for some

custom application services (153). The percentage

of farms using custom agrichemical application

services has remained constant since 1980.

Farmers purchase agrichemicals and custom application services from a variety of outlets: 1)

agrichemical dealerships owned by large, chain-type

companies; 2) agrichemical dealerships that are

individual, independent firms; 3) farmer cooperatives that sell agrichemicals and other farm supplies;

4) grain and feed manufacturing elevators; and 5)

other agricultural service firms (e.g., cropdusting).

Employees of these commercial firms play three

distinct roles in agrichemical use and management.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 177

Box S-B—Agricultural Sector Characteristics Influencing Decisionmaking

Constraints and opportunities in the agricultural sector will affect farmers’ capacity to respond to concerns

about agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Following are characteristics of the agricultural sector likely to

influence agrichemical use and thus the potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater:

Bimodal Structure of Agriculture—The structure of agriculture is represented by an uneven distribution of

farms among small, moderate, large, and very large sizes based on annual farm product sales. The current

agricultural sector can be described as “bimodal,” with many small and part-time farms, increasing numbers of

large farms, and declining numbers of moderate-size farms; the result of a long-term trend toward fewer and larger

farms. If present trends continue, the total number of farms will decline at a rate of about 100,000 farms per year

to 1.2 million in 2000. The number of large and very large farms is expected to increase substantially, although small

and part-time farms are still expected to make up about 80 percent of total farms by 2000:

Value of farm Number of farms Percent of farms

Sales class products solda

1969 1978 1982 2000 1969 1978 1982 2000

(Projected) (Projected)

Small and

part-time <$99,999 2,588,031 2,191,361 1,936,920 1,000,000 94.9% 89.4% 86.5% 80.O%

Moderate $100,000-199,999 85,589 160,289 180,689 75,000 3.1 6.5 8.1 6.0

Large and

very large >$200,000 54,491 97,391 121,691 175,000 2.0 4.0 5.4 14.0

All farms 2,728,111 2,449,041 2,239,300 1,250,200 100.0% 100.0% 100.0?(0 100.0%

al 982 dollars, price indices in Agricu/tura/Statistic% 1988.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, T&nology, PublicPoltiy, and the Changing Structure of Ameri&m Agriwlture. Compiled from data in

Economic Indkators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, USDA Economic Research Service, 1988 and preceding

years. Data adjustment for inflation based on redistribution of farm numbers in the Census of Agriculture, 1969, 1978, 1982, and 1987,

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,

The trend toward increasing concentration in agriculture, however, may be significantly affected by

environmental programs influencing agriculture in the 1990s. The 1985 Food Security Act signaled a period in

which conservation and environmental groups began to participate to a greater extent in the drafting of farm

legislation than ever before, and this trend is likely to continue given the public concern over food safety and

groundwater contamination. It is not clear how increased legislative attention to agriculture’s environmental

impacts will influence the trend toward larger and fewer farms. Environmental regulations could accelerate the trend

by increasing the cost of farming and requiring more recordkeeping and monitoring. On the other hand,

environmental requirements could make it more difficult for large farms to achieve economies of scale (165).

Despite the uncertainty surrounding impacts of environmental policies on the structure of agriculture,

concentration in agriculture is expected to continue. Economic policies, institutions, and economies of scale that

have contributed to the trend toward concentration of agricultural resources are likely to continue unless strong

public support for alternative policies is generated ( 144). The degree of concentration, however, will vary by region

and commodity, and thus no predictions can be made about its effects on agrichemical contamination of

groundwater.

Farm Income Trends—The agricultural sector’s capacity to respond to voluntary programs for reducing

groundwater contamination will be affected by financial constraints such as low commodity prices or increasing

production costs. However, income for the smallest classes declined to a greater extent between 1969 and 1982 than

did that of large and very large farms. Overall, half of all farm households depended primarily on off-farm income

for family living expenses (14). The need for off-farm income imposes time and labor constraints on many farm

households, with concomitant implications for the types of farming practices that farmers will be willing or able

to adopt.

Farmland Ownership and Tenancy-Relative proportions and locations of rented and owned farmland in the

United States have implications for groundwater protection programs. Nonfarmers owned about 36 percent of all

farmland and 89 percent of rented farmland in 1982 (147). Farm operators may be less motivated to invest in

groundwater protection activities on rented land than on their own land, especially when land is rented for short

periods. Tenants also have less autonomy than landowners when making management decisions (143). Tenants and

part-owners are operating an increasing proportion of the number of farms, managing increasing numbers of

Continued on next page
178 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 5-B—Agricultural Sector Characteristics Influencing Decisionmaking-Continued

farmland acres, and accounting for increasing values of products sold (147). Landowners in hydrogeologically

vulnerable areas will need to pay increased attention to agrichemical use decisions by their tenants. Tenants typically

rent farmland under one of two main types of rental agreements-share leases and cash leases-which may impart

different abilities or tendencies to adopt groundwater protection farming practices.

Contract Farming-Contract farming, including a range of contracting agreements through which farmers

agree to produce and deliver farm commodities under conditions specified by a contractor, also is becoming more

common (147). Types of production becoming increasingly associated with contract farming are poultry products,

and fruits and vegetables Cattle feeding, hog production, and feed and forage production also have seen recent

increases in contract farming. For example, commercial feedlots frequently contract with neighboring farmers to

raise feed grains or forage. Contract farming has advantages for the contractor, who is able to secure a certain

quantity of product of specified quality at an agreed-upon time. Producer advantages include financing, technical

advice, and assurance of a market.

Contract farming has implications for agrichemical use, because contractors may require producers to use only

specified types and amounts of inputs. Contract farming could result in greater agrichemical use, especially when

producers are required to apply prophylactic pesticide treatments to meet contractor standards or to ensure a given

yield at a certain time (10). On the other hand, contracting firms responding to public concern about agrichemical

residues in foods may encourage producers to reduce agrichemical use when growing their products (e.g., Ocean

Spray, Gerber Foods),

Vertical Integration-Vertical integration—securing two or more sequential production stages under the

ownership of one corporate entity—increased in agriculture and food processing from about 5 to 7 percent between

1970 and 1980 (147). Vertical integration provides food processors a more stable and uniform supply of

commodities, making it easier to meet consumer demand for high-quality and attractive produce. Some vegetable

and fruit processing companies, for example, own land to produce some of their own crops. Little evidence is

available on how increased vertical integration affects agrichemical use overall. Vertical integration in fruit and

vegetable processing, for example, could intensify agrichemical use if prophylactic treatments were employed to

protect capital investments and minimize production risks. Corporate responsibilities to stockholders can create

cost-cutting pressures that would hamper adoption of practices requiring more time, management, or labor, thus

requiring farm managers to seek support from stockholders to justify costs of changing farming practices to protect

vulnerable groundwater resources. On the other hand, vertically integrated corporations tend to employ

professionally trained managers who may be sensitive to public concerns about adverse environmental impacts from

farming practices as well as food safety.

First, commercial firm employees advise farmers percent of all commercial RUP applicators are

on the types and amounts of agrichemicals to be potentially noncertified (121). Noncertified applicaapplied on farmers’ fields. Employees who are:

aware of potential environmental impacts and motivated to communicate environmental information

are more likely to help farmers make better decisions,

on which agrichemicals to use, when, where, and.

how.

Second, commercial firm employees apply agrichemicals as custom services. Since roughly one-third to

one-half of all agrichemicals in the agricultural

sector are applied commercially (158,56), training

and supervision of all commercial applicators are

important considerations in strategies to reduce

nonpoint agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Also, since EPA estimates that the average

commercial certified RUP applicator supervises

three to four noncertified applicators, as many as 80

tors have less forma! exposure to information on

RUP application procedures, and some may not be

well-trained on agrichemical application equipment.

Training and supervision of part-time or seasonal

applicators, particularly during peak planting periods, may pose special problems for permanent

employees who are also pressed for time.

Third, commercial firm employees operate and

maintain agrichemical storage, handling, and disposal sites, which represent significant potential

sources of groundwater contamination, Adequate

training and supervision of employees and their

preparedness in handling accidental spills are critical factors in reducing point-source contamination

of groundwater from agrichemical sales outlets.
Ch. 5--Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 179

The importance of commercial applicators in

agrichemical application and management warrants

attention to commercial firm numbers, locations,

and methods of operation. Since certification requirements and work situations differ for commercial and individual agrichemical applicators, policy

approaches to improve agrichemical management

by these two groups are also likely to differ.

Agrichemical Dealerships

An agrichemical dealership is a retail outlet that

purchases agrichemicals from a distributor and sells

them to farmers. Dealerships may be independent

firms with single outlets, franchises of large, chaintype companies (e.g., Terra, Inc.), or farm cooperative sales outlets. Roughly 80 percent of all dealerships sell both fertilizers and pesticides (129,27).

Distribution and size of dealerships reflect regional variation in the structure of agriculture:

dealerships, like farms, are smaller and more numerous in the Midwestern and southern regions. Average annual pesticide sales per dealership, for example, are $300,000 to $400,000 in the Midwest and

South, $500,000 to $600,000 in the Northwest, and

almost $2 million in California (170). The Midwest

and South have eight and five dealerships per

thousand square miles, respectively, while one or

two dealerships per thousand square miles are found

in California and the Northwest region. The total

number of dealerships is expected to decline by 20

to 25 percent by the year 2000, due to concentration

in the industry from mergers and loss of small

dealerships (170).

Fertilizer Dealerships—The National Fertilizer

and Environmental Research Center of the Tennessee Valley Authority tracks the total number of

registered or licensed fertilizer dealers for all States.

Fertilizer dealerships in 1987-88 totaled 13,044,

including fertilizer manufacturers and bulk blending

and fluid fertilizer plants having fertilizer sales

outlets (56). Fertilizer manufacturers and blenders

generally sell directly to dealers, rather than through

distributors, because fertilizers are high-bulk commodities. Fertilizer is typically shipped by rail or

barge to a central point (often owned by the

manufacturer), where dealers come to pick up the

product.

Pesticide Dealerships—Neither EPA, USDA, nor

the Department of Commerce collects data on the

number of pesticide dealerships nationwide. Some

States require licensing of pesticide dealers, but

these States do not report numbers of licensed

pesticide dealers to any Federal office. National

estimates for pesticide dealers vary widely, from an

industry estimate of 5,600 (129) to an EPA estimate

of 32,400 (61). Other estimates typically used in the

pesticide industry range between 12,000 and 16,000

(27).

Thus, no national data exist on the numbers,

locations, and facilities of pesticide dealerships,

making it difficult to monitor industry trends or to

estimate aggregate costs of proposed regulations or

facility improvements. State and Federal records on

dealerships would make it possible to evaluate the

progress of industry and government initiatives to

improve handling, storage, and disposal at these

sites. Also, if large numbers of small dealerships go

out of business in the next decade as predicted,

records on their numbers and locations would make

it possible to monitor abandonment of facilities to

ensure environmental compliance.

Farmer Cooperatives-A farmer cooperative is a

membership organization in which farmers have

controlling interest. Farmer cooperatives are incorporated under State laws and classified as marketing,

farm supply, or service cooperatives, depending on

their primary business. The USDA’s Agricultural

Cooperative Service (ACS) provides annual statistics on farmer cooperatives. In 1987 an estimated

3,000 of the 5,100 farmer cooperatives in the United

States sold agrichemicals (150). Many farmer cooperatives are members of regional or interregional

cooperative organizations, with the 16 largest regional cooperatives handling about 40 percent of all

fertilizer products sold in the United States. CF

Industries, for example, is an interregional fertilizer

manufacturer owned by 13 regional cooperatives

supplying fertilizers to 1.2 million farmer-members

in 46 States (171).

Farmer cooperatives that supply agrichemicals

help their members obtain secure, competitively

priced supplies of fertilizers and pesticides. Employees of farm-supply cooperatives perform agrichemical management roles similar to those of employees

of agrichemical dealerships. In theory, a farmsupply cooperative differs from other types of

agrichemical dealerships in that it is owned by

members who join the cooperative to enhance their

own farming operations rather than to earn income

from the cooperative business. Thus, farmer cooper-
180 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

atives would appear to have stronger incentives to

employ well-trained custom applicators and to help

their members reduce excess agrichemical inputs.

However, cooperatives are run by hired managers,

whose salaries and job stability depend on demonstrating good business performance through

strong product sales. As a result, cooperative managers, like dealership employees, face the possible

disincentive of reduced sales if they advise farmers

to reduce agrichemical use.

Some farmer cooperatives, on the other hand,

exist solely to provide advisory and field scouting

services to their members and do not sell agrichemical products. One example is Centrol, Inc., a

subsidiary of Cenex-Land O’Lakes headquartered in

Minnesota. Such cooperatives presumably would

not have an interest in providing recommendations

that increase volumes of products sold.

Agricultural Service Firms

Commercial applicators may be employed by

agricultural service firms other than agrichemical

dealerships and farmer cooperatives. These include

agricultural contractors, crop protection firms, agricultural aviation or cropdusting firms, and agricultural management companies. Information on

trends, numbers, and types of services available

from agricultural service firms is helpful in assessing these fins’ roles and significance in agrichemical management.

Many agricultural service firms are classified

under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

code ‘’07’ as establishments that obtain at least halfof their sales income by providing the following

agricultural services:3 soil preparation, crop, veterinary and animal, farm labor and management, and

landscape and horticultural services. Employees of

many such service firms are likely to handle

agrichemicals. The most current estimates of these

fins’ numbers are available in County Business

Patterns (CBP) data from the U.S. Department of

Commerce. CBP estimates, however, are probably

low, because they represent counts only of larger

firms with payrolls reportable to the Internal Revenue Service (163). CBP estimates do not include

many self-employed agricultural contractors or small

service firms having mostly part-time workers.

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Wire-mesh cones baited with pheromones contain sensors

that count insects flying into the trap. Field scouts may

routinely use similar technologies in the future to advise

farmers on the need for agrichemical applications.

More accurate estimates of the numbers of these

firms had been obtained every 5 yearn through the

Agricultural Services Survey of the Census of

Agriculture, but this survey was discontinued for

lack of funding in 1979. The Agricultural Services

survey attempted to reach as many small firms as

possible and required a mandatory survey response

(178). As a result, its national estimates of the

numbers of firms classified under ‘’07’ SIC codes

were roughly twice as high as CBP estimates (e.g.,

93,100 compared to CBP's 40,900 in 1978) (163).

CBP data can be used to assess trends among

larger agricultural service fins, recognizing that

these data tend to underestimate total numbers of

3This de~tion does not include wholesale farm SUpply f~ Or f~~ cOO~atiVH.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 181

Figure 5-1—Increase in U.S. Establishments

Primarily Engaged in Selling Landscape and

Horticultural Services,a Estimated Numbers of

Establishments and Employment, 1974-86

Thousands Thoubands 40 - -—--- - —- –~ 200

.+

“ .+ -

.4-

- -

/ “

I 50

0 4 , , ,,, , , - 0

1974 1978 1982 1986

Year

‘ Employment + Establishments

aEstimates for establishments classified under SIC Code 078, which

includes lawn and garden services, ornamental shrub and tree services,

and tree services, and landscape counseling and planning.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County

Business Patterns, table 1 b. Washington, DC, 1986 and

previous years.

fins. During the 1970s, all types of agricultural

service firms increased in number. From 1974 to

1984, for example, the number of landscape (including lawn care) and horticulture service firms doubled

(figure 5-l), which implies that concomitant increases in agrichemical applications occurred during

this time in residential and commercial areas. The

rapid growth of landscape and horticulture service

firms thus has implications for urban contributions

to groundwater contamination by agrichemicals and

for the need to adequately train and supervise service

firm employees to reduce contamination.

An increase in service firms was also seen in the

agricultural industry during the 1970s, due to record

growth in both domestic and export agricultural

markets. The number of farm management fins,

which operate farms for absentee owners or investors, more than doubled during this decade (figure

5-2). Expansion of agricultural services paralleled

increases in planted acreage, crop production, land

values, price supports, available cash to producers,

and input prices in the 1970s (31). In the 1980s,

however, reductions in planted acreage and farm

financial stress led to loss or merging of some

agricultural service firms, indicated by lower CBP

estimates (figure 5-3). Despite lower input prices,

farmers were using fewer inputs and demanding

fewer services in the 1980s. The fertilizer industry

also reported a decline in the sale of in-house

advisory services by dealers and blending plants

during this period (174). Agricultural service firms

Figure 5-2-increase in U.S. Establishments

Primarily Engaged in Selling Farm Management

Services, a Estimated Numbers of Establishments

and Employment, 1974-86

Thousands Thousands

600 5

100 1

1974 1978 1982 1986

Year

Establishments Employment

aEstimates for establishments classified under SIC Code 0762, primafity

engaged in providing farm management servicxx, including management

or complete maintenance of citrus groves, orchards, and vineyards. Such

activities may include cultivating, harvesting, or other specialized activities.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County

Business Pa fterns, table 1 b. Washington, DC, 1986 and

previous years.

Figure 5-3-Changes in U.S. Establishments

Primarily Engaged in Wholesale Distribution of Farm

Supplies, a Estimated Numbers of Establishments

and Employment, 1974-86

Thousands Thousands 30 ~

+’ -- -

-+ ++. 150

.-

0. 0

1974 1978 1982 1986

Year

Establishments Employment

aEstimates for establishment classified under SIC Code 5191, which

includes those primarily engaged in the wholesale distribution of farm

supplies includes selling of merchandise to farm users.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County

Business Patterns, table lb. Washington, DC, 1986 and

previous years.

thus were affected by the economic contraction in

agriculture in the 1980s, although agriculture is

likely to recover some financial strength in the

1990s.

Agricultural service industry trends will influence

the responsiveness of these firms to environmental

concerns by affecting their ability to invest in new

company start-ups, additional employee training,
182 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

and service innovations. Better Federal data on the

numbers and types of agricultural service firms

would facilitate tracking and assessment of the roles

of service firms in improving agrichemical management and providing agrichemical alternatives. Environmental services development and employee training programs for agricultural service firms would

enhance the technical support farmers receive from

the private sector. Lack of comprehensive data.

however, makes it difficult to assess the progress.

needs, and opportunities of service firms4 (165).

Applicator Certification and Training:

Needs and Opportunities

Applicator certification requirements, as noted

earlier, pertain to restricted-use pesticides (RUPs) in

all cases, general-use pesticides in some cases, and

fertilizers in no cases. Thus, mandatory programs for

applicator certification and training primarily address regulatory needs of RUP applicators, but RUPs

constitute only a small proportion of the total

volume of agricultural pesticides used (less than 20

percent in 1987, box 5-A). Even though pesticide

applicator training and educational materials are

available, persons who are not required to be

certified or trained (e.g., private agrichemical users

in urban areas and farmers who use only fertilizers

and general-use pesticides) may never take advantage of these opportunities. Thus, the main means of

encouraging proper use of most agrichemicals is

through provision of product labeling information

and applicators’ voluntary compliance with label

directions.

States have primary responsibility for pesticide

applicator programs but they must follow EPA

competency standards (see box 5-C) and planning

guidelines in implementing applicator certification

programs (38). Each State has a designated pesticide

“lead agency” responsible for certifying RUP

applicators as competent to handle pesticides in

several technical categories, including agricultural

use (154). EPA requires States to give commercial

applicators a written test for initial certification, but

States are not required to test private applicators or

to train commercial or private applicators. Although

States are required to recertify applicators, the

Box 5-C-Competency Standards for

Pesticide Applicator Certification

Standards for certification of commercial applicators require that competence be determined by

written examinations and, where appropriate, by

performance testing (38). Commercial applicators

must meet general standards as well as standards

specific for each category. General standards for

commercial applicators are: 1) comprehension of

labeling information, 2) knowledge of safety factors, 3) environmental consequences, 4) pests, 5)

pesticides, 6) equipment, 7) application techniques,

and 8) relevant laws and regulations.

Category-specific standards for agricultural plant

pest control applicators include practical knowledge of: 1) crops, 2) pest targets, 3) soil and water

problems, 4) time intervals needed between pesticide application and crop harvest, 5) time intervals

needed between pesticide application and worker

entry into treated fields, 6) plant toxicity problems,

and 7) potential for environmental contamination,

nontarget injury, and community problems resulting from pesticide use (169). Category-specific

standards for ornamental and turf pest control

applicators include knowledge of: 1) pesticide

problems in production and maintenance of trees,

shrubs, plantings, and turf; 2) potential plant

toxicity; 3) problems of drift and persistence; and 4)

application methods which minimize or prevent

hazards to humans and domestic animals.

EPA has no other requirements for written

examinations for commercial applicators. Thus, the

examinations may be either open-or closed-book or

take-home. Neither does EPA specify a passing

grade for the examination. In practice, however,

most States require a passing grade of 70 percent

correct answers and require commercial applicators

to go through performance tests with application

equipment. EPA requires States to renew all applicator certifications, but the time internal for recertification is not specified.

recertification interval is not specified.5 Some States

have implemented certification and training procedures that are more stringent than EPA requirements, and as a result, applicator certification and

training procedures and opportunities vary from

State to State.

dLack of Fe&r~ data has also been noted for environmental SerVhX f~ (165).

5EpA is ~ropos~g ~ revi~lon t. tie F~e~ ~SeCtici&, Fu@cide, and Rod~ticide Act e)re~atiom that would require States to titiblish

a minimum recetilcation interval of 5 years.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decision making & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 183

Although it is not known whether groundwater

contamination has resulted more from agrichemical

mismanagement than from ‘‘proper’ application of

leachable chemicals, it is clear that programs to

reduce potential contamination must include training and education to improve agrichemical management. The Federal Government provides only a

minor share (20 percent) of funding spent on RUP

applicator training and States provide the remainder

(156). In the absence of additional funding from

State sources, the Federal Government will likely

need to increase financial support so that applicator

education programs can: 1) implement new regulatory requirements for current applicators, expand

topics covered in current programs, and extend the

length and frequency of training; and 2) train

audiences not currently covered by Federal or State

regulations. Federal leadership and support for

training and education in agrichemical management

would expedite programs that reduce mismanagement overall, as well as address the needs of people

currently using agrichemicals in hydrogeologically

sensitive areas.

Applicator Testing for Certification

States must administer an EPA-approved written

test to commercial agricultural applicators prior to

certification, but States can employ a variety of

methods in certifying private applicators as ‘ ‘competent, ’ as long as the method is approved by EPA.

At a minimum, private applicators must demonstrate

practical knowledge of pest problems; pest control

practices; proper pesticide storage, handling, application, and disposal procedures; and related legal

responsibilities. Private applicators must show that

they are able to apply pesticides in accordance with

label instructions and warnings and recognize local

environmental situations that should be considered

during application. Private applicator certifications

may be granted through examinations (e.g., oral ,

written, closed-book, open-book, take-home, graded,

pass/fail, or ungraded) or other “equivalent” systems, such as training, self-study, and selfevaluation. Private applicator testing procedures

thus vary widely and may be less rigorous than those

for commercial applicators (166).

Since both private and commercial applicators are

responsible for controlling point-source and nonpointsource contamination of groundwater by pesticides,

ideally all applicators should be able to demonstrate

equivalent levels of knowledge about contamination

risks and proper control methods, particularly if they

are certified to apply pesticides in hydrogeologically

vulnerable areas. However, EPA’s most recent

national survey of State applicator certification and

training programs, conducted in 1986, indicated that

commercial applicators’ exams have been more

extensive than private applicator exams (166). For

example, fewer private applicator exams contained

questions on groundwater vulnerability and pesticide leaching, and only one commercial applicator

exam (and no private applicator exams) covered

local groundwater conditions (table 5-7). Since the

year in which EPA conducted the survey, however,

some progress has been made in updating certification and training programs to address groundwater

quality concerns. In 1988, for example, USDA

disseminated to all State Cooperative Extension

Services (CESs) a slide-tape program on groundwater protection for pesticide users (117). Closer

coordination between State CESs and pesticide lead

agencies in developing applicator examinations and

training would improve applicators’ ability to address emerging environmental concerns.

Table 5-7—Number of States in 1986 Specifically Addressing Groundwater Concerns in Pesticide Applicator

Certification Training and Testing Programs

Initial certification Recertification

Applicator program for certification Private Commercial Private Commercial

Training:

General groundwater vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 28 24 29

Pesticide movement through soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 36 28 34

Local groundwater conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 13 14

Testing:

General groundwater vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 15 7 6

Pesticide movement through soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 26 12 19

Local groundwater conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 0 0 1

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Certification and Training Branch, draft report, “Review of State Plan

Questionnaires on Certification and Training, Preliminary Summary of Results,” Apr. 8, 1987, pp. 38-43.
184 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Applicator Training and Education

EPA does not require States to train private or

commercial applicators, but it does fired development of pesticide education and applicator training

materials (see box 5-D). Each State develops its own

pesticide applicator training (PAT) materials, typically through the CES PAT coordinators in conjunction with the State’s pesticide lead agency (155). The

CES is responsible in most States for applicator

training, but the State’s pesticide lead agency can

also approve other applicator training programs

(e.g., by private industry). In 1989, State CESs

trained about 500,000 people nationwide, although

the number of people trained each year varies, due to

changes in State laws and fluctuations in applicator

recertification cycles. State CESs have given applicator training to as many as 1 million people in 1

year (1 16).

At the Federal level, EPA’s Certification and

Training Branch in the Office of Pesticide Programs

and the USDA Extension Service (ES) share responsibilities for pesticide applicator training. USDA

provides the salary for a National Program Leader

for Pesticide Education to help guide and coordinate

State CES activities, while EPA provides pesticide

training funds that are allocated by formula to State

CESs through USDA. From 1982 to 1990, EPA gave

USDA about $1.6 million annually for pesticide

training. Thus, the Federal Government spends less

than $1 for pesticide training per agricultural applicator per year.6

Each State CES annually receives at least $15,000

in Federal base funding for pesticide certification

training. Some of the larger agricultural States

receive the highest amounts of EPA funding at about

$60,000 per year (116). Applicator certification

training funds are in addition to other EPA funds

given to State pesticide lead agencies for pesticide

regulation and enforcement. EPA has also provided

some discretionary funding for special projects to

support development of pesticide education bibliographies and computer software (44) by USDA’s

National Agricultural Library (157).

The amount of State funding for pesticide training

varies from State to State, which results in varied

staffing levels for PAT programs. In many States,

one PAT coordinator is responsible for all pesticide

training and education programs. Many PAT coordinators have additional job responsibilities and may

only be appointed to work one-quarter or one-half

time on pesticide training. States also vary in the

lengths of their applicator training programs, which

range from 2 to 6 hours (166), and in the methods

used to verify that trainees understand the information presented during training. In some States, for

example, applicators must fill out a worksheet when

training has been completed, while in other States

mere attendance at a training session is sufficient to

receive a training certificate. Thus, applicator training methods and requirements, like testing procedures, vary widely from State to State.

Currently, CES pesticide education programs are

facing extensive additional program demands as a

result of new or proposed EPA regulatory provisions

on farmworker safety, endangered species protection, groundwater protection, and applicator supervision requirements (156). Furthermore, inadequate

resources for PAT programs has made it difficult for

States to hire staff, regularly update PAT materials,

and incorporate new information in training programs. Many PAT programs are using outdated

educational materials that may not reflect the most

recent techniques for controlling pests, or address

environmental concerns that have recently emerged.

Inadequate staffing and outdated educational materials in pesticide training programs will hamper State

responsiveness to public concerns about agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

Supervision of Noncertified Applicators

All noncertified RUP applicators must be under

the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

‘‘Direct’ supervision is defined as “the act or

process whereby application of a pesticide is made

by a competent person acting under the instructions

and control of a certified applicator who is responsible for the actions of that person and who is available

if and when needed, even though such certified

applicator is not physically present at the time and

place the pesticide is applied” (38,169). This

definition is open to interpretation. FIFRA regulations specify only that the certified applicators’

availability to the noncertified person be directly

related to the hazard of the situation, but ‘‘hazard’

is not clearly defined. Thus, it is difficult to monitor

and enforce application procedures by noncertified

applicators.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 185

Box 5-D—EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training Program

The goal of the EPA Office of Pesticide Program’s Certification and Training (C&T) program is to prevent

potential pesticide problems by providing funding, guidance, and coordination for pesticide applicator certification

and training. The C&T program is located in OPP’s Field Operations Division to create and maintain cooperative

relationships and communications among EPA regional offices, other Federal agencies, and the States (167). The

C&T program performs the following roles:

● Provides funds to USDA to support materials development and CES training of pesticide applicators:

-Gives training funds to USDA through a USDA/EPA interagency agreement, authorized by Section 23(c)

of FIFRA. USDA then allocates funds to State CES pesticide applicator training programs.

--Gives discretionary funds to USDA for special initiatives, such as the National Agricultural Library

clearinghouse for applicator training materials.

• Guides and funds State certification programs:

—Reviews State certification program plans, mainly to ensure that Part 17140 CFR requirements are met.

Once a State program is approved, EPA has little influence on State programs, outside of informal

discussions.

-Oversees cooperative agreements on certification programs, which are negotiated between EPA regional

offices and State lead agencies.

—Provides formula funding to States for their certification programs through EPA regional offices. EPA

funds are matched by the States and are based on numbers of applicators certified, numbers of farms, and

whether or not the States have recertification provisions.

• Develops, funds, and evaluates pesticide training materials:

—Identifies areas in need of training materials (e.g., farmworker safety, chronic health effects, endangered

species).

—Solicits proposals for developing training materials from USDA, the States, private-sector contractors,

universities, and the private sector.

-Grants discretionary funds for development of training modules and training initiatives, such as State

special projects.

—Funds the Public/Private Pesticide Initiative for Pesticide Training and Education (P/PSI), a cooperative

effort between EPA, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and industry

to support development and dissemination of training materials by the private sector,

—Helps coordinate private organizations’ efforts in applicator training through the P/PSI Commission,

which consists of industry, environmental, user, and farmworker group representatives.

—Supports seminars and workshops (e.g., to train Native American tribal officials on certification program

administration).

—Reports periodically on certification and training materials in “The Certification and Training Update. ”

—Conducts joint reviews with USDA of the State’s private applicator training programs. Data from these

reviews are used to identify weaknesses and strengths and to improve training programs. Half of the 27

State programs reviewed in FY 1988 had not yet included groundwater quality concerns in their programs.

. Develops State grant guidance to coordinate pesticide-related activities:

—Works with other EPA offices to establish guidelines for States to develop consolidated cooperative

agreements with EPA. Such an agreement allows a State to obtain funding from EPA on all pesticide

activities for which financial aid is available.

. Develops regulations for pesticide applicator training:

—Proposes revisions to Part 171 CFR 40 regulations pertaining to pesticide applicator training.

EPA is proposing regulations and labeling changes may be applied by a noncertified applicator when a

that classify RUPs into three hazard categories with certified applicator is not on-site but is available

different supervisory requirements: 1) “Hazard within a‘‘reasonable’ amount of time (167). If these

Level One” pesticides may be applied only by proposed changes are implemented, supervisory

certified applicators; 2) ‘‘Hazard Level Two’ pesti- requirements will be defined more narrowly, alcides may be applied by a noncertified applicator if though the word “reasonable” for Hazard Level

a certified applicator is on-site and available within Three pesticides is still ambiguous. Unclear supervi5 minutes; and 3) ‘‘Hazard Level Three” pesticides sory requirements may cause more people to become
186 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

certified for fear that they might misinterpret or fail

to comply with new regulations. Increased demand

for applicator certifications would increase PAT

program participation and CES training workloads.

States are not required to report names or numbers

of noncertified RUP applicators to EPA. Since EPA

can only estimate the numbers of noncertified RUP

applicators in the field, it is difficult to assess costs

of regulatory changes affecting noncertified applicators. Furthermore, information is unavailable on

how States verify and monitor supervisory competence of certified applicators, even though FIFRA

regulations state that certified applicators ‘‘whose

activities indicate a supervisory role’ must demonstrate their knowledge of any supervisory requirements for RUP use (38). Thus, the quality of training

and supervision received by noncertified applicators

may also be highly variable from State to State.

Obtaining an Overview

EPA does not maintain an annually updated

national overview of State pesticide applicator

certification and training programs (12 1). Each State

lead agency for pesticide programs must be contacted for current information in order to track

applicator certification and training activities within

the State (123). The lack of comprehensive national

information makes it difficult to obtain an overall

picture of applicator certification and training programs. EPA apparently does not maintain a high

level of activity in monitoring applicator programs

because States have primacy in this area, and

because EPA’s mandate is primarily regulatory

rather than educational. However, the lack of regular

Federal oversight on State applicator programs

nationwide could hamper national responsiveness to

environmental concerns related to pesticide use.

The 1986 EPA survey of State pesticide applicator certification and training programs indicated

which States exceeded FIFRA requirements for

applicator certification (e.g., written exams required

for private applicators; training required for private

and commercial RUP applicators) (166). Of the 53

States and Territories surveyed, only 16 required

training for initial private applicator certification

and only 9 required training for commercial applicators (table 5-8). Survey data for 10 States ranked as

the highest-volume users of agricultural pesticides

are given in table 5-9 (45). Of these States, only

seven required either testing (Illinois, Minnesota,

Indiana, and Ohio) or training (Nebraska, Texas, and

Arkansas) for private applicators. Only Texas required training for commercial applicators. It should

be emphasized that some of these States (e.g., Iowa)

Table 5-8—Number of States and Territoriesa That Required Training for

Restricted-use Pesticide Applicators in 1986b

Number of

Requirement States States or Territories

Private applicators-initial certification:

Training required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 AL. AR, Hl, KY, LA, MO, ND, NE, OK, PR, SC, SD, TN, TX, Vl, WI

Training not required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT DC, DE, FL, GA, 1A, ID, IL, IN, KS, MA, MD, ME,

Ml, MN, MS, MT NC, NM, NH, NJ, NV, NY OH, OR, PA, Rl, UT, VA, VT,

WA, WY

No response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 WV

Private applicators-certification renewal:

Training required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 AL, ID, KY MD, ND, OK, PA, PR, Rl, SD, TN, Vi, WI

Training not required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 AK, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, Hl, 1A, IL, IN, KS, IA, MA, ME, Ml, MN,

MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, SC, TX, UT, VA,

VT, WA, WV, WY

No response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 AR, AZ

Commercial applicators-initial certification:c

Training required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 MD, ND, NJ, NM, NY, PR, TX, WA, WI

Training not required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT DC, DE, FL, GA, Hi, 1A, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY,

LA, MA, ME, Ml, MN, MO, MT, MS, NE, NC, NH, NV, OH, OR, OK, PA,

Rl, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, Vl, VT WV, WY

Commercial applicators-certification renewal State information not available.

aTerritories included Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

%his table presents States’ certification and training status in 1988 and does not indicate changes which may have occurred since that year.

cAll ~mmerci~ applicators are required to take a Written exam to ~ cetifiOd.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Progrwns, Certification and Training Branch, draft report, “Review of State Plan

Questionnaires on Certification and Training, Preliminary Summary of Results,” Apr. 8, 1987.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 187

Table 5-9-Applicator Certification and Training Provisions in Ten Statese With Highest-Volume Agrichemical

Use, 1986 Statusb

States in descending order of pesticide volume used

Provision 1A IL MN IN OH CA NE TX AR MS

Private applicators:

Initial certification:

Mandatory testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - + + + + +--- -

Voluntary testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + - - - - + - +

Mandatory training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - + + + -

Voluntary training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + + + + + - + - - +

Certification renewal:

Mandatory testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - + + +

Voluntary testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + + + - +

Mandatory training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - -

Voluntary training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + + + + + - + - - +

Commercial applicators:

Initial certification:c

Mandatory training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - + - -

Voluntary trainingd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - + + + - - - +

All applicators:

1PM materials available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + + - + + + + +

Training offered for noncertified applicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - + - + - - - -e - -

~en States ranked as highest volume users of agricultural pesticides in Resources for the Future national pesticide usage database (45).

%Mnk spaces indicate “no response reported.”

‘%Mten examinations for certification of commercial applicators is required by law.

dVoluntaV tr~ning provided through State cooperation ~“th industry.

~raining materials available to noncertified applicators on request.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Certification and Training Branch, draft report, “’Review of State Plan

Questionnaires on Certification and Training, Preliminary Summary of Results,” Apr. 8, 1987.

have implemented new pesticide laws or regulations

that are not reflected in the 1986 survey data.7

Opportunities for Applicator Certification

and Training

Applicator certification and training programs are

important intervention points in State pesticide

programs, because they can help Federal and State

governments ensure a certain level of competence

among pesticide applicators. One way for States to

respond to groundwater contamination problems

would be to evaluate how applicator certification

and training programs could be expanded or enhanced to improve agrichemical selection based on

soil and hydrogeologic conditions, reduce mismanagement, or incorporate information on alternatives

to pesticide use.

States can evaluate possible program changes by

assessing information shared among pesticide lead

agencies (e.g., through the American Association of

Pest Control Officials) and CES pesticide education

coordinators (e.g., through regional and national

PAT workshops). Another vehicle for program

assessment is the State-Federal Issues Research and

Evaluation Group (SFIREG), composed of representatives from State agencies responsible for pesticide

enforcement, certification, and training. SFIREG

Working Committees (e.g., Enforcement and Certification, Groundwater Protection, and Pesticide

Waste Disposal) review, evaluate, and make recommendations on regulatory changes proposed by

EPA. Recommendations for certification and training activities that go beyond EPA requirements have

been presented by EPA/SFIREG Certification and

Training Task Force (167).

Although some States have responded to groundwater contamination concerns by requiring training

for all RUP applicators or by incorporating groundwater information in training programs, States’ use

of certification and training programs as a strategy to

reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater

has three serious limitations. First, certification

programs are limited to RUP applicators unless

States enact legislation authorizing broader coverage. The lack of applicator certification requirements for fertilizers and general-use pesticides has

~n IOWA applicator training remains optional for initial certification of private and commercial applicators, but continuing education is required for

recertification. Also, Iowa now requires certification for ‘pesticide handlers, ’ who do not apply pesticides but who mix, handle, and dispose of pesticides

at commercial sites. FIFRA only requires certitlcation for RI-JP applicators.
188 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

groundwater quality implications, because the two

most prevalent groundwater contaminants are nitrate

and atrazine, an herbicide which had been registered

as a general-use pesticide until February 1990

(29,5 1). The high frequency of groundwater containination by these two categories of agrichemicals

reflects their greater capacity to leach through soils

but may also reflect overuse or mismanagement that

could be addressed through expanded certification

and training requirements. Thus, one way for States

to help reduce nitrate and herbicide contamination of

groundwater would be to require certification and

training for applicators of fertilizers and general-use

pesticides. 8 Increased certification and training requirements could be implemented either statewide

or only in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas with

documented groundwater contamination.

A second drawback to using applicator certification and training programs as a way of addressing

groundwater concerns is these programs’ history of

being inadequately funded. Although FIFRA authorizes EPA to provide up to 50 percent of the

funding for States to implement pesticide programs,

EPA’s share of total pesticide program funding is

currently much lower. A funding survey of the 50

State pesticide lead agencies, State CESs, and four

Territories in 1989 indicated that States provide

about 70 percent of all pesticide program funding

while EPA provides only 30 percent (2). The Federal

share is even lower for applicator certification and

training programs (156). Furthermore, States are

being required by EPA to implement new pesticide

initiatives starting in 1990 without receiving concomitant increases in EPA funding for these efforts.

Lack of funding will hinder efforts to enhance or

expand applicator education programs.

The third drawback is that applicator certification

and training programs have been established to

support agrichemical use, but not reduced-input or

nonchemical farming practices. The latter may be

the only techniques that will significantly reduce

groundwater contamination in some hydrogeologically vulnerable areas. Expansion of training programs to include greater emphasis on integrated pest

management or alternative farming practices, however, would require significant funding and involve

a risk of spreading training resources too thinly. One

alternative would be to create additional basic

training or continuing education programs with

earmarked funding, although such programs are

unlikely to have strong impacts on target audiences

unless all applicators are given incentives or required to undergo additional training.

As currently implemented, FIFRA requirements

for RUP applicators are weak. Moreover, strengthening RUP applicator requirements could improve

pesticide management by certified applicators, but

these changes would not affect most users of

general-use pesticides or fertilizers under current

statutes. Agrichemical applicators thus have inconsistent and unequal access to preparatory and

in-service training, certification and recertification

procedures, supervision, and performance evaluation. This inconsistency is at least partly due to the

Federal policy of granting States primacy and

flexibility in their pesticide programs, but it also

stems from a lack of clear congressional directives

on applicator requirements and low levels of Federal

funding for applicator training.

Inconsistency and lack of training in applicator

programs thus leads to highly variable levels of

management skills among agrichemical applicators

and appears to represent a high potential for agrichemical mismanagement. Clearly defined and expanded

Federal directives for applicator preparation and

training may be needed to improve agrichemical

management, because large numbers of individuals

use agrichemicals under widely varying situations;

monitoring and enforcement of agrichemical management are extremely difficult; and penalties for

mismanagement may not serve as effective deterrents (proving mismanagement after the fact is also

difficult). Wide discrepancies in certification, training, and supervision opportunities for agrichemical

applicators represents a serious deficiency in the

Federal effort to assure that agrichemicals are

applied properly across the Nation. Clear Federal

directives for applicator certification and training

could reduce the incidence of agrichemical mismanagement and waste.

6EPA’S SpeCM Review and Registration Division is developing a proposed “ground -er restricted-use’ nde currently under review by OME and

USDA. Under the proposed rule as initially drawn up, as many as 25 chemicals could become classifkd as restricted-use pesticides if they are: 1) detected

in three separate geographical regions; and 2) meet one of several technical criteria on chemiea.1 persistence and mobility (51).
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 189

FACTORS INFLUENCING

AGRICULTURAL

DECISIONMAKING

Factors influencing farmer decisionmaking, in

general, and input choice and agrichemical use, in

particular, will affect farmer decisionmaking related

to groundwater protection. Technical assistance

strategies, tools, and programs will be more effective

in facilitating farmer decisions to reduce groundwater contamination if they take these factors into

account.

Social science researchers have studied farmer

decisionmaking over the past 50 years, at first

examining decisionmaking involved in the “diffusion,” or spread of agricultural innovations among

farmers. More recently, researchers have studied

farmers’ adoption of conservation practices as well

as decisions made within the context of “farming

systems. Although little research has been conducted specifically on adoption of technologies to

reduce groundwater contamination, decisionmaking

research in general provides some relevant insights.

For brevity, this discussion on decisionmaking

refers to all private applicators as ‘‘farmers,

although some applicators will probably have more

latitude than others in deciding which agrichemicals

to apply, when, and how (e.g., Ml-time farm

owner-operators v. hired employees).

Research on diffusion of innovations provides a

basic understanding of the decisionmaking process

and identifies the characteristics of innovations that

are most likely to be adopted. Diffusion research,

however, has limited applicability because it has

focused largely on adoption of productivityincreasing technologies (1 13,127). Research on

farmer adoption of soil conservation practices is

more relevant to decisionmaking to reduce groundwater contamination because it identifies obstacles

to adopting resource-protecting practices (98). However, institutional obstacles (e.g., farm programs, tax

and credit policy), which many researchers consider

more influential than the characteristics of individual farmers or technologies, have only begun to be

investigated (90). Although farming systems research considers institutional influences on decisionmaking, much of this research has been conducted in other countries and is not immediately

applicable to decisions made within the U.S. policy

framework (cf: 77,12,9). Thus, each type of research

has shortcomings, but lessons from research findings can be synthesized to help identify possible

implementation problems in groundwater protection

programs. Relevant findings are highlighted below.

Farmers are a heterogeneous group with unequal abilities and unequal access to information

and resources for decisionmaking. Farmers vary

in their objectives, level of awareness, use of

information, and willingness to take risks; factors

strongly influencing some farmers may have very

little effect on others. Flexible groundwater protection programs and policies could be designed to

accommodate this variation (13,100).

Farmers’ decisions are based on their fundamental reasons for farming; their objectives may

not be clearly defined or articulated. Farmers’

objectives include: making a satisfactory living

(either as an owner-operator, tenant, or employee);

keeping a farm in operation for family inheritance or

other personal reasons, perhaps while working at an

off-farm job; obtaining a satisfactory return on

investments in land, labor, and equipment; obtaining

tax benefits from the farm; obtaining recreation or

esthetic enjoyment from the farm; or a combination

of these. Farmers’ decisions to reduce agrichemical

contamination will be made within the context of

these basic objectives. Farmers are more likely to

view favorably, and use, those technologies that

allow them to meet their objectives (128).

Economic factors exert important, but not sole,

influences on farmer decisionmaking. Fixed-cost

expenditures and the farm family’s total budget

(on-farm and off-farm) place limits on actions

farmers can take. Economic factors are key in

defining what is financially possible for farmers, but

a variety of personal, cultural, and environmental

factors also shape farmers’ decisionmaking. These

include time and information availability, parental

and sibling partnership arrangements, and influence

of informal social networks (104,15,136,103). Economics will not be the only factor dictating adoption

of groundwater-protecting farm practices.

Farmers typically make production decisions

within short timeframes, which discourages investments in resource protection measures. Farmers currently operate in an economy that places

higher priority on short-term returns and income

guarantees than on longer-term resource conservation (135). Economic factors are typically the most

pressing in farmer decisionmaking; market prices,
190 Ž Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

support levels, credit availability, and debt load are

critical considerations at the individual farm level.

Farmers often are forced to make decisions within a

short-term, year-to-year planning horizon that can

prevent them from taking risks or making the most

economically efficient decisions over a longer term

(13). Farmers asked to respond voluntarily to public

concerns about groundwater contamination tend to

evaluate proposed technologies for their relative

advantage within the existing set of economic

conditions (128,41).

Farmers make changes slowly. Farm management changes, even relatively minor ones, are not

decisions made overnight. Farmer adoption of relatively simple, highly profitable technologies such as

hybrid corn has taken as long as 9 years on average

(128). The decision to change farming practices

requires a considerable degree of deliberation, and

maintaining new changes frequently necessitates

on-farm experimentation and adaptation beyond that

conducted during initial technology development.

A farmer’s innovation decision process consists of several sequential stages. These proceed

through: 1) knowledge, when the farmer learns about

an innovation; 2) persuasion, when the farmer forms

a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the

innovation; 3) decision, when the farmer chooses to

adopt or reject the innovation; 4) implementation,

when the innovation is put to use and possibly

modified; and 5) confirmation, when the farmer

seeks reinforcement of the decision already made,

possibly reversing it if confronted with conflicting

messages (128). Farmers need different kinds of

information and use different communication channels at each stage (103).

Farmers adopt “preventive innovations’) more

slowly than “incremental innovations.’? Agricultural innovations studied in most diffusion research

have been ‘‘incremental innovations, ’ or ideas

adopted in the present (e.g., hybrid corn, commercial

fertilizers) to gain possible increases in value in the

future. Many agricultural innovations to reduce

agrichemical contamination of groundwater, however, will be ‘‘preventive innovations. ’ These are

new ideas adopted in the present to avoid possible

loss in the future (127). Adoption rates of preventive

innovations usually are slower than those for incremental innovations. Also, the motivation to adopt a

preventive innovation is often a cue-to-action, or an

event that prompts translation of an attitude into

overt behavior (128). Personal and family health

concerns about drinking water impacts are potential

cues for farmers to adopt practices to protect

groundwater.

Individual and farm characteristics appear to

explain only a small portion of conservation

adoption behavior; institutional factors (e.g.,

farm programs, credit availability) probably are

highly influential. Research on individual farm

characteristics (e.g., size, specialization, land tenure) and farmer traits (e.g., age, education) and their

relation to conservation adoption has yielded mixed

results. Most researchers consider institutional factors to be much more influential, but few studies

have been conducted on these to date (90).

Studies on adoption of farm practices have

rarely examined the physical settings of adoption

decisions or the extent of resource degradation as

it relates to adoption of remedial farm practices.

Although many adoption studies have tested individual and farm characteristics as potential variables

influencing adoption of farm practice changes, few

studies have included data on the farm’s physical

environment, including topography, extent of soil

erosion, proximity to water bodies, and regional

hydrogeology (100). As a result, sociological studies

typically categorized farmers who did not adopt soil

conservation practices as “non-adopters,’ whether

or not these farmers needed to reduce soil erosion in

the first place. Thus, while agricultural specialists in

the physical and natural sciences have tended to

ignore social influences in technology adoption,

social scientists have also tended to ignore nonsocial

variables in their studies.

Farmers tend to underestimate the severity of

soil and water quality problems on their own

farms. Farmers tend to perceive that soil erosion and

water quality problems are more severe at the

national level than they are in their own counties.

They also tend to perceive these problems as least

severe on their own farms (111). This “proximity

effect’ indicates that farmers are aware of the need

to protect soil and water in general but often

underestimate the need on their own farms (103).

Farmers are most likely to adopt technologies

with certain characteristics. Favored technologies

are those that: 1) have relative advantage over other

technologies (e.g., lower costs, higher yields); 2) are

compatible with current management objectives and

practices; 3) are easy to implement; 4) are capable of
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 191

being observed or demonstrated; and 5) are capable

of being adopted on an incremental or partial basis.

Diffusion research indicates that farmers are probably more likely to test technologies or practices that

they think have these characteristics (128,113).

Cropping systems approaches and Best Management Practice (BMP) combinations to reduce groundwater contamination are much more complex than

individual BMPs or technological products. Complexity of systems-oriented changes will slow their

adoption.

Decentralized information exchange among

farmers promotes a wider range of innovations

than do more centralized diffusion channels.

Diffusion research indicates that local social networks are more important in the dissemination of

preventive innovations than they are in incremental

innovations (127). Due to the complexity of groundwater contamination problems, decentralized information exchange is likely to be very important in

implementation of appropriate farming practices to

protect groundwater. Groundwater quality improvements will require broad understanding of complex

factors, knowledge of site-specific conditions, and

trial-and-error in developing appropriate combinations of farming practices. These prerequisites

cannot be readily achieved through centralized

information mechanisms alone (77,75). Farming

changes to protect groundwater will likely be

facilitated by decentralized farmer-to-farmer information exchange (103).

In summary, decisionmaking research indicates

that farmers are a heterogeneous group, whose

decisions on agrichemical use and groundwater

protection will be made based on their fundamental

objectives for farming. Economic factors typically

define what is financially possible for farmers,

particularly in the short-term, but other personal,

social, and environmental factors also influence

decisionmaking. Institutional factors may be particularly important in farmers’ decisions to implement

resource-protecting practices, which are adopted

more slowly than other types of innovations. Voluntary adoption of resource-protecting practices may

be slowed due to farmers’ tendency to underestimate

the severity of resource degradation problems on

their own farms.

FACTORS INFLUENCING

AGRICHEMICAL USE AND

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

Farmers’ decisions are shaped by their objectives,

constraints, and opportunities. Different constraints

and opportunities are associated with each of the

four approaches to reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater: agrichemical management to

reduce point-source contamination, improving agrichemical application management, agrichemical use

reduction, and use of nonchemical practices.

Farming is

ences such as

Risk

risky, subject to uncontrollable influweather, pest infestations, and changing market conditions. Farmers who use agrichemicals know which crop yields and levels of pest

control have been obtained in past seasons with

tried-and-true application rates. Even though equivalent crop yields could be achieved by reducing

agrichemical use, many farmers perceive that crop

yields would be lowered if they did so (111).

Alternatively, farmers may be aware that they are

applying agrichemicals at higher-than-needed rates

but are willing to pay for this yield “insurance”

(118).

Before adopting a new practice, farmers need

site-specific and pertinent information to compare

costs and benefits of current v. other available

technologies. In considering any change, farmers not

only risk losing ‘‘insurance’ benefits of previous

practices but they also incur the risk of trying a new

practice, which may involve “learning costs” that

are poorly quantified. This ‘‘double risk’ associated

with adopting a new practice makes farmers reluctant to change practices without sufficient information and poses severe obstacles to reducing agrichemical use through use of alternative practices.

Farmers vary in their willingness to accept risks

and benefits of agrichemical use, influencing the

kinds of farming practices they are willing to try.

Farmers willing to try alternative practices are more

likely to be economic risk-takers than those less

willing to experiment (46). Conversely, such farmers may actually be more averse than average to

health and environmental risks.
192 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Complexity

Farmers face greater risks and transition costs in

decisions to use technologies or management practices that are more complex or greatly different from

their usual practices (172). Agrichemical technologies, once incorporated into a farming system, have

become relatively easy technologies to use, and they

confer important benefits to farmers by reducing the

time or labor needed to control pests or provide plant

nutrients, compared to some nonchemical practices

(tables 5-10 and 5-11). Thus, technologies that

maintain these benefits at acceptable levels, that

modify existing farming systems only incrementally, or that require little more than a new understanding are more likely to be voluntarily adopted

than technologies requiring increased management,

different skills, or major modifications to farming

systems (e.g., different equipment).

Addressing point sources of agrichemical contamination is perhaps the least disruptive groundwater protection approach, because it implies that the

farmer will continue to use agrichemicals but

modify storage, handling, and disposal practices to

minimize contamination, Convincing farmers who

currently rely on conventional agrichemical techniques to invest in other management approaches

that are more information- or skill-intensive is likely

to require substantial information, documentation,

and incentives. Farmers will need time, additional

knowledge, and possibly technical assistance to

plan, learn about, and gain experience with new

practices to reduce groundwater contamination.

Lack of Information

Information serves to reduce uncertainty and

helps close the gap between actual and farmerperceived risks associated with resource-protecting

technologies. Two types of information are needed

in assisting farmers to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater and both types of information

may be of limited availability to farmers.

First, the problem of agrichemical contamination

of groundwater must be defined and specified to

farmers, because farmers are not likely to consider

farming practice changes until they first recognize

that a problem is arising from current practices

(103). Furthermore, farmers tend to perceive resource problems that are farther away from the farm

operation as being more severe than resource problems closer to the farm operation (1 12,90). This

Table 5-10-Production Inputs for Nitrogen

Management

Type of Input:

. Additional inputs needed for use

Soil nitrogen:

● Soil tests

● Information and planning to determine nitrogen credits

Commercial nitrogen fertilizers:

● information and planning to determine timing and rates

● Labor and time involved in application or payment for custom

application services

● Application equipment investment or rental

● Fuel required for application

Legumes:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Additional land for crop rotation

information and planning to determine cropping sequence,

crop mix, seeding rates, and cutting or plow-down times

Legume seed

Soil preparation and planting equipment

Labor and time involved in planting, cutting, and plow-down

Cutting, mowing, and plow-down equipment

Fuel required for soil preparation, planting, cutting or mowing,

and plow-down

Manures:

● information and planning to determine application sites and

rates

● Manure source

● Manure hauling costs

● Manure storage site or facility

● Equipment for comporting or turning manure

● Labor and time involved in comporting or conditioning manure

before application

● Nutrient analyses

● Manure spreading equipment

● Labor and time involved in manure spreading

● Fuel required for manure spreading

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

implies that a critical component of groundwaterrelated information programs is the ability to provide site-specific problem definition. Although a

site-specific agrichemical contamination problem

can be identified by testing groundwater for contaminants, groundwater monitoring data are often unavailable in many areas, too costly to obtain, or too

difficult for the farmer to interpret in terms of

associated health risks or the economic losses from

wasted agrichemicals.

Second, farmers need site-specific economic and

agronomic information on practices that reduce

agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Farmers are not likely to adopt alternative practices based

on stewardship themes or vaguely defined health

risks. Although these messages may motivate farmers to seek alternatives, there is low probability of

adoption unless they can obtain adequate economic

and agronomic information about suggested corrective practices. However, economic or agronomic
Ch. 5--Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 193

Table 5-11-Constraints To Reducing Herbicide Use

Constraint Possible solutions

Lack of equipment to replace herbicides with Low-interest loans for equipment purchase

mechanical cultivation (rotary hoe, disk hillers,

etc.)

Unpredictability of spring weather, which can Use of mechanical cultivation when weather permake soil too wet for mechanical cultivation mits; use post-emergent herbicides when weather

too wet for cultivation

Lack of time to cultivate fields Contractor services

Lack of skills in using nonchemical weed control Extension programs; contractor services

methods

Increased use of herbicides for conservation Extension information and demonstration on hertillage bicide use for conservation tillage;

Extension surveys to monitor herbicide use

Field equipment that spreads weed seeds Technical assistance to design and retrofit equipment (e.g., combines) to capture weed seeds

Lack of information on weed seed populations Weed seed measurements; computer software to

calculate herbicide use on basis of weed

seeds; contractor services

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

State agricultural scientists and Cooperative Extension

Services offer assistance to farmers on improving nutrient

and pest management. Here, Iowa State researchers

examine a soil sample which will be tested for nitrates

and organic matter.

facts may not be presented in accessible or usable

formats for the farmer. The right type of information

in the appropriate format needs to be made available

to the farmer at the stage of the decision process

when that information is relevant (103).

Of the four approaches to reducing groundwater

contamination, more information is available on

reducing point-source contamination and improving

agrichemical application management than on use

reduction or nonchemical practices. For many farmers, point-source controls and improved agrichemical application techniques are easier to implement

than extensive farming practice changes, because

these approaches allow farmers to continue to rely

on their own experience and knowledge with agrichemical-based techniques. Information on more

complex farming practice changes is not as extensive or readily available. Many farmers interested in

reducing agrichemical use through low-input, sustainable, or organic cropping systems have stated

that the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is an

inadequate information source on these approaches

(103, 140). Instead, these farmers have sought

information from other farmers experienced in these

approaches, and informal groups of farmers have

emerged to find viable methods of reducing agrichemical inputs (103). Such farmer-to-farmer information

and assistance networks confirm the observation

that individual farmers are important both as sources

and evaluators of information (78). Thus, farmer-tofarmer transfer can play important roles in disseminating information on more complex farming system

changes to reduce groundwater contamination by

agrichemicals.

Lack of Documented Research

Farmers are more likely to adopt technologies that

have proven, documented results. The performance

of farming practices to protect groundwater will

have to be evaluated in two areas: 1) farm profitability in the short and long term; and 2) improved

groundwater quality. Documentation in both areas

will require baseline data collection and recordkeep-
194 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

ing. Demonstrations and financial analyses showing

yield maintenance or improvements, cost reductions, or higher net returns from farm practice

changes are more likely to convince farmers to try

them.

Although anecdotal evidence exists of the profitability of alternative practices at the individual farm

level, it is difficult to determine whether the

profitability results from reductions in purchased

inputs or from better management (10). More

research is becoming available on the profitability of

crop rotations, such as in east-central Nebraska,

where rotation systems were observed to have higher

average net returns than continuously cropped systems (59). Nevertheless, useful economic analyses

of the cost-effectiveness of alternative practices

cannot be obtained unless farmers keep accurate

records of all nutrient and pest control inputs,

including time, labor, and management requirements. Demonstration projects will be more effective if they provide assistance in farm recordkeeping.

Difficulty in Demonstration

Groundwater quality improvements will be more

difficult and expensive to demonstrate than farm

profitability, because groundwater quality changes

can only be evaluated through long-term monitoring. Of the four approaches to protecting groundwater, farmers are most likely to implement agrichemical storage and handling improvements, recognizing

that these practices address obvious point sources.

Point-source controls also lend themselves more

readily to regulatory oversight through construction

specifications, permits, and maintenance and calibration checks.

On the other hand, farmers are less likely to

assume that changing farm practices in the field will

reduce nonpoint-source contamination. Given the

lag time before groundwater quality improvements

can be demonstrated through monitoring, farm

records showing fertilizer and pesticide reductions

may provide the only information on which to

evaluate possible groundwater impacts. Farmers in

hydrogeologically vulnerable areas who receive

assistance to change their practices would need to

keep good records of the types, amounts, and

locations of pesticide and fertilizer use.

DECISIONMAKING TO PROTECT

GROUNDWATER

Farmers have available a range of practices under

four general approaches to reduce groundwater

contamination by agrichemicals. However, practices

under the first two approaches, reducing pointsource contamination and improving agrichemical

application, draw from a larger information base,

employ well-established information sources such

as agrichemical dealers and the CES, and are

perceived to be less risky and easier to implement.

Practices falling under the latter two approaches,

we-reduction and nonchemical alternatives, on the

other hand, are perceived as more risky, although

some established information sources are providing

more documentation on these practices’ impacts on

yields and net returns. Nonchemical practices may

be the most complicated and riskiest types of

practices to implement, because they have a lessdeveloped research base, and information on them

tends to be disseminated through less wellestablished sources such as farmer networks.

Which technologies, if any, should farmers adopt

in response to groundwater contamination concerns?

Which technologies can they adopt, given current

economic and institutional constraints? Which technologies will they adopt? Four conditions are

prerequisites for planned change to occur within a

target population, and these can be applied to the

problem of groundwater protection in agriculture:

. knowledge of the problem and of potential

solutions;

● perception of a need to solve the problem;

. ability to commit resources to solve the problem; and

● access to sufficient resources, skills, and time to

implement solutions (179).

Groundwater protection strategies that achieve these

four prerequisites are more likely to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater by facilitating

farmers’ decisions to take groundwater-related actions.

Knowledge of Agrichemical Contamination

of Groundwater

The people who will be most directly affected by

groundwater protection policies for agriculture are

people who work and live on farms (68). Landowners, farm managers, and farm workers will be
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 195

responsible for implementing changes in farming

practices and will most directly bear the economic

costs of any changes. Farm residents also will derive

the most immediate benefits from any resulting

improvements in drinking water quality. Farm

residents are more likely to be exposed to any

hazards of contamination, because farmstead drinking water wells are closest to sites of groundwater

pollution and agrichemical concentration in groundwater is greatest near the source of pollution.

Farmers are highly aware of agrichemical contamination of groundwater (see box 5-E). However,

they may not be sufficiently convinced of the

severity of the problem or of the efficacy of

‘‘corrective’ farm practice changes to take action.

Before farmers undertake farm practice changes,

they are likely to consider a multitude of questions,

for example:

●

●

●

●

●

●

Is the groundwater beneath my farmland contaminated by agrichemicals?

How does contamination affect the safety of my

family’s and other people’s drinking water

supplies?

Have my farming practices or agrichemical

management methods caused this contamination?

What will it cost to reduce contamination, in

time, labor, money, and crop yields?

If I change practices, how will I know if these

changes really do reduce contamination and

any attendant hazards?

Will I be liable for any hazards associated with

my farming practices?

Many farmers believe that a groundwater contamination problem exists overall, but they are likely to

want specific evidence that a problem exists on their

own farms. Information on regional hydrogeologic

vulnerability is a starting point, but this must be

supplemented by local well testing, groundwater

monitoring results, and evidence linking farm practices to groundwater contamination in their areas.

Need To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination

Farmers will consider groundwater protection a

priority only if they perceive a real need for it.

Possible motivations for farmers include:

. confirmed high hydrogeologic vulnerability of

farm site (e.g., sandy soils, high water table,

karst area);

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

high nitrate levels or pesticide detections in

drinking water well;

evidence linking on-farm point sources to

groundwater contamin ation;

evidence linking farm practices to groundwater

contamination (e.g., application rates in excess

of crop needs);

evidence of lost dollars due to wasted agrichemicals or costs of excess agrichemical applications;

high level of personal or family health concerns;

high level of concern about adverse impacts on

the farming system or environment;

liability concerns due to community or neighbor complaints;

existence of regulations and penalties; and

impending pesticide bans or restrictions.

Farmers’ main motivations to reduce groundwater

contamination will be personal health concerns,

liability, and need to reduce costs from wasted

agrichemicals. These motivations, however, must

outweigh constraints imposed by risk aversion; fear

of yield reductions; lack of time, skills, or appropriate equipment; and perceived high costs of farm

practice changes.

Ability To Commit Resources To Reduce

Groundwater Contamination

Farmers’ ability to respond to groundwater contamination problems or comply with increased

environmental restrictions will greatly depend on

their farms’ financial conditions, which vary within

and between farm types (e.g., field crops, specialty

crops, livestock) and sales classes (see box 5-F).

Farmers with high debt-to-asset ratios and negative

cash flows in all sales classes will be less able to

commit resources for environmental controls (165).

Although financial impacts will depend on the type

of farm pollution controls needed, smaller farms

may experience the greatest financial constraints,

because these farms typically have fewer financial

resources overall. Point-source controls requiring

large initial capital outlays would be most likely to

impose financial constraints on farms in smaller

sales classes. However, farm practices to reduce

nonpoint-source contamination may be easier to

implement for smaller farms and larger farms with

low cropland use intensity.
196 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 5-E—Farmer Awareness and Concerns About Groundwater Quality

An understanding of farmers’ attitudes toward groundwater contamination by agrichemicals is important

in anticipating reactions to policy alternatives. In the fall of 1988 OTA commissioned a review of emerging

literature on farmers’ general attitudes toward agrichemicals and groundwater quality, and preferences for

policy responses to the issue (1 11). AU major studies identified in the review had been conducted within the

last 5 years, with the most relevant ones reported within the last 2 years. Substantive data from 14 Statesl were

obtained, but studies varied considerably among States in the areas covered by the surveys. Most of the studies

were descriptive in nature and were not used to draw statistical conclusions. Because of variation in survey

methodology, only some of the data could be aggregated to make comparisons.

More surveys had been completed in cash grain-producing regions of the Midwest, particularly in Iowa

and Wisconsin, where groundwater quality has become an issue of public concern and debate. At the time of

the analysis, no studies had been identified from the western region and only a few from the southern region.

These geographic information gaps preclude any generalizations about farmers’ attitudes on a national basis.

Despite data limitations, these studies provide insights into attitudes of surveyed farmers, particularly where

the issue has been given greater attention by the media.

Importance of Drinking Water Quality-Surveys of farmers in Iowa, Minnesota, and Virginia clearly

indicate that these farmers attach a great deal of importance to drinking water quality (63,76,108,110,33,54).

When farmers were asked to rank drinking water quality among a series of issues, the general pattern was for

farmers to rate water quality as slightly less important than profitability or economic well-being. Data also

suggest that agrichemical and groundwater quality receive greater importance when posed as health issues

rather than environmental ones. Greater health concerns have been expressed for pesticides than for nitrate.

Findings from the above studies consistently indicated that surveyed farmers consider agrichemicals to be a

major contributor to groundwater pollution.

Attitudes About Seriousness and Proximity of Groundwater Contamination Problem—Although

surveyed farmers considered groundwater contamination by agrichemicals as ‘serious, ” they tended to view

the problem as more serious for people in other areas and less serious on their own farms. The policy

implications of this tendency are that educational programs alone are not likely to provide sufficient

motivation for farmers to change their practices. Farming practice changes may not occur unless farmers can

be shown specific evidence of the extent and degree of groundwater contamination on their own farms.

Attitudes Toward Benefits-Costs of Agrichemicals-Statewide surveys of over 300 randomly selected

New York farmers and nearly 600 Iowa fanners indicated that the majority-as high as 80 percent in

Iowa—would like viable alternatives to agrichemicals (17,112). Even though these studies indicate that

farmers want alternatives, chemical use remains widespread. Studies among row crop grain farmers have

found that the majority believe pesticides are their best current alternative to control weeds, pests, and plant

diseases. Studies in Wisconsin, Iowa, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania indicate that the majority of

farmers believe that they have already reduced agrichemical use as much as they profitably can. These

majority percentages ranged from 65 and 66 percent in Iowa and Wisconsin to a high of 80 percent in Florida

(177,112,35).

In the Wisconsin statewide survey, 71 percent of the farmers felt their yields would drop if chemical

inputs were reduced The Iowa statewide survey showed half the respondents stating that increased costs for

tillage, labor, and machinery would cancel any savings from herbicide reductions. When asked their opinions

about health and environment concerns associated with agrichemical use, farmers in Iowa, Minnesota

Virginia, Oklahoma, and New York were split fairly evenly between those agreeing and disagreeing with the

idea that significant health and environmental threats exist (109,1 10,33,54,89,17). Thus, despite divided

opinion about health and environmental impacts, farmers justify their use of chemicals from an economic

decisionmaking framework.

Relationships Between Attitudes and Intensity of Agrichemical Use—In a survey of about 570 farmers

in North Carolina, full-time farmers with more agrichemical-intensive operations expressed significantly less

concern about whether the products might be harmful to wildlife than farmers with less chemically intensive
Ch. 5--Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 197

operations (7). Similarly, studies in Iowa and Virginia revealed that farmers who applied high levels of

nitrogen fertilizer consistently saw agrichemicals as significantly less of an environmental problem than

farmers who applied lower levels (54,108). The policy implications of these findings are that intensive users

of agrichemicals may be less motivated to reduce agrichemical use than less intensive users, even though their

practices have greater potential to contaminate groundwater.

In summary, survey findings indicate there is general awareness among farmers of the groundwater

contamination issue in areas where groundwater quality has received public attention. However, farmers are

suspicious, but uncertain, about the true health risks associated with agrichemicals. There seems to be a lack

of motivation for personal action, in part because farmers do not acknowledge a serious problem on their own

farms. This may be either genuine nonrecognition or a lack of concern about a potential problem. Whichever

the case, in the absence of specific knowledge about one’s own drinking water or documented associated

health problems, voluntary change is not likely to occur on a widespread basis.

If the problem is genuine nonrecognition, education and assistance could have an important impact, and

farmers have reported that such evidence would be motivation for them to change. Since many private wells

are not regularly tested, particularly for pesticides, monitoring programs in hydrogeologically sensitive areas

would provide important information and bases for motivation. Another impediment to voluntary change may

be beliefs or knowledge about alternatives. Survey findings indicate that farmers are willing to consider

alternatives to agrichemicals. At present, however, most farmers believe that pesticides are their best tools

against insects, weeds, and plant disease and that they have already reduced their chemical inputs as much

as they economically can. Thus, by fostering attitude change it may be possible to encourage farming practice

changes. Farmers appear to be open-minded but not fully convinced of the true seriousness of the problem

or of the viability of current alternatives.

Farmers’ ability to respond to environmental sources and assistance will depend on available

concerns also will depend on trends in the agricul- Federal, State, and local funding used to identify

tural sector, such as increasing concentration of

farmland among larger farms, ownership arrangements, and contract obligations (see box 5-B). For

example, tenants and partial owners, who managed

about two-thirds of all farmland in 1982 (table 5- 12),

may be less willing or able to invest in groundwater

protection practices on rented land than farmers who

fully own their land. Thus, a farm operator’s ability

to achieve changes in groundwater quality will

depend on the extent of change needed, incentives

and freedom to make changes, and the farm’s

financial and management capacity to accommodate

farm practice changes.

Access To Resources and Technical Assistance

To Achieve Solutions

Farm size and financial condition will affect

farmers’ ability to commit resources, but their ability

to achieve real improvements in groundwater quality probably will require technical, administrative,

and financial assistance. A variety of groups can

participate in assisting farmers to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater, including State,

local, and Federal agencies providing assistance at

the farm-level. Increasing farmers’ access to regroundwater problems and solutions and on a clear

definition of agency roles in providing technical

assistance.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO

REDUCE AGRICHEMICAL

CONTAMINATION OF

GROUNDWATER

Agricultural producers receive information and

technical assistance from a variety of sources when

making decisions about crop selection, nutrient and

pest control inputs, and soil and water management

(table 5-13). Private-sector information sources

include agrichemical manufacturers, dealerships,

farm cooperatives, crop consultants, agricultural

magazines, and radio and television advertising.

Public-sector sources include Federal, State, and

local agencies and organizations. The most frequently used sources of agrichemical information

are agrichemical dealers, although many producers

perceive CES to be the most reliable source (1 12).

Pesticide labeling and agricultural publications also

are important information sources for the farmer.

Although formal information sources play important
198 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 5-F—Implications of Farm Size for Technical Assistance

Farm size is typically measured by the annual gross market value of agricultural commodities produced per farm

(153). Farm size reflects the magnitude of a farm’s financial resources and is likely to influence farmers’ risks and abilities

to change production practices. Farm size and financial status thus are relevant in designing appropriate technical assistance

strategies that encourage changes in nutrient and pest management. The following table shows one classification of U.S.

farms based on annual gross sales and indicates the percentages of total farmland area covered by farms in different sales

classes in 1987.

Value of farm Farmland area Percent of

products sold Average farm in sales class total farmland

Sales class per farm size (acres) (1,000 acres) area

Small, part-time >$20,000 148 220,573 20,7%

Part-time $20,000-99,999 689 340,885 34.0

Moderate $100,000-249,999 1,278 250,650 25.8

Large and very large 2$250,000 2,304 190,650 19.5

Total 1,002,603 100.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Table 533: Percent of Farms, Land in Farms, and Average Aize, by

Economic Class, United States, 1987,” Agricultural Statistics 1988.

Although these data aggregate all types of farms (crop and livestock) and fail to distinguish regional variations, they

are still useful in showing the extent of land area managed as farms in different sales classes overall. For example, a

significant proportion of the Nation’s farmland (roughly 55 percent) was managed as small or part-time farms in 1987.

Overall potential for different-sized farms to contribute to nonpoint-source groundwater contamination (therefore

determining their need for assistance) will depend on farm locations relative to hydrogeologically vulnerable areas, extent

of farmland involved, commodities produced, and intensity of agrichemical use.

Farm size also affects the financial status of the farm and the need for off-farm income. The following table gives

aggregate national data on farm income by sales class in 1987.

Value of farm Average net Average off - Average total

Sales class products sold farm income farm income income

Small, part-time >$20,000 $ -323 $24,000 $23,677

Part-time $20,000-99,999 13,000 17,0i)o 31,074

Moderate $100,000-249,999 51,749 14,383 66,132

Large $250,000-499,999 128,678 16,090 144,768

Very large 2$500,000 738,132 29,363 767,495

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Table 37: Average Net Farm Income Before

Inventory Adjustment Per Agricultural Operation, by Value of Sales Class,” and “Table 40: Average Off-farm

Income Per Agricultural Operation, by Value of Sales Class,” Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector,

National Financial Summary, 1987, October 1988.

Again it should be noted that these aggregated data do not characterize regional or local trends, because the

distribution of farms among different sales classes varies by region and commodity. Also, per-farm statistics by sales class

should not be interpreted as per-farmer statistics, since more than one operator may share in production risk per farm,

particularly in the larger sales classes (153). Nevertheless, these data provide a useful context for understanding general

income trends and potential decisionmaking constraints to groundwater protection:

Small Farms—Farms with gross sales of less than $20,000 per year generally do not provide a significant source of

income to their operators. Most farm operators in this class obtain their primary net income from off-farm sources. Average

net farm income for this sales class in 1987 was negative, with off-farm income averaging $24,000. The small farm

subsector, however, is not homogeneous—it contains a large number of subsistence farms whose operators live at or below

the poverty level as well as a large number of affluent families to whom the farm is more a form of recreation than a source

of income. One in five farm operators in this sales class in 1982 was a full-time operator (138). Fifty-eight percent of this

group were part-time farmers working 100 days or more per year off the farm. The remaining farmers were full- or part-time

farmers over the age of 65, Part-time operators, who include individuals using the farm as either a tax shelter or for

recreation, had the highest total incomes in this sales class because of their off-farm employment.

Although small farms constitute 21 percent of total farmland, the percentage of agrichemical-treated farmland

covered by small and part-time farm operations may actually be lower. Small farms involving livestock or recreation are

likely to be less agrichemical-intensive than farms producing commodity or specialty crops. Since small-farm operators

historically have taken less advantage of technical assistance programs than have large-farm operators, small farms located

in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas may require more intensive outreach efforts. Also, technical assistance to small
Ch. 5--Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 199

farms would need to be tailored to their financial and time constraints (180). Small farms are also more likely to need

low-cost technologies or financial assistance to reduce groundwater contamination. Any increases in net income resulting

from more efficient agrichemical use would benefit small-farm operators to a proportionally greater extent than large-farm

operators.

Part-time Farms-Farms with annual gross sales between $20,000 to $100,000 may produce significant net income

but are typically operated by people who depend on off-farm employment for their primary source of income. Because net

farm income is low and off-farm income tends to be lower than average, farms in this sales class are likely to experience

financial difficulties. Moreover, part-time farmers who work 40 hours a week at an off-farm job have only about 43 percent

of their time available for farming(99).

If recent trends continue, part-time farms could increase in number, but this will require the families living on these

farms to earn the bulk of their income from off-farm sources. Part-time farmers may rely heavily on agrichemical use to

save time and labor, which would make it difficult for them to adopt farming practices requiring more time and

management. Part-time farmers thus are likely to experience greater time constraints to reducing agrichemical use. On the

other hand, part-time farmers may be more willing to make changes in their farm practices simply because their principal

income is derived off the farm, allowing them to undertake some potentially risky activities in their farming ventures.

Moderate-sized Farms-Farms that generate more than $100,000 in annual gross income are generally capable of

supporting full-time operators, and commonly require labor and management from at least one full-time manager. Average

off-farm income in this sales class is lowest of all classes, but the net income of moderate-sized farms is decreasing in

absolute terms and in terms of their share of total farm income (144).

In upcoming years, moderate-sized farms are expected to decline in number if they are not able to increase farm

income or obtain more off-farm income. Moderate-sized farms are most prevalent among cash grain, hog, and dairy

operations in the North-Central and Northeast regions. Many moderate-sized farm operators have been under severe

pressure in the 1980s to increase yields to offset reductions in farm prices. One strategy has been to produce more

commodities by expanding or renting more land; another is to intensify use of agrichemicals. Many of these operations

use high levels of agrichemicals to maintain productivity. Under voluntary programs to reduce groundwater contamination,

operators of these farms are likely to implement only those farm practice changes that maintain or increase net returns.

Large and Very Large Farms—Farms with annual gross sales greater than $250,000 are maintaining or increasing

their shares of farm income. As a group, the households that own and operate these farms have moderate off-farm incomes

and moderate-to-very large net farm incomes. Most farms in this class require one or more full-time operators, and many

depend on hired labor on a full-time basis to manage their larger land areas. Five percent of these farms in 1982 were owned

by nonfamily corporations, thus involving more than one owner in decisionmaking. This will mean that some agreement

has to be reached among owners and managers in deciding whether to implement farm operation changes related to

groundwater protection.

The amount of farmland managed by large and very large farm operations is expected to increase beyond the present

20 percent of all farmland with the continued trend toward concentration in the agricultural sector. Farms in these sales

classes are projected to account for about 15 percent of all farms by 2000, or three times their proportion in 1982 (144).

Changes implemented on large farms would have relatively high environmental impacts, because management changes

per farm would affect a large acreage. Since large and very large farms will probably continue to produce the greatest shares

of commodities in the United States, incentives aimed at large farms would affect larger land areas on which the majority

of commodities are produced.

Larger farms historically have adopted conservation methods to a greater extent than smaller farms, because large

farms have more financial resources and contacts with local extension and conservation agencies (149). Large farms with

greater financial resources are probably more capable of making financial adjustments to accommodate farm practice

changes without government assistance. However, the need to capture returns from previous capital

investments in production systems could discourage large farms’ adoption of practices to reduce groundwater

contamination.

Policy Implications-Farm sizes and sales classes have implications for the amounts and types of technical assistance

local farmers are likely to need to improve the quality of local natural resources. Small and part-timefarmers are more likely

to experience financial and time constraints in making farming practice changes to reduce agrichemical contamination of

groundwater, while large farmers are more likely to want to continue using practices in which they have invested large

amounts of capital. State and local programs to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater have better chances of

being effective if they are built on a good understanding of the local structure of agriculture and likely constraints which

could interfere with local resource protection efforts. Thus, State and local governments could consider local and regional

distributions of farms among small, moderate-sized, and large sales classes when developing and implementing

groundwater protection programs.
200 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 5-1 2—Land Ownership and Tenancy: Number of Farms and Land in Farms, 1982

Percent of Farmland acres Percent of

Land tenure classification Number of farms farms (thousands) farmland

Fully owned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,321,000 59 345,379 35

Fully rented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269,000 12 108,547 11

Part-owned/rented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649,000 29 532,870 54

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,239,000 100 986,796 100

SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Agriculture, tables 535 and 536, Agricutfura/ Statisfbs 1988, based on

data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, the 1982 Census of Agriculture.

Table 5-13--Sources of Information and Technical Assistance to Farmers

on Agrichemical Management

Role

Public sector:

State Cooperative Extension Service (C ES) specialists and agents

USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

service (ASCS)

State Department of Agriculture

State Departments of Health; Natural Resources;

or Environmental Quality

Private sector:

Farmer cooperatives; agrichemical dealers and

suppliers

Agrichemical manufacturers

Advisory and technical service firms

Agricultural media

Farm commodity purchasing firms

Other farmers (neighbors; commodity groups;

farmer-to-farmer referral groups)

Agricultural management firms and consultants

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

roles in influencing farmers’ decisions, farmers also

obtain guidance from numerous informal contacts

with other farmers, family members, landlords,

lenders, other business people, and local residents.

The opinions and choices of these other individuals

and organizations also inform and motivate farmers

(figure 5-4).

Most farmers face ‘‘a situation of information

overload rather than information deprivation’ (102).

Information flow to and among farmers is a competitive process, and farmers must pick and choose

among diverse sources of information and assistance. If farmers hear consistent messages from

public, private, and informal information sources

regarding the importance of proper agrichemical use

and resource protection in agriculture, they will be

Information on production techniques and farm

management; pesticide applicator training; soil

testing services

Technical assistance on soil and water conservation and resource management planning

Financial assistance for soil and water conservation, integrated crop management, farm program participation

Pesticide applicator certification

Well water monitoring and testing; well construction standards

Sales and service of production inputs; product

selection and application rate recommendations

Pesticide labeling information; training programs

and educational materials

Soil testing; pest scouting; computer services

Production information and product advertising

Production requirements or quality standards

Advice, observation, and experience on production techniques

High-management production services

much more likely to implement practices that protect

groundwater.

Public-Sector Assistance—Federal Agencies

Two Federal agencies are structured to provide

routine assistance to farmers at the local level—

USDA’s Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

(ASCs). Several other agencies and offices within

the USDA, EPA, and the Department of the Interior

contribute to research, monitoring, and technical

assistance related to agriculture and groundwater,

but these agencies do not assist individual farmers

through local offices (figure 5-5). Administrative

and technical guidance offered by field offices can

predispose farmers toward certain farming practices,

and Federal assistance at the local level can facilitate
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 201

Figure 5-4--Socioeconomic Support Systems for Farmers Influencing Their Decision making

USDA Soil Conservation Service contacts for State interagency efforts. SCS offices at

the State- and district-levels are coordinated as

The SCS was created in 1935 to ‘provide national Federal agency components, in contrast to CES and

leadership in the conservation and wise use of soil, State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAESs),

water, and related resources’ (160). SCS offers which are administered as State organizations.

technical assistance to individuals, groups, and State-level SCS offices typically receive input on

governments through SCS offices in local conserva- funding priorities and preferred management praction districts. SCS State Conservationists, who tices from conservation district representatives.
202 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

I I

I It--l I

[ I I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

J
Ch. 5---Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 203

SCS District Conservationists assigned to field

offices receive general guidance on conservation

planning policies and procedures from SCS’s National Conservation Planning Manual. Specific technical guidance, on the other hand, is provided

through Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs)

developed at the State level. FOTGs provide guidelines on conservation and resource management

practices that correspond to local land use needs and

agricultural production conditions. The SCS planning process is designed to help landowners ‘‘define

natural resource problems, determine alternative

solutions, choose among cost-effective solutions

that are consistent with their objectives, and implement solutions as rapidly as is feasible and practical”(160) .

SCS conservationists help land users develop soil

conservation plans based on soil surveys, topographical maps, and FOTG guidelines, They also encourage land users to implement conservation practices

and structures (e.g., terraces) by helping them obtain

cost-share financing through the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). ACP payments for approved conservation practices are made through

local ASCS offices. Although SCS technical assistance has traditionally emphasized soil erosion

control, its scope has expanded to address additional

resource concerns, such as protecting water quality

and quantity, managing grazing lands and forests,

and preserving wildlife habitat. SCS initiated a water

pollution control effort in 1981 and has begun to

address agrichemical contamination of groundwater

as a component of this effort.

‘‘Progressive conservation planning’ is a concept

developed by SCS to encourage land users to go

beyond adopting single conservation practices to

implementing a full set of practices and land uses for

resource protection (122). SCS conservationists can

help land users plan Resource Management Systems

(RMSs), which are coordinated sets of conservation

practices and management techniques designed to

address the entire range of resources (e.g., soil,

water, air, plant, and animal) specific to a farm or

land use. SCS technical staff at the State level

develop RMSs for field offices. Some groundwaterrelated materials have been developed for use in

conservation and RMS planning. These include:

. local soil and site information, ratings on

likelihood of nitrate leaching, pesticide characteristics and soil-pesticide interactions;

●

●

●

●

●

water resource data and effects of land use,

management, and conservation practices on

water resources;

standards and specifications for practices to

protect water quality, including nutrient and

pesticide management standards;

water quality policies and regulations at national, State, and local levels;

planning guidelines and criteria to develop

RMSs that incorporate water quality concerns

(160); and

economic, environmental, and social trade-offs

which the farmer can use to evaluate conservation options and water quality impacts (161).

SCS water quality and RMS materials, however,

may not be consistently or fully utilized throughout

all SCS field offices. Since State Conservationists

are responsible for the “development, quality,

coordination, use, and maintenance’ of FOTGs

used throughout their States (162), deployment and

full application of these materials may depend on

strong administrative support from State Conservationists. In addition, fuller implementation of comprehensive conservation planning assistance will

depend on the motivation and training of individual

conservationists and their ability to devote the time

needed in advising and motivating landowners to

pursue RMS development. Thus, SCS’s role in

assisting farmers to reduce groundwater contamination could be enhanced through clear Federal and

State directives on groundwater protection as a

component of conservation planning; full implementation of RMS and water quality materials in all

field offices; and employee training on the use of

these materials.

In 1985, Congress made SCS responsible for

implementing the conservation cross-compliance

provisions of the Food Security Act (FSA). The FSA

directs SCS to develop “conservation compliance”

plans by 1990 for all farmers having highly erodible

lands who want to retain eligibility for Federal farm

program payments. FSA conservation compliance

requirements have nearly doubled the number of

farmers using SCS assistance, currently estimated at

about 1.5 million (122). SCS will continue to assist

farmers on cross-compliance implementation in

upcoming years, since conservation compliance

plans must be fully implemented by 1995. Conservation compliance plans, however, constitute neither

full conservation plans nor RMSs, and they have

often incorporated weakened regulations on ‘‘Alter-
204 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

native Conservation Practices, which permit higher

levels of erosion than those called for in the original

FSA legislation. Although FSA statutory requirements have increased the number of farmers seeking

assistance from SCS, they have not necessarily

fostered comprehensive conservation planning, because conservation compliance plans solely address

erosion control on highly erodible lands.

Congress is considering further cross-compliance

provisions involving agrichemical management planning to protect groundwater. If such legislation is

passed, SCS will also likely be responsible for

assisting farmers in developing agrichemical management plans. Policymakers will need to take into

account key implementation issues in developing

such provisions. SCS’s current staffing and technical capabilities will need to be increased and

expanded tithe agency is to implement agrichernicalrelated planning, because the agency’s traditional

expertise is in soil and water management. Clear

goals and directives will also be needed, because

local interpretation and flexibility in implementing

management practices may make it difficult for SCS

management plans to lead to significant reductions

in groundwater contamination.

Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service

ASCS administers and distributes all Federal farm

program payments to farmers who apply for programs at county ASCS offices. ASCS thus provides

administrative and financial assistance to farmers,

including ACP cost-share payments for implementing conservation practices. Local committees are

responsible for approving the types of conservation

structures and practices that are eligible at the local

level for conservation cost-share payments.

ASCS’s specific role in improving agrichemical

management is through its current pilot cost-share

project, Integrated Crop Management (ICM), which

has been approved as an ACP practice. Impartially

pays for consultant and scout services used by

farmers to improve nutrient and pesticide management, up to $7/acre for field crops and $14/acre for

specialty crops (151). The ASCS program will be

tested in up to five counties in each State in 1990 and

aims to achieve a 20 percent reduction in agrichemical use among participating farmers. If successful,

the ICM program is likely to spur development and

increase availability of field advisory services.

Public-Sector Assistance-State and

Local Agencies

Information and assistance from State and local

agencies complement Federal Government assistance and may be highly influential in farmers’

decisionmaking. Although State and local governments vary widely in their organizational structures,

decisionmaking committees, and roles of departments providing assistance to farmers and other

landowners, some commonalities exist. Each State

has a land-grant university with an associated CES

and SAES to conduct research, education, and

extension for the State’s farmers. The land-grant

university system thus is the primary public-sector

source of information on agricultural production,

agrichemical use, and agricultural resource management, including water quality. Each State also has a

network of SCS district offices providing assistance

to landowners on soil and water conservation.

Although district offices advise farmers on conservationrelated crop rotations and nutrient management to

improve water quality, they have not been as heavily

involved as CESs in agrichemical management

assistance. In some States, other departments and

agencies may play important roles in facilitating

farmers’ access to technical assistance.

Cooperative Extension Service

State CESs play the most important role in

public-sector delivery of information and assistance

to farmers, whose primary CES contacts are county

or area extension agents in local offices and specialists at the land-grant university or experiment

stations. CESs nationwide currently receive about

50 percent of their funding from State governments,

30 percent from the USDA Extension Service (ES),

17 percent from county governments, and 3 percent

from private sources (48). As a result, CES program

priorities are influenced most heavily by State needs

and concerns, which may be identified by extension

users and advisory groups, land-grant university

administrators, and State legislatures. Priorities set

at the national level (e.g., by the national Extension

Committee on Organization and Policy are nonbinding and may be less influential than State needs

in affecting CES activities) (142). Regional committees formed by CESs in the four extension regions

(Northeast, South, North Central, and West) may

also set priorities for extension programs which

address regional needs more specifically.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . 205

Reduced funding in recent years has forced many

State CESs to cut staffing levels, particularly at the

county level. Extension agents no longer have the

time or resources to visit farms personally, and many

agents make most of their contacts with farmers by

telephone or through meetings where as many as

several hundred farmers can receive information at

a time (47). In the area of agrichemical management,

CESs provide recommendations on fertilizer and

pesticide selection, application rates, and handling

practices. Common CES information dissemination

formats include newsletters, technical bulletins,

computer databases, and field days. However, CES

contacts with farmers on agrichemical management

have often been superseded by farmers’ more

frequent contacts with agrichemical dealers, whom

farmers typically see immediately prior to making

agrichemical purchases (175,70). Some CESs (e.g.,

Illinois) have established training programs for

dealers, through whom CESs can indirectly reach

more farmers on agrichemical management. Other

CES activities related to agrichemicals and groundwater quality include soil testing services, water

quality education programs, and pesticide applicator

certification training funded through FIFRA.

Farmers interested in low-input or nonchemical

practices have noted that CESs lack information and

expertise on management practices based on crop

rotations and reduced agrichemical use (140). Some

CESs, however, are developing their capacities to

provide assistance on low-input and nonchemical

farming practices, particularly as components of

Low-Input/Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) research

and education projects (81). LISA projects are

playing key roles in expanding research and information bases on use-reduction and nonchemical

approaches to reducing groundwater contamination.

Another information source for farmers, when assistance is not forthcoming from local extension

sources, is the ATTRA hotline, which draws on CES

resources nationwide and acts as a national clearinghouse for alternative agriculture information (see

box 5-G).

State Departments of Agriculture

State Departments of Agriculture (DOAs) play

important ‘gate-keeping’ roles in managing agrichemical use within their borders. State DOAs with

EPA-approved pesticide programs can expand or

restrict the State’s range of pesticide uses by

granting experimental or conditional permits for

nonregistered pesticides and instituting restrictions

that are more stringent than Federal regulations.

The State Department of Agriculture is the lead

agency for administering pesticide applicator certification programs in all but 16 of the 57 States and

U.S. territories (167). In order for a State to

administer its own certification program, the State’s

program plan must meet minimum Federal requirements and be approved by Federal and regional EPA

offices (38). EPA administers the certification program if the State’s plan is not approved. EPA

currently administers programs in only two States:

Colorado and Nebraska.

Some departments may also administer programs

that help farmers try new agricultural practices. The

Minnesota Department of Agriculture, for example,

offers a “Sustainable Agriculture Loan Program”

for farmers to borrow up to $15,000 at 6-percent

interest for purchases or installations providing

environmental benefits. Minnesota’s DOA also has

established a “Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grants Program,’ which provided $284,000 in

funding in 1989 (up to $25,000 per recipient) to

encourage farmers to demonstrate alternative practices (87).

State Conservation Agencies

State conservation agencies are distinct from

State-level SCS offices. They may be organized as

State government departments, departmental divisions, committees, boards, or commissions. State

conservation agencies administer State conservation

laws, regulations, and programs; oversee Federal

soil and water conservation activities; and provide

technical assistance and training related to conservation. Cooperative relationships include State water

quality agencies, State Departments of Agriculture,

EPA regional offices, and State-level SCS offices.

State Water Agencies

Many States have designated a water resources

agency or board to coordinate groundwater protection activities. In some States these agencies are

active in providing assistance to local communities

to protect groundwater resources. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, for example,

initiated a project in 1989 to assist 14 communities

to collect data on water supplies and possible

contamination sources, identify recharge and watershed areas, prioritize water supplies at greater risk,

and develop resource protection plans for each
206 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 5-G—ATTRA: National Information Source on Agrichemical Use Reduction and

Alternative Practices

ATTRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas) is a national information hotline service that

collects and disseminates information on agricultural technologies and cropping systems that reduce agrichemical

use while maintaining crop yields. ATTRA specialists gather information nationwide from a variety of sources:

electronic databases, university researchers, extension specialists, the USDA National Agricultural Library, and

networks of technical experts and practitioners. Any person can request free information from ATTRA in writing

or by calling its toll-free hotline, although ATTRA asks that requesters first try to obtain needed information from

their local extension services. ATTRA specialists respond to requests by sending informational materials; providing

referrals to experts and practitioners; and discussing alternative technologies, practices, or crops that might be

considered by the requester.

ATTRA provides two main categories of information: 1) farm practices that reduce off-site environmental

impacts of agrichemical from leaching, drift, and runoff; and 2) production systems characterized by greater crop

diversity, which can reduce the need for agrichemicals, particularly insecticides. Information requests from ATTRA

are increasing by 50 to 60 percent each year. ATTRA responded to 2,600 and 4,100 requests in 1988 and 1989

respectively, and 3,300 in the first half of FY 1990 (79). Increased requests appear to reflect rising interest among

farmers in technologies that reduce agrichemical and production costs. Thus, ATTRA appears to provide an easy,

accessible centralized information source for farmers and consultants on reduced-input and alternative (biological

and cultural) agricultural practices.

The ATTRA hotline was established in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1987 but was moved in 1989 to the University

of Arkansas campus in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Congress appropriated $500,000 and $750,000, respectively, for

ATTRA for FY 1987 and 1988 through USDA-Extension Service funding, but appropriated $900,000 in funding

for FY 1989 through the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Information (79).

Prospects for continued funding, however, are uncertain. The high level of public concern about agrichemical

contamination of surface and groundwaters, which is not likely to subside in upcoming years, may provide Congress

with a strong rationale for appropriating sufficient funding for ATTRA to meet increased demands for information.

ATTRA’s address is P.O. Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702. The hotline number is 1-800-346-9140.

community. The project employs a computer-based and coordinate local soil and water conservation

geographic information system to combine databases and identify critical areas (49).

A variety of other State departments and agencies

(e.g., State Department of Health, State Geological

Survey) administer or cooperate in research, monitoring, and other programs to provide information

and assistance to farmers on groundwater. Georgia’s

Department of Agriculture, for example, received

EPA funding to evaluate pesticide impacts on

groundwater and is working with the State’s Department of Natural Resources to conduct well sampling

and testing (50). The Washington State Department

of Ecology samples well water for agrichemicals to

obtain information on which conditions lead to

groundwater contamination (49).

Soil Conservation Districts

Conservation districts are special-purpose units of

government, organized under State law, that plan

efforts (159,94). Local citizens establish conservation districts by electing boards or commissions that

sign Memoranda of Understanding with the Secretary of Agriculture and SCS. SCS then assigns

conservationists to the districts, which may hire

support staff to help provide services to farmers and

other landowners. Conservation districts are governed by their elected boards, and they are commonly organized as State government subdivisions

that follow county boundaries. In some States (e.g.,

Nebraska, Georgia, and California), conservation

districts follow watershed boundaries.9 The approximately 3,000 conservation districts in the United

States cover about 98 percent of non-Federal land.

Conservation districts form private, nonprofit associations at the State level to coordinate activities,

exchange information, and participate as members

in the National Association of Conservation Districts.

%lxceptions are Wiscons@ where conservation districts are units of county governrnenq and New Hampshire and Alash where the entire State is

a SOS conservation district divided into subdistricts.

—
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 207

Conservation districts are important interfaces

between Federal policy directives and local implementation efforts in agricultural conservation programs. Although SCS conservationists assigned to

the districts must respond to Federal agricultural

legislation and regulations, the extent and kinds of

assistance that conservation districts offer to farmers

will also depend on staffing levels, available funding, and local resource management priorities.

Conservation districts ‘‘review and approve, or

concur with plans developed by SCS,” and their

governing bodies “establish general priorities for

addressing identified resource concerns’ jointly

with SCS (160). Thus, the agricultural conservation

programs and practices supported through conservation districts are heavily influenced by State and

local priorities and landowner needs.

Since 1985, for example, conservation districts

have had to devote a major share of their workload

to helping farmers meet FSA requirements (e.g.,

Conservation Reserve Program; conservation compliance for highly erodible lands). A national survey

of conservation districts conducted in 1990 indicates

that FSA assistance currently supersedes all other

program priorities (table 5-14) and that conservation

districts have inadequate levels of personnel to meet

needs in all program areas, particularly in water

quality (93). Insufficient staffing and finding will

make it difficult for conservation districts to help

implement additional cross-compliance provisions

related to groundwater quality (e.g., agrichemical

management plans).

County Governments and Local Committees

County governments (or other local governmental

entities) also play a role in providing technical

assistance to farmers through county extension

funding. The proportion of county extension funding, however, varies greatly from State to State and

within States (48). In some States, counties provide

no funding at all, while in other States, counties may

provide as much as 60 percent of the funding needed

to support a local extension agent.

A variety of local boards, committees, or commissions also help set priorities for extension and

agricultural conservation programs. Local boards

may have a high degree of influence on the

assistance programs available to farmers and on the

kinds of conservation practices that are supported

technically and financially. Wide variation in the

types of local groups and their relative influence on

Table 5-14-Types of Programs Conducted by

Conservation Districts and Their Priority Rankings

in 1990a

Mean

priority

Program category rankingb

Food Security Act (conservation compliance,

sod/swampbuster, conservation reserve) . . . . . . . 4.09

Cropland erosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.04

Water quality (nonpoint-source control) . . . . . . . . . . 3.91

Administrative support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.69

Conservation education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.64

Water quantity (irrigation, flood control, drainage) . 3.35

Grazing land management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13

Urban erosion and sediment control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.02

Municipal assistance (landfills, recycling, sludge

disposal, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.82

Forest management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.66

Stormwater management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.60

Mined land reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.40

asumey ~nd~~ in December 1989. Survey results are based Ofl

responses from 1,982 conservation districts, or 67 percent of the total

number of conservation districts nationality.

%ean priority ranting scale: 1 = low priority to 5- high priority.

SOURCE: National Association of Conservation Districts, Ameti’s Conservation Disti”cfs Wor%adAna$sis Survey (Washington, DC:

March 1990), p. 1.

priority setting explains a large portion of the

difficulty in implementing national priorities in

resource conservation.

Private-Sector Assistance: Commercial

Agricultural Services

Reducing groundwater contamination by agrichemicals will require more information for and management by farmers. Since many farmers may not have

time or expertise to devote to additional informationgathering or management, one strategy is for farmers

to purchase advisory or management services that

minimize environmental contamination or help reduce agrichemical use. Commercial services to

improve nutrient and pest management could be

provided by: 1) service departments of agrichemical

dealerships and agrichemical-supply cooperatives;

2) advisory service firms and cooperatives which do

not sell agrichemicals; and 3) independent consultants and field scouts.

Dealerships and Cooperatives

Agrichemical dealerships and supply cooperatives have helped disseminate innovations that can

reduce groundwater contamination potential. These

include rope-wick application of herbicides onto

weeds; agrichemical banding rather than broadcast

application; and use of returnable pesticide containers or recyclable container systems. Many regional
208 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

farm-supply cooperatives have developed advisory

service packages that generate agrichemical recommendations based on individually tailored management plans or computer programs that adjust for soil

tests and field characteristics (73). For example,

Cenex-Land O’Lakes offers a crop management

assistance program called AgriSource, which provides information on fertilizer application rates and

pesticide compliance needs (21). Agway, Inc., a

cooperative with over 100,000 members in the

Northeast, offers an integrated crop management

program incorporating Integrated Pest Management

(IPM) strategies (171).

However, many cooperative advisory services,

some of which are free-of-charge, serve as marketing techniques to encourage product sales. These

services thus may conflict with goals to reduce

agrichemical use as a way of protecting groundwater. Furthermore, the capacity of dealerships and

farm-supply cooperatives to provide services that

support alternative practices is not as well developed. Several features of agrichemical sales firms

inhibit provision of information, advice, or innovations designed to reduce potential for groundwater

contamination.

First, it is not in the interest of an agrichemical

supplier to provide advisory services that reduce

agrichemical use. Employees may not readily supply

information to farmers about ways to reduce agrichemical use, because they are understandably reluctant

to decrease sales (181,139). Recognizing this, some

farmers obtain agrichemical recommendations only

from firms that do not sell agrichemicals, since these

firms do not have an interest in the amounts of

agrichemicals sold (83). Care in selecting a reliable

source of agrichemical recommendations is warranted; studies conducted by the University of

Nebraska (106) and other land-grant universities

indicate that fertilizer recommendations from some

commercial testing labs were as much as two to three

times higher than recommendations from university

labs for identical soil samples (43). Since commercial labs in many cases are retained by dealers who

have an economic stake in higher recommendations,

farmers wanting to reduce environmental contamination by agrichemicals are likely to evaluate

information sources carefully for potential conflicts

of interest.

Second, employees of dealerships and cooperatives may simply not have the skills or expertise to

offer advisory services that can help farmers reduce

agrichemical use. Agrichemical supply f-need to

develop and test services that replace product sales,

because they face the risk of losing customers if they

advise farmers incorrectly. Thus, agrichemical service firms are likely to require evidence that new

services will keep their customers coming back and

that service provision will be profitable. Some State

CESs and professional trade associations offer

training programs specifically designed for agrichemical dealers and their employees (70). Nebraska’s

Fertilizer & Agchem Association, for example, has

established a Certified Crop Production Advisor

Program to train and certify crop advisors (114).

Third, provision of advisory services by commercial agrichemical suppliers is constrained by current

industry trends (175,56). These include a decline in

the number of dealerships, liability concerns, and

increased regulatory requirements which add to the

cost of doing business (e.g., sales reporting, recordkeeping, construction standards, accident plans, spill

reporting, secondary containment, and disposal).

These factors are causing some dealers to go out of

business and are making it difficult for agrichemical

suppliers to offer new services, hire new employees

with environmental expertise, or improve current

employees’ technical and communications skills.

In light of the above constraints, programs to

enhance agrichemical dealers’ and cooperatives’

capacity to provide advisory services are likely to

require economic, fiscal, or professional incentives.

These include government-sponsored training programs, subsidies for employee training, and ‘dealership accreditation” for firms that participate in

training programs or offer specified services. Licensing requirements for agrichemical sales outlets

could also specify training and services provision.

The incentive to provide cost-saving advisory services may be greater for cooperatives than dealerships, however, because cooperatives are owned by

their customers who ultimately benefit. Although

advisory services would seem to be an attractive

option for cooperatives, this strategy would require

coordination and communication among cooperative members, directors, and managers. Regardless

of the type of agrichemical sales firm, however,

farmers are the ones who will ultimately pay for

services and their development costs.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 209

Independent Advisory Firms and Consultants

Advisory firms and independent crop consultants

who do not sell agrichemicals can offer services

without conflicts of interest associated with sales

volumes. These firms and consultants are playing an

increasingly important role in providing technical

assistance to farmers, and groundwater protection

concerns are likely to generate further demand for

these services. Increasing the demand and availability of crop advisory services is one of the goals of the

ASCS pilot program offering cost-share for “Integrated Crop Management” services in the 1990 to

1992 crop years. The ASCS program confers costshare payment eligibility only on consultants not

associated with agrichemical sales firms (151).

Development of advisory services will require

adequate availability of persons who are trained and

skilled in delivering needed services. Currently,

professional organizations and trade associations are

the best sources of information on agricultural firms

and consultants offering environmental advisory

services. In 1988, the number of agricultural consultants who were independent or employed by other

firms was estimated at about 13,200 (table 5-15).

The American Registry of Certified Professional

Agricultural Consultants (ARCPACs), a certification program co-sponsored by the American Society

of Agronomy, the Soil Science Society of America,

and the Weed Science Society of America, also

provides regional estimates of the numbers of

trained agricultural professionals (4,125). Some

States (e.g., Indiana) have established certification

programs for agricultural consultants based on

ARCPACs criteria. State licensing or certification

programs for consultants can facilitate farmers’

access to reliable services by trained advisors.

The public sector could assist the private sector in

design, development, and delivery of advisory

services in the following ways: 1) providing agronomic and economic information on feasibility of

modified or reduced agrichemical applications; 2)

training programs for employees; 3) education and

licensing programs for advisors (e.g., IPM consultants, field scouts, crop advisors); and 4) education

programs on innovative service delivery to replace

products with services. Programs to enhance commercial fins’ capacity to provide information and

services on reduced-chemical use or nonchemical

practices will expand farmers’ management options

overall.

Table 5-15-Numbers of Agricultural Consultants,

National Estimates, 1989

Estimated

Type of consultant numbers

Independent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,584

Employed by other firms

(dealerships, cooperatives, agrichemical

manufacturers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,664

Farm managers employed by banks, real estate

firms, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,863

Farm managers employed by government

agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,463

Farm managers employed by large-sale farms

or food processing firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693

Others in allied fields (business or academia) . . . . . 572

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,839

SOURCE: Ag. Consultant (Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing, June

1989).

Farmer Initiatives

Producer organizations and other farm membership groups have undertaken initiatives to test

well-water, facilitate farmstead assessments, and

educate members about groundwater vulnerability.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, for example, has developed a “Self-Help Checklist for

Farmsteads and Farm Fields” to help producers

assess their farming operation’s potential to affect

groundwater supplies (3). Technical assistance programs can draw on producer initiatives as startup

points for encouraging producers and other landowners to protect groundwater from contamination.

Information exchange among farmers is an important mechanism for disseminating information on

farm practices. Farmer-to-farmer exchange complements information from formal sources in the public

and private sectors and addresses constraints sometimes associated with these sources (e.g., conflicting

information from different organizations, scarcity of

information on alternative practices). Farmer-tofarmer information exchange may take on new and

even greater importance in facilitating adoption of

groundwater protection practices as a source of

information relevant to local conditions and producers’ experiences. Mechanisms for farmer-to-farmer

information exchange include farmer-to-farmer referral networks (103), crop management associations (19), and soil and water conservation groups.

These can provide farmers with peer and community

support and help them determine which groundwater

protection practices are feasible and profitable.
210 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Farmer-to-Farmer Networks

Many farmers experimenting with reduced-chemicalinput, biological pest control, or other nonchemical.

farming practices have perceived that the agricultural research and extension community has been

uninterested in or uninformed about such practices

(140). Furthermore, alternative farming practices

tend to require a greater understanding of farming

systems interactions and longer adoption periods

during which producers can test and adapt them

gradually. As a result, farmers interested in alternative approaches have largely sought information and

advice from each other, forming what are referred to

as ‘‘farmer-to-farmer networks” (103).

Some of these networks are highly informal,

while some have incorporated as nonprofit membership organizations to provide information and assistance to other farmers. In some cases, nonprofit

organizations have facilitated the development of

farmer networks. Private nonprofit organizations

associated with farmer-to-farmer networks vary

widely in composition and structure, and many

employ full-time help to provide technical support.

Some organizations are composed entirely of farmermembers, such as Practical Farmers of Iowa, while

other organizations, such as the Land Stewardship

Project in Minnesota, have broader memberships

that include nonfarmers interested in supporting

land stewardship efforts.

Farmer-to-farmer networks have up to three

functions: 1) on-farm experimentation, 2) informationgathering through contacts with external sources of

assistance, and 3) information dissemination

through educational programs or field demonstrations. All organizations provide some type of

information and technical assistance on alternative

practices, and these may range from improved

agrichemical management techniques to reducedchemical-input methods to organic cropping systems. OTA estimates that at least 100 such organizations existed in the United States in 1988. In October

1988, OTA sent survey questionnaires to 40 of these

organizations representing a wide geographic range

and received 29 responses (table 5-16) (140).

Most of the organizations that responded to the

survey are involved in investigating and sharing

information on alternatives to agrichemical inputs

(box 5-H). Surveyed organizations reported conducting education, demonstration, and informationsharing, either through interested volunteers or paid

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Field days sponsored by educational organizations and

farmer-to-farmer networks serve to disseminate

information on improved agrichemical management and

reduced-chemical and alternative farming practices. Here,

test plots are viewed at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s

Claggett Farm.

staff. Organizational activities are funded either by

member donations, foundation grants, or contributions from other sources such as churches or

endowments. Most organizations are small, with

five or fewer full-time staff and median budgets in

the $100,000 to $150,000 range. Half of the organizations operate at the State or sub-State level. The

median number of farmers providing information

per organization is 50 to 100, with 300 to 400

farmers receiving information. Twenty-five of the

twenty-nine respondents worked with State landgrant university researchers in 1987-88, and 20 had

cooperative projects with CESs that year. The

organizations’ most frequently cited information

dissemination methods were farmer meetings, workshops, and field demonstrations.

Farmer-to-farmer networks and their associated

support organizations are emerging as important

local sources of information on reduced-agrichemical practices and nonchemical practices and

production systems (103). Two-thirds of the groups

responding to the survey had been established after

1976, with the three newest ones starting in 1987.

Recent increases in numbers of these groups appear

to indicate a growing interest among farmers in
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 211

Table 5-16-OTA Survey Respondents: Privatea Nonprofit Organizations Associated

With Farmer-to-Farmer Networks

Name Location

Alternative Energy Resources Organization (AERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Helena, MT

California Certified Organic Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santa Cruz, CA

California Clean Growers Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dinuba, CA

California Institute for Rural Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bakersfield, CA

Center for Holistic Resource Management, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Albuquerque, NM

Claggett Farm, Chesapeake Bay Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Marlboro, MD

Committee for Sustainable Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colfax, CA

High Desert Research Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Abiquiu, NM

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Des Moines, IA

Kansas Rural Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whiting, KS

The Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Poteau, OK

Land Stewardship Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marine, MN

Maine Organic Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Augusta ,ME

Meadowcreek Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fox, AR

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .East Troy, WI

Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hartington, NE

New Alchemy Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . East Falmouth, MA

Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Windsor, ND

Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plymouth, OH

Oregon Tilth, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tualatin, OR

Practical Farmers of lowa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boone, 1A

Rodale Institute-Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lodi, WI

Rodale lnsitute-Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fox, AR

Sunny Valley Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Milford, CT

Virginia Association of Biological Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flint Hill, VA

Winrock International, Inc.b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morrilton, AR

Wisconsin Rural Development Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black Earth, WI

3Survey questionnaires also were sent to two Resource Conservation and Development Districts (RC&Ds) for

information on exam pies of RC&D activities. RC&Ds are publicly funded organizations associated with local soil and

water conservation districts, and they promote a wide variety of projects, including include resource planning and

technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to reduce soil erosion and protect water resources. West Stanislaus

RC&D in Patterson, CA, conducts irrigation seminars but notes a lack of locally applicable practices to address acute

groundwater problems in its area. Seneca Trail RC&D in Franklinville, NY, is not directly involved in practices for

reducing groundwater contamination but provides assistance on rotational grazing and no-till seeding which reduce

erosion and runoff. RC&Ds provide potential structures for assisting farmers in implementing practices to improve

groundwater quality.

bWinrock International institute for Agricultural Development, Inc. does not directly work with farmer-to-farmer networks

but is lead organization for a farmer extension/research project and farming systems database involving 18

organizations.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

alternative practices. Because farmers in local networks have had more experience in developing

farming systems that aim to reduce agrichemical

use, they offer important sources of assistance on

use-reduction and nonchemical approaches to groundwater protection. Farmer-to-farmer networks also

offer research and extension opportunities for documenting production practices to reduce groundwater

contamination that are specific for local climatic,

topographic, and hydrogeologic conditions. Closer

examination of these farmers’ production records

and methods will be required in order to evaluate the

profitability, production potential, and water-quality

impacts of these systems.

Some land-grant universities have established

formal working relationships with farmer-to-farmer

networks (55). These universities are seeking technical observations and information from farmers on

biological and cultural practices, a process that

might be considered ‘‘reverse technology transfer.

A key advantage to working with farmer-to-farmer

networks is their ability to provide locally relevant,

area-specific information on management practices

that can serve to offset agrichemical use. A possible

drawback, however, is that farmers associated with

many networks are not viewed as “typical,’ because their primary strategy for maintaining economic viability is to reduce costs rather than expand

their operations (140). Nevertheless, land-grant

university collaboration with farmer networks is one

way for universities to respond to criticisms that the

traditional agricultural research and extension system has overly emphasized research that favors

large-farm, capital-intensive agriculture.
212 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 5-H—Alternative Farming Practices: Examples Cited by Farmer-to-Farmer Networks in

OTA Survey (categories in order of decreasing frequency)

Animal Manure Management—Uses of animal manure as substitute for commercial nitrogen fertilizers;

collection and storage of animal wastes; control of run-off from storage sites or fields; comporting; application

timing and method.

Cropping Practices-Optimal sequences for crop rotations; identification of crop rotations and component

crops best suited to region; cover cropping; uses of legumes or green manures as substitutes for commercial nitrogen

fertilizers; intercropping of legumes and grains to test crop complementarily; use of legumes for improved nutrition

for livestock hay and pasture.

Tillage Practices—Experimentation with various types of tillage equipment, e.g., harrows, rod weeds,

undercutter; rotary hoes; effectiveness of tillage methods; combinations of tillage and reduced herbicide

applications as weed control system.

Comporting and Mulching Methods—Use of mulches to prevent water loss; use of mulches to add nutrients

to soil and discourage weed growth; comporting as a method of reducing waste runoff and leaching to groundwater

comporting as a method for building soil organic matter.

Soil Testing-soil testing for nitrogen to reduce the amount of purchased nitrogen fertilizer; identification of

most effective times and methods for applying animal wastes; effectiveness of cover crops and crop rotations in

building soil nitrogen.

Economic Comparisons—Economic comparisons of herbicide-based weed control systems v. tillage-based

weed control; general economic comparisons between experimental and current practices.

Pasture Utilization and Management-Grazing management methods, including rotational grazing;

increased pasture diversity and legume use; multiple species grazing.

Biological Insect and Nematode Controls-Use of diatomaceous earth for internal and external livestock

parasites; use of pheromones to control oriental fruit moth; effect of increased soil organic matter on nematode

control.

Biological Weed Controls-Use of rye (which has allelopathic properties) as a cover crop to control weeds;

use of walnut leaves to control weeds; rotational sheep grazing as weed control method.

SOURCE: Responses to OTA “Suwey of Private, Nonprofit Organizations’ Activities in Researe4 Education, and Public Policy on Farming

Practices That Can Reduee Groundwater Con tarnination.” November 1988, summarized in OTA contractor report by ‘Ihrck and

Kroese, 1989.

Therefore, land-grant university support of peer- because they lack the time to monitor field condibased information exchange within farmer-tofarmer networks can complement CES’s more

centralized mode of information and assistance

delivery. In the next decade, universities collaborating with farmer networks are likely to be the

institutions most readily able to supply farmers with

information and recommendations that fall under the

use-reduction and nonchemical approaches to reducing groundwater contamination.

Crop Management Associations

Crop Management Associations (CMAs) are local,

farmer-run, nonprofit organizations in Pennsylvania, in which farmer-members pool resources to hire

their own full-time technical help (19). Many

farmers in Pennsylvania are dairy farmers, with

average farm size of 150 to 200 acres, and they often

apply ‘‘insurance’ treatments of agrichemicals

tions closely (119). The first CMA began in 1979

when farmers requested organizational help from

their county extension agent. The Pennsylvania

State CES currently coordinates a statewide CMA

program, in which members pay annual membership

dues plus per-acre fees to employ their own field

scouts or ‘‘consultants. ’

The current CMA program has 13 CMAs, employing 15 full-time consultants with undergraduate

interns providing summer help. CMA consultants,

who typically hold bachelor’s degrees in agronomy

or related areas, gather and record crop production

data, scout insect populations, monitor crop diseases

and nutrient deficiencies, and help keep production

cost records. CMA members have documented up to

75 percent savings in production costs for chemicals,
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 213

labor, and equipment resulting from weekly field

insect scouting (75).

Since the beginning of the CMA program, some

CMAs have stopped functioning while others have

been highly successful. The main problem with the

CMA program is difficulty in recruiting and retaining good consultants, because the key to CMA

success is a competent consultant who has the trust

and confidence of its members. Members who are

not satisfied with their consultant’s performance

tend to drop out of CMAs. Since CMA consultant

jobs provide excellent learning experiences, many

consultants leave after 1 or 2 years after being

offered better-paying jobs with agrichemical companies or independent consultant fins.

The Pennsylvania CES is trying to find solutions

to the problem of employee retainment by advising

CMAs on how to provide better salaries that will

keep talented people working for them. CMA

members are currently paying about $3 to $4/acre for

consultant services, which provides annual salaries

of only $14,000/year. Pennsylvania’s CES estimates

that the minimum payment needed to retain a

consultant at an annual salary of $20,000 would be

$7/acre. Since the average CMA involves 25 farms

and 4,000 acres, $7/acre fees and annual membership dues of $100/farm would generate $30,000 to

cover a consultant’s salary and operating expenses.

Only an estimated 1 to 2 percent of Pennsylvania’s farmers participate in CMAs, presumably due

to the difficulty in convincing farmers that consultant services are worth their cost (1 19). Consequently, the Pennsylvania CES is developing a farm

recordkeeping system for personal computers, which

could make recordkeeping faster and easier; next

year CES plans to assist 100 farmers in their

recordkeeping in order to document agrichemical

and other expenditures and the costs and savings

from consultant services. Thus, if staffing problems

can be resolved and adequate documentation of

cost-savings provided, CMAs could be an effective

mechanism for CES to extend its resources and

provide technical assistance to larger numbers of

farmers.

Financial Assistance for Water

Quality Protection

Cost-share and other financial incentive programs

can encourage farmers and ranchers to implement

groundwater protection practices. Possible vehicles

for such financial assistance include Federal, State,

and local government programs. However, States

have primary responsibility for most environmental

programs, and policymakers must recognize that

State financial assistance to landowners for groundwater protection will have to compete with a

growing number of other environmental program

being implemented by the States. The 1989 National

Governor’s Association (NGA) report emphasizes

that States’ environmental program costs are quickly

outstripping government revenues (95). By the year

2000, annual Federal, State, and local costs for all

environmental programs are projected to reach $60

billion, up from $31 billion in 1977 (134).

State environmental protection programs can

receive funding from three principal sources: 1)

Federal grants designated for environmental operating budgets, construction, or capital improvements

(including Federal cost-share programs); 2) State

general revenues, which come from income, sales,

and property taxes; and 3) State sources other than

general revenues, sometimes called “Alternative

Financing Mechanisms” (AFMs), which include

user fees, permit fees, pollution discharge fees,

environmental taxes, bonds, revolving loan funds,

and compliance penalties. AFMs have become

common sources of capital and revenue for specific

environmental activities.

State funding allocated to county or watershed

programs may also be supplemented with revenues

from county or municipal governments or special

units of government, such as Soil and Water

Conservation Districts. Potential sources of State

funding (general revenue funds and AFMs) have

been administered in three ways:

. State cost-share funds administered through

State agricultural or conservation agencies and

local Conservation Districts,

. low-interest loan programs, and

. property tax breaks.

Appendix 5-1 demonstrates the variety of cost-share

and financial incentive programs by which States

have already attempted to address a range of

resource management problems in agriculture. Some

mechanisms allocate general revenue funds for

high-priority resource areas, while others establish

new income sources (AFMs).

Federal contributions to States’ environmental

programs have declined in the last 10 years. Overall,
214 • Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

EPA grants to States for environmental operations

budgets dropped 42 percent (from $499 million to

$288 million, based on 1988 dollars), between 1979

and 1988. Water quality funding fell by 50 percent

during the same period from $217 million to $108

million (134). Thus, even as States increased their

environmental programs, they received less from the

Federal Government.

Funding new environmental programs also has

been difficult because many States’ general revenues have remained at previous levels or declined.

The NGA reported that 44 States have implemented

a total of 431 different AFM programs, which

generate $3.2 billion for States’ environmental

budgets. The NGA report noted that AFMs currently

support 11 to 20 percent of State environmental

budgets but that this proportion is not likely to

become larger (95). New monies received from

AFMs, however, have often replaced general revenues that were shifted to nonenvironmental programs, resulting in little net gain in environmental

program support. Many State officials believe that

future environmental protection demands will have

to be met through increases in general revenues.

Thus, if Federal funding trends continue, and State

and local governments shoulder primary financial

responsibility, the public must recognize that increases in sales, property, or income taxes are likely

to be needed for implementation of new environmental programs.

Public-Sector Coordination To Enhance

Technical Assistance

States can improve mechanisms to expedite

research, coordinate agency actions, and disseminate information on agricultural management to

protect groundwater resources. Problem areas can be

identified, and agricultural practices appropriate for

local soil, water, and other resource conditions in the

State can be developed and promoted.

Various multi-State, State, and sub-State management programs have been established to address

single or multiple resource concerns. However, most

current programs, which focus on one or a few

resources, have arisen from separate legislative

origins and are administered by different agencies or

divisions. Producers or landowners who seek assistance on comprehensive resource management face

difficulties in bridging the separate “turfs” created

by different agencies and their programs. Some

landowners may not pursue efforts to improve

resource management because they hear conflicting

messages from public agencies. Thus, many current

programs are not designed or managed to provide

landowners with information on dealing with the

whole range of resource concerns. One exception is

Iowa’s Integrated Farm Management Demonstration program, which provides “packages” of information and assistance to farmers on soil, water, and

other crop management practices (see box 5-I).

Agricultural decisionmakers today may be concerned not only about groundwater contamination,

but also about groundwater depletion, surface water

pollution, soil erosion, sediment deposition, wetlands protection, and loss of wildlife habitat. With

Shrinking revenues and growing environmental costs,

creation of a separate groundwater protection program may be less cost-effective and more duplicative than a program which builds on existing

resource programs. Just as producers need to consider all relevant resource concerns in making farm

or ranch management decisions, State and local

governments need to develop mechanisms to review, prioritize, and coordinate their efforts in

delivering resource management assistance.

In addition, individual or scattered efforts by

self-motivated producers to seek information and

implement improved management practices may not

be sufficient to achieve desired reductions in groundwater contamination over broad regions. If States

and local communities are to achieve groundwater

protection across broad areas overlying critical

aquifers, strong public support for protection efforts

needs to be communicated to all landowners involved. Landowners will be much more motivated to

consider off-site impacts and groundwater quality if

they are made aware of the surrounding community’s interest in improved resource management

(75). Thus, landowners’ voluntary actions may

depend on hearing coordinated messages from the

public as well as from government agencies.

Some mechanisms already exist to effect broadbased coordination and public participation that can

influence individual decisionmaking on resource

management. These include decisionmaking

through Soil and Water Conservation Districts,

Resource Conservation and Development Districts,

and State Water Quality Management Boards. Other

procedures such as Coordinated Resource Management Planning could be assessed for their potential
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 215

Box 5-I—Iowa’s Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Projects

As the Nation’s highest ranking State in agrichemical use, Iowa has taken a leadership role in implementing

demonstration projects to encourage voluntary improvements in agnchemical management. Projects are designed

to improve nutrient, pesticide, crop, soil, and water management on Iowa farms and promote the integration of

agrichemical management techniques with tillage and cropping practices. Demonstration projects thus aim to

address several resource degradation problems at once, including groundwater and surface water contamination

from agrichemicals, soil erosion, and Iowa’s high consumption of nonrenewable fuels (used in the manufacture of

fertilizers and pesticides).

All projects demonstrate combined “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) or integrated management

techniques, such as evaluating nitrogen placement or herbicide banding with ridge tillage (65). However, different

projects may emphasize certain practices depending on local resource concerns, production systems, and participant

organizations. Many demonstrations involve water chemistry monitoring; testing of soils, manures, and plant

tissues; pest scouting and crop monitoring; measurements of energy consumption; and pesticide sprayer calibration.

In some cases, farmers also are assisted with crop enterprise recordkeeping, crop, livestock and land management

inventories, and cost-share for consultant services (64).

Demonstration projects have been funded with oil overcharge monies from the Iowa’s Agricultural Energy

Management Fund, agrichemical taxes and fees authorized by the Iowa Groundwater Protection Act of 1987, and

State general revenues. Project implementation has involved broad-based cooperation and coordination among: 1)

State agencies, including the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (DALS) and Iowa Department

of Natural Resources (DNR); 2) Iowa’s three public universities, including Iowa State University’s Cooperative

Extension Service (CES) and State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES); 3) nonprofit farm and conservation

groups, such as the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation and Practical Farmers of Iowa; and 4) USDA’s Agricultural

Research Service and Soil Conservation Service. Iowa’s farm management education and demonstration efforts

include five major projects.

Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Project—The Integrated Farm Management (EM) Demonstration Project is a statewide, 5-year project begun in 1987. Iowa’s CES and SAES have set up demonstration sites

at more than 300 locations, some in each of Iowa’s 99 counties. Although some demonstration sites are located at

university research centers, the majority of demonstration sites are in farmers’ fields. Extension staff design, set up,

and provide most of the labor and management required by the experimental plots, with farmers providing land,

supplies, and some labor. However, some projects are wholly operated by farmers. Each demonstration shows

replicated plots of several different management treatments for comparison, including a treatment using farmers’

current practices (64). The project, authorized to continue through the 1991 crop year, also has survey and evaluation

components to monitor local farmers’ receptivity to educational programs and effectiveness of project efforts in

changing farm practices to protect groundwater (110,30).

Butler County Integrated Crop Management Cost-Share Project—The Butler County Integrated Crop

Management (ICM) project is a 3-year pilot program which provides cost-share assistance to 50 farmer-cooperators

for implementing agrichemical-related BMPs. The purpose of the project is to assess how crop advisory services

can improve farmers’ profitability and management practices. Because the costs of advisory services to farmers are

being phased in gradually, the project also provides a test to see how services provision can be transferred to the

private sector over the 3-year period. In the first year, farmers are provided with services free-charge by six field

scouts trained by CES. The farmer-cooperators are expected to pay $1.50 and $3.00 per acre for scout services in

the second and third years, respectively, and then take over full payment for scout services when the project is over.

In 1989, the total cost of services was estimated at $4.50 per acre, with farmers saving about $20 per acre in

agrichemical costs. That year the 50 cooperators reduced nitrogen applications by about 260,000 pounds and

improved their net income overall by a total of $500,000. One farmer-cooperator reported avoiding a loss of $42,000

due to timely treatment of cutworms, while another saved $15,000 in additional fertilizer costs when soil tests

showed that he did not have to add phosphorus and potassium (66).

Watershed-Based Projects—Farm demonstration projects in three Iowa watersheds have also been established

to evaluate current farm practices, provide information on BMPs, and monitor BMP implementation. The frost and

best known project, located in the Big Spring Basin of northeast Iowa, has provided a unique outdoor ‘laboratory’

to observe groundwater impacts of farming activities in karst areas, because Big Spring is a completely agricultural

Continued on next page
216 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 5-I—Iowa's Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Projects-Continued

108-square-mile watershed draining into a single outflow (52). Virtually all 300 farmers in the Big Spring Basin,

an intensive livestock and grain area, received information on groundwater impacts and recommended manure and

fertilizer practices (69). About 40 percent of Big Spring Basin farmers had reduced their nitrogen applications after

2 years (108). In addition, Iowa CES established two other watershed projects, each with about ten cooperators, in

Audubon and Clayton Counties to demonstrate BMPs. Cooperating farmers have documented nitrogen reductions

of up to 20 percent of nitrogen and lower herbicide expenditures (67).

Model Farms Demonstration Project—Based on favorable results of previous farm demonstration projects,

the Iowa Legislature in 1989 appropriated $600,000 per year over 3 years for five additional “model farm

demonstration projects.” The model farm demonstration projects will be designed to enhance farm profitability and

reduce environmental impacts of row crop production. The model farm projects, patterned after the Big Spring and

Butler County projects, will provide information and demonstrations of integrated farm management packages

involving 15 to 50 farm demonstrators per project, with information “marketed” to residents in each multi-country

area, reaching an estimated total of 2,050,000 people statewide over the course of the project (53). All projects will

enlist the participation of local government, farm, and conservation groups. Three of the projects will involve a

3-year phase-in of crop advisory services described above, including expanded training of crop consultants,

agrichemical dealers, and staff of farm supply cooperatives.

Additional Public Education Inititives-In addition to its integrated approach to resource protection on

farms, Iowa is funding resource protection and education efforts to reach significant numbers of urban and rural

nonfarm populations as well. The Resource Enhancement and Protection Act (REAP) of 1989 authorizes

expenditures totaling $300 million over the next 10 years for environmental programs, using revenues from State

corporate income taxes, the State lottery, and a State-sponsored credit card (57). REAP provides funding to county

conservation boards and creates county and regional “Resources Enhancement Committees,” composed of

government, farm, conservation, and other local representatives, to develop 5-year plans for proposing and

implementing resource enhancement projects. REAP also authorizes funds for purchase of public lands for

permanent land retirement and resource protection and for permanent conservation plantings, all of which could

have major groundwater quality impacts. Finally, REAP provides funds for water quality protection projects which

integrate traditional soil conservation cost-share payments with agrichemical management initiatives.

Public education efforts like those provided for in REAP could help urban and rural residents recognize that

they share responsibilities with farmers in protecting the State’s natural resources. Such programs have potential

to encourage adoption of improved farm management practices in three ways: 1) encouraging urban and rural

residents to “clean up their own acts, ” since farm residents are likely to resent being ‘‘singled out’ on resource

protection efforts; 2) influencing nonfarm populations to financially support programs that help farmers implement

resource-protecting practices; and 3) stimulating broad-based local participation in resource protection efforts and

encouraging communication between nonfarm residents and farmers on local priorities and goals for resource

protection.

to help producers integrate resource management rials and programs in agricultural resource manageconcerns (5). Program coordination at the State level

could be greatly improved and public input could be

broadened to build and communicate support for

integrated resource management in agriculture.

Several agencies have developed agrichemical

management and water quality programs and educational materials that could be incorporated into more

comprehensive farm resource management planning. These include CES fertilizer and pesticide

recommendations, soil testing and field scouting

programs, educational materials on water quality,

and SCS information on water quality and Best

Management Practices. Effective use of these matement, however, depends on: 1) the validity and

usefulness of available information; 2) the degree to

which extension agents and conservationists understand and integrate the information into daily

procedures; 3) extension agents’ and conservationists’ skills in conveying new information and

techniques to landowners; and 4) their degree of

commitment in using the materials and convincing

landowners of the importance and trade-offs of

incorporating water quality and other resource

concerns into decisionmaking. CES and SCS efforts

could be coordinated better with each other and with

those of conservation districts and State government
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater • 217

agencies to ensure improved and consistent use and

updating of water quality materials.

A 1989 National Governors’ Association (NGA)

report on State initiatives addressing agricultural

impacts on water quality recognized regulatory

approaches as often being ‘‘impractical and ineffective’ and emphasized the use of voluntary approaches in encouraging farmers to reduce adverse

environmental impacts from their farm operations

(95). In supporting voluntary approaches, the report

cited five main strategies for States to consider in

setting program priorities:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

emphasizing education and technical assistance for farmers;

investing in research designed to address the

biggest information gaps and to assist areas in

greatest need;

initially placing highest priority on program

efforts with lowest costs and greatest potential

impacts;

building a comprehensive approach to resource protection, including surface water,

groundwater, and soil erosion; and

including public education in State efforts.

These strategies will require coordination and commitment of a wide variety of State and local

agencies, as well as input from State and regional

offices of Federal agencies, in order to facilitate

communication, promote implementation, and allow

for adequate program monitoring and evaluation.

A public-sector framework of State and local

agencies and local conservation districts already is

in place to provide technical and financial assistance

to farmers on reducing agrichemical contamination

of groundwater. However, some problems and

obstacles will need to be addressed to make the

system more effective in delivering needed information and assistance, and specific changes relative to

agrichemical management will need to be implemented. Whenever possible, public-sector assistance should support development of private-sector

capacity to provide information and assistance.

RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND

EDUCATION TO ENHANCE

DECISIOMAKING

In response to perceived public needs, the agricultural research and extension community has in the

past given highest priority to increased production

efficiency, providing a cheap, stable, and abundant

food supply and increasing food for export. U.S.

agriculture today, however, faces broader, long-term

public demands to reduce environmental pollution

and protect natural resources in agriculture. These

latter objectives, however, often are of low priority

for individual farmers confronted with short-term

economic pressures. Farmers and the public will

need to share responsibility for natural resource

protection if U.S. agriculture is to move away from

its emphasis on individual, production-oriented

decisionmaking toward a greater integration of

individual and societal objectives that also emphasize environmental quality.

Satisfying the broader demands placed on U.S.

agriculture will require a wider range of research,

extension, and implementation efforts that place

higher priority on natural resource protection and

environmental quality. Decisionmaking for groundwater protection represents only one aspect of the

societal need to protect natural resources in agriculture. Thus, a comprehensive approach to natural

resource protection in agriculture will not focus

solely on groundwater protection-it will also

address the need to maintain surface water quality,

air quality, water quantity, land and energy supplies,

soil productivity, plant and animal diversity, and the

pool of human knowledge and skills needed to

manage these resources. Programs to assist farmers

in making management decisions to protect groundwater could fit into a broader research and extension

strategy to enhance farmer decisionmaking to protect natural resources overall.

Enhanced Decisionmaking for Natural

Resource Protection in Agriculture

Enhanced farmer decisionmaking for natural resource protection is characterized by:

1.

2.

3.

If

an understanding of the farm’s natural resource

protection needs and appropriate priorities,

which will depend on the type of farm and the

farm’s physical setting;

an understanding of the farm as a system of

interrelated components and its relation to the

surrounding environment; and

an ability to integrate resource protection and

production objectives in short- and long-term

planning and decisionmaking.

a farm is located in a hydrogeologically

vulnerable setting, or if agrichemical management
218 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

practices are associated with a high degree of

contamination risk, the farmer’s need to reduce

groundwater contamination will be a higher priority

than some other resource concerns. In different

settings or production systems, other natural resource concerns may need to be of higher priority in

management plans. Thus, programs to enhance

farmer decisionmaking will not only have to be

broad but also flexible and adaptable to the sitespecific natural resource protection needs of each

farm.

Enhanced farmer decisionmaking to protect natural resources on a comprehensive basis will require

improved decisionmaking by researchers, policymakers,

and technical assistance agencies. Broader, multiobjective responses from the research and extension

community will be more complex and interdisciplinary than previous efforts emphasizing production

(120). This broader approach will require greater

attention to decisionmaking and increased coordination and linkages among research, extension, farmers, policymakers, and the public. Thus, multiobjective research and extension efforts will require

increased use of the social sciences and greater

support for interdisciplinary research and extension.

The United States’ capacity to support groundwater

protection decisionmaking through its research,

extension, and education systems will be framed by

these systems’ capacities to support natural resource

protection decisionmaking in general.

Research and Extension Needs To

Enhance Decisionmaking

The U.S. public agricultural research system is

linked to an extensive information and assistance

delivery system made up of State and Federal

extension, conservation, and financial agencies

(146,142,40,16,97). To date, agricultural research

priorities- shaped by individual scientists’ interests, Federal competitive grants programs, State

legislative priorities, agricultural experiment station

policies, scientific societies, and trade associations—

have primarily emphasized technological research

for obtaining “low cost, safe food, and efficient

production” (82). As a result, technology-based

priorities have also been emphasized in the agricultural information and assistance delivery system.

Less attention has been paid to farmer constraints to

adopting technologies (101) and to socioeconomic

and environmental impacts that can result from

technology adoption (1 15).

Need for Broader Research Input and

Two-Way Information Exchange

Although the U.S. agricultural research and extension system was originally created to meet farmer

needs, the main focus of the research and extension

system has shifted since World War II toward

development of science-based production technologies (115). Less emphasis has been placed on farmer

needs and constraints, particularly as they relate to

natural resource protection in agriculture. To a great

extent, the prevailing agricultural technology transfer process can now be characterized as a “topdown” and centralized flow of information from

researchers to extension specialists to progressive

farmers having the management skills and capital

resources to invest in new technologies (128,16).

The prevailing model of agricultural technology

transfer also embodies a widely accepted view that

innovations will spread from progressive farmers to

less innovative farmers (see box 5-J). The prevailing

perspective on technology transfer has been useful in

explaining farmer adoption of commercially successful technologies that increase productivity or net

returns, but it has not been as applicable to understanding adoption of less profitable, “environmental” technologies that protect natural resources

(113).

Similarly, the technology-based, top-down approach to agricultural research and extension has

worked extremely well in promoting productivity

increases, but it may not work as well in facilitating

natural resource protection (103). In fact, the current

agricultural research and extension system’s record

in promoting natural resource protection in U.S.

agriculture is relatively poor—American farmers

continue to lose 3 billion tons of topsoil every year,

and many areas of the country have failed to achieve

extensive implementation of farming practices that

reduce soil erosion and water quality degradation

(34,103). Since natural resource protection practices

for agriculture (e.g., BMPs) typically have been

developed and presented to farmers through “topdown” research and extension programs, inappropriate technology transfer approaches may be one

reason why farmers have not extensively adopted

natural resource protection practices throughout the

United States (113).

Prevailing views on the agricultural technology

transfer process appear to have shaped research and

extension relationships with farmers over the last
.

Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 219

BOX 5-J—Agricultural Innovations and the Legacy of Diffusion Research

“Diffusion” in agriculture is the process by which innovations, or different ideas, are communicated and

adopted among farmers over time (128). The most influential early article on diffusion of innovations was on

adoption of hybrid corn in Iowa (130). Diffusion research on farmer adoption of hybrid corn and other commercially

successful innovations has led to widely held perceptions among agricultural researchers about the ways

innovations spread among farmers.

Hybrid corn was developed by researchers at Iowa State University and other hind-grant universities and

released in Iowa in 1928, Farmers prior to that time grew their own open-pollinated corn and saved seed for planting

the following year. Hybrid corn increased yields per acre by 20 percent but lost its yield-producing vigor if planted

the next year. Farmers switching to hybrid corn thus had to purchase seed every year, which meant significant

changes in management behavior. Agricultural extension agents and seed salespersons heavily promoted the

innovation (128).

Ryan and Gross traced the adoption of hybrid corn among 259 Iowa farmers between 1928 and 1941. They

found that the adoption rate formed an “S-shaped curve” over time. Only 10 percent of the farmers had adopted

hybrid corn in the first 5 years, after which the number of adopters increased rapidly. About 40 percent of the farmers

adopted hybrid corn by 1936, with the adoption curve soon leveling off as fewer and fewer non-adopters remained.

Early adopters were described in positive terms as ‘‘innovators’ and were observed to have larger farms, higher

incomes, and more education. Non-adopters were described in negative terms (e.g., ‘laggards ‘), and were observed

to be less educated or less well-traveled (20,130).

Diffusion studies of hybrid corn and other highly profitable agricultural technologies, such as commercial.

fertilizer, in the 1940s and 1950s established the precedent for a ‘‘classical diffusion model” in adoption research

(42). By the 1970s, however, social scientists were beginning to find flaws in the classical model: 1) a

‘‘pro-innovation bias, ’ which caused researchers to view all innovations as improvements over existing practices;

2) an “individual-blame bias,” when individuals did not adopt an innovation, rather than finding some fault with

the “system” or change agent; and 3) overemphasis on centralized ‘‘top-down’ communication from researcher

to successful farmer to rank-and-file farmer, with inattention to farmer-to-farmer information exchange as a means

of disseminating information (128,77).

Although rural sociologists recognize shortcomings of the classical diffusion model, agricultural scientists in

other disciplines may not be sufficiently informed about the limitations of the diffusion model. Many scientists’

perceptions about farmer adoption of innovations are still shaped by the classical model, which may cause them to

approach research and extension with the model’s biases (24). A pro-innovation research perspective, however,

could lead to unrealistic expectations about simple solutions, or ‘‘technological fixes’ for groundwater

contamination and other environmental problems in agriculture. Too much emphasis may be placed on developing

bio-engineered products, for example, at the expense of research on improving management practices and

information delivery methods.

The pro-innovation perspective in agriculture also may help explain some researchers’ and farmers’ views that

certain technologies, such as crop rotations, represent the “horse-and-buggy days” and are steps ‘‘backward’ for

the farmer. Research and extension perspectives on the nature and desirability of innovations will influence the

research base and educational approaches taken to encourage farmers to change behavior or practices (128,25,75).

five decades. Farmers who have interacted most ment skills than operators of smaller farms. As a

with researchers in the past have frequently been

members of specialized commodity groups, many of

which sponsor ‘‘commodity check-off programs’

(16). Such programs generate research funds by

allocating a small amount of money per commodity

unit sold for commodity-oriented research. In addition, large farm operators with greater capital

resources are recognized as being more capable of

investing in new productivity-increasing technologies and are often considered to have better manageresult, agricultural researchers have had much more

input from specialized producers with larger farming

operations than from farmers with more diversified

operations who may not view expansion as a high

priority. In fact, researchers have had disincentives

to seek advice of diversified farmers interested in

reduced-input or nonchemical production methods,

because these farmers are in the minority (141) and

they are not viewed as traditional community

opinion leaders. Furthermore, many diversified farm-
220 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

ers have been discouraged from approaching researchers about their information needs, because

they perceive research and extension to be uninterested in and uninformed about alternative production methods (140). As a result, farmers who want to

experiment with biological and cultural production

methods largely have sought information and advice

from each other.

Although early adoption and diffusion research in

the 1950s identified peer groups as playing major

roles in the technology adoption process, little

research has been done on them since. Thus,

information is lacking on their roles and effectiveness in disseminating farming practices (103). Recent social research findings provide insights on the

types and sources of information farmers use when

making farm practice changes, and these findings

appear to be relevant to adoption of natural resource

protection practices. Farmers appear to use three

general learning techniques in considering farm

practice changes:

1. informational learning through exposure to

and gathering of information;

2. observational learning through examination of

on-site farm practices; and

3. experiential learning through implementation,

correcting mistakes, and additional practice

(172).

Informational learning can be done through more

formal, established sources of information, but

observational and experiential learning tend to be

achieved by observing different practices on one’s

own farm or other farms, comparing relative successes of various practices achieved by other farmers, and informal discussions with other farmers. In

other words, the relevant source of information

during technology adoption appears to shift when

the farmer moves from an initial knowledgegathering phase to a later phase when different

practices are compared, selected, and implemented

(103). Farmer-to-farmer networks could thus play

important roles in helping farmers reduce the risk of

adopting resource-protecting practices by providing

social support, discussions with experienced peers,

opportunities to observe field trials, and a sitespecific structure in which to compare and test new

practices.

The prevailing agricultural research and extension

system has not facilitated broad farmer input into the

research and extension process or mechanisms that

promote and support peer-based learning among

farmers. Technical assistance programs that promote on-farm trials and information transfer may be

necessary to effect widespread farm practice changes

to protect natural resources. Thus, if farmers are to

achieve locally desired goals for resource protection

in their areas, two kinds of research and information

delivery may be needed to provide two very different

types of support: 1) the prevailing research and

extension system to develop new technologies and

systems and disseminate technical information,

modified to accommodate farmer-based experiential

learning and facilitate communication from farmers

to researchers; and 2) a farmer-based system that

encourages on-farm recordkeeping, experimentation, and information-sharing and is actively supported by the research and extension system.

Need for a “Farming Systems Perspective”

in Research and Extension

Additional criticisms have been raised about the

U.S. agricultural research and extension system

relating particularly to the lack of attention to farmer

needs and constraints in technology adoption and

natural resource protection. Critics have argued that:

●

●

●

●

●

●

research topics and technological developments are derived from within scientific disciplines and are advanced because of professional rather than societal needs;

little interdisciplinary interaction occurs among

scientists, with resultant gaps in knowledge

critical to the development of socioeconomic

and technological bases for environmental

protection in agriculture;

researchers’ tend to view all farmers as a

homogeneous group, e.g., assuming that attention to the needs of a single commodity group

is beneficial to all farmers;

emphasis on capital-intensive technologies tends

to skew research benefits toward larger farms

(16);

communication is lacking between farmers and

researchers and little connection exists between

the direction of researchers’ efforts and farmers’ needs (84);

attention is lacking to dissemination and institutional processes that facilitate technology

adoption (103); and
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 221

● it is assumed that traditional information dissemination methods are effective and solely in

need of more sophisticated technologies, e.g.,

computers, teleconferencing (103).

These criticisms of the prevailing U.S. agricultural research and technology transfer process have

been strongly articulated by researchers working in

less-developed countries. In many of these countries, technical assistance methodologies like those

implemented in the United States have been unsuccessful in increasing productivity because of farmers’ socioeconomic and natural resource constraints

(145,24). These observations have led to the development of other, more comprehensive research and

extension approaches that focus on farmers, their

constraints to technology adoption, and the socioeconomic and institutional contexts of farmer decisionmaking. These approaches are characterized by

a ‘ ‘farming systems perspective’ that is intended to

complement rather than replace the more top-down,

technology-oriented research and extension approach (115).

Farming systems approaches include “farming

systems research’ (115,1 31) and the ‘farmer-first-andlast’ method in agricultural research and extension

(24). Farming systems research is concerned with

the ‘ ‘optimization of the farming system as a whole’

rather than optimization of production of a particular

commodity (16), while the farmer-first-and-last

approach strives to gain understanding of farmers’

priorities and choices, then develop and refine

strategies in collaboration with farmers (25). Farming systems approaches begin by considering farm

practice changes in the context of farmers’ social,

economic, institutional, and environmental constraints. Although farming systems approaches originally were developed for use in other countries

where resource constraints are more severe, many

land-grant universities have recognized the relevance and usefulness of the farming systems perspective in the United States and have implemented

farming systems research methods in local agricultural projects (115). A farming systems approach

appears to be a highly appropriate method to

facilitate adoption of natural resource protection

practices, because this approach is based on an

understanding of actual constraints to technology

adoption.

Need for Increased Interdisciplinary

Research Which Includes Social and

Environmental Sciences

Research for enhanced decisionmaking is farmerfocused and interdisciplinary in nature, requires

communication with farmers or other community

members, and usually involves participation by

social scientists. However, several constraints exist

to increasing this type of research. First, definitions,

methodologies, and protocols for interdisciplinary

research in the agricultural and social sciences are

not well developed. Increasing the amount of

interdisciplinary research conducted in the agricultural research system, for example, will require clear

definitions and criteria for the terms ‘ ‘interdisciplinary’ and ‘‘multidisciplinary, ’ which are different

but often used interchangeably. Interdisciplinary

research implies that scientists within several disciplines (and in some cases, nonscientist-members of

advisory groups) interact in an organized fashion to

assure that the overall research direction attempts to

mitigate social conflicts and to address societal

concerns relating to research implementation. Multidisciplinary research, on the other hand, implies

that scientists from several disciplines contribute to

the research but it does not imply that they work

together or with other members of the nonscientific

community to identify and resolve cross-sectoral or

social conflicts in the research design (145).

Federal agency support for agricultural research

expressly recognizes the importance of ‘multidisciplinary” research, because applied problems are

widely recognized to require collaboration among

scientists from several scientific disciplines (96).

However, the types and numbers of disciplines that

should be involved in multidisciplinary research are

not specified. As a result, the objectives, activities,

and methods of multidisciplinary approaches like

farming systems research have not been welldefined. The term “farming systems” thus has

become a “catch-all” to include “any research that

does not fall within the conventional, institutional

categories of commodity or disciplinary research’

(131).

Second, agricultural scientists may be reluctant to

collaborate with social scientists or farmers on

farmer-based approaches to protect natural resources,

because traditional, disciplinary efforts toward developing productivity-increasing technologies are

associated with the greatest academic and profes-
222 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

sional rewards. For example, site-specific research

based on suggestions from farmer advisory groups is

less likely to be published in more prestigious

professional journals than it is in State agricultural

experiment station bulletins and reports. Moreover,

professional scientific societies typically have developed around individual disciplines and thus have

less interest in mechanisms to support interdisciplinary research.

Third, less financial support has been available for

research to enhance decisionmaking than for other

production-oriented research areas. Federal competitive grants for agricultural research, for example, do

not support work in the social sciences (103). As a

result, funding sources for farmer-based approaches

are most likely to come from State funding or from

Federal formula funds, which are not necessarily

allocated on the basis of social science needs.

Support for research to enhance farmers’ decisionmaking depends on the degree of State governments

commitment to this type of effort, and some States

have taken more steps in this direction than others.

State support of farming practice demonstrations

and on-farm experimentation to improve agrichemica1 management is particularly strong in Iowa, for

example, which has made a policy commitment to

agricultural resource stewardship.

Need for Increased Interdisciplinary

Training and Education

State land-grant university and vocational agricultural education programs provide the research

and education base for agricultural activities within

each State. The State’s agricultural schools train

many of the people who become local agricultural

professionals: farmers, agrichemical dealers, agricultural consultants, and public-sector workers in

agricultural agencies. Thus, the agricultural education system can play a long-term role in enhancing

the technical expertise available to farmers in

responding to environmental concerns (box 5-K).

A key issue in enhancing the ability of researchers, extension workers, and educators to respond to

multi-dimensional problems in agriculture is the

need for interdisciplinary training that encourages

professionals to think more comprehensively and

inclusively. Researchers and technical assistance

professionals with a broadened outlook will be more

likely to cultivate interagency contacts and obtain

information from a wider range of sources. This

could increase interagency coordination, help avoid

duplication, and expedite the flow of technical

assistance to the areas that need it most. Enhanced

decisionmaking by researchers and technical assistance personnel could be facilitated through: 1)

interdisciplinary components in postsecondary education and professional programs, 2) pre-service or

in-service training stressing interdisciplinary coordination and discussion, and 3) strong administration agency commitment to interdisciplinary communication and interaction.

Enhanced Decisionmaking for

Groundwater Protection

Two-pronged technical assistance efforts, which

use conventional and farming systems approaches,

may be especially appropriate in providing farmers

with information and support on appropriate farming

practices in hydrogeologically sensitive areas. In

areas where a groundwater contamination problem

has been clearly identified, integrating the conventional technology transfer process with a farming

systems approach could provide an improved understanding of the most relevant farmer constraints to

adopting remedial practices. Involuntary groundwater protection programs, a farming systems approach

thus could improve the effectiveness of educational

efforts. In the case of regulatory programs, a farming

systems perspective could help researchers and

policymakers identify regulations that could be

implemented more easily. Traditional extension and

technical assistance approaches through CES and

SCS will probably continue to be the best vehicles

for providing farmers with technical information on

patterns and severity of groundwater contamination,

likely mode of contamination (point v. nonpoint

source), and how management of the pertinent

physical aspects of the farm could be changed to

reduce contamination.

An initial prerequisite for an effective voluntary

approach to reducing groundwater contamination is

a clear definition of the contamin ation problem.

However, the quality of information provided by

technical assistance personnel will depend on the

extent of State and local groundwater testing efforts

and State commitment to understanding the problem. Additional prerequisites for effective voluntary

programs are an in-depth understanding of current

farming practices and farmer constraints, and support for farmers’ observational and experiential

validation of proposed farm practice changes. These

latter requirements are best met through farming
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 223

Box 5-K—Integrating Postsecondary Agricultural and Environmental Education

Postsecondary undergraduate institutions in agriculture and natural resources (ANR) provide the bulk of

agricultural training in the United States. Undergraduate ANR institutions are of three types:

● 74 land-grant colleges, established by two Acts of Congress in 1862 and 1890, and which belong to the

Division of Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

(NASULGC);

. 65 non-land-grant colleges, which belong to the American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and

Renewable Resources (AASCARR); and

. 45 forestry schools, with curricula accredited by the Society of American Foresters. Nineteen of these

programs are offered by land-grant and AASCARR institutions (86).

In 1987, a total of approximately 78,000 baccalaureate students were enrolled in agriculture and natural

resources programs in all ANR colleges. About one-tenth of these students were natural resources majors. About

57,000 of all ANR students were enrolled in land-grant colleges (36,37). This compares to a total 1988

undergraduate enrollment in all United States colleges of 7.8 million students, with an expected 2.7 million students

expected to graduate from all high schools that year (26). Roughly one-tenth of one percent of all undergraduate

students in the United States are enrolled in agricultural and natural resources programs.

Enhancing environmental technical assistance in agriculture requires consideration of the following questions:

. Who currently provides technical assistance to farmers and how have these persons been trained? Are these

persons adequately trained in the agricultural and environmental sciences to help farmers achieve significant

reductions in adverse environmental impacts?

. How can the current supply of agricultural assistance professionals improve their knowledge and skills in

environmental and agricultural sciences?

. How can future agricultural science graduates be better trained in the environmental sciences and vice versa?

● Will the supply of future graduates meet the demand for increased environmental technical assistance in

agriculture?

The following programs could enhance the environmental knowledge and skills obtained by students in ANR

colleges:

● general environmental awareness courses;

. environmental studies minor programs, such as those offered by the University of Wisconsin and Rutgers

University;

● professional programs in environmental sciences/studies;

. continuing professional education programs in environmental awareness/sciences; and

. agricultural teacher education programs with strong environmental components (86).

Some attempts have been made to include a “systems approach” to curriculum development and

problem-solving in the agricultural sciences (1 1,1 76). The National Agricultural and Natural Resources Curriculum

Project’s Food and Agricultural Systems Task Group developed an education source book for faculty members

wishing to encourage students to consider the broad range of socioeconomic and environmental impacts in

coursework involving problem-solving (91). Efforts of the task force represent initial steps toward making ANR

educational programs more comprehensive and likely to address social and environmental concerns.

systems approaches, including individual case stud- Planning and Objective-Setting

ies, farmer surveys, support of farmer-to-farmer Traditional agricultural research and extension

information networks, development of recordkeep- efforts in the area of farmer decisionmaking have

ing and planning tools for farmers, advisory serv- concentrated largely on farmers’ short-term or

ices, and on-farm experimentation and demonstra- tactical decisions made throughout the crop production plots. Iowa’s Integrated Farm Management tion cycle (103). When research and extension have

Program is an example of a well-developed farmer-

. ,

focused on more long-term farm management decibased program with documented effectiveness in sions, such efforts have emphasized development of

reducing farmers agrichemical expenditures and production-related ‘‘enterprise budgets’ or assisapplication rates (see box 5-I). tance in making strategic decisions related to capital
224 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater —

investments and enterprise expansion. As a result,

substantial gaps exist in knowledge and methods

needed to make strategic resource protection decisions and to integrate production and resource

protection objectives in farm management. Research

and extension could provide increased support for

strategic, long-term planning for agricultural resource protection and devote greater effort to estimating benefits and costs of resource protection

efforts in both the short- and long-terms.

One promising approach to addressing these gaps

is through the USDA Soil Conservation Service’s

concept known as ‘‘progressive conservation planning, ” which encourages land users to go beyond

implementation of single conservation structures to

address all relevant resource management concerns

on the farm (122). Since most land users come to

SCS at first to obtain help with a single conservation

practice (e.g., installing a grassed waterway to

alleviate particularly severe gully erosion), a progressive planning process could help them consider

more long-term resource protection objectives. However, SCS methods for progressive conservation

planning do not appear to be well defined and other

responsibilities typically are more pressing for SCS

conservationists. Decisionmaking guidelines and a

list of environmental and economic ‘‘trade-offs’ to

consider in conservation planning could help landowners identify and begin to integrate production

and resource objectives (161).

Some private organizations also have tried to

address gaps in strategic resource planning assistance for farmers by developing planning methods

and materials. For example, the Center for Rural

Affairs in northeast Nebraska, has developed a

‘‘Resource Audit and Planning Guide for Integrated

Farm Management” (22,23). Another planning approach to long-term resource protection for range

management, called Holistic Resource Management

(132), also has applications for crop producers (88).

Farmers’ integration of long-term resource planning

with crop production objectives will be facilitated by

development and widespread use of educational and

planning materials and methods.

Recordkeeping and Information Management

Demands for more and better information in

agriculture have grown with concerns about controlling adverse environmental impacts, and resource

protection goals will require farmers to take even

more factors into account when making managePhoto credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Reward Service

Field scouts can monitor crop conditions and pest

populations, providing farmers with more accurate

information on pests to avoid unnecessary pesticide

applications. Here, researchers check pheromone-baited

traps in a peach orchard.

ment decisions (72). Improved recordkeeping and

information management tools would help farmers

and other land users integrate their production and

resource protection objectives. At the individual

farm level, keeping records of the types, amounts,

and locations of agrichemical use would enable

farmers to track costs and benefits of nutrient and

pest management inputs. At the aggregate level,

agrichemical use records would help researchers

evaluate agrichemical use patterns and their relationships to hydrogeologically vulnerable areas.

Agrichemical use records thus could be used to

identify areas where more intensive educational

efforts or stricter regulations could be implemented

to achieve the greatest improvements in groundwater quality.

The collection and evaluation of records on

aggregate agrichemical use will involve some type

of reporting to a government agency. California

currently is the only State in which private and
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 225

commercial agricultural applicators are required to

keep records and report agrichemical use to the

State. Many States require commercial applicators

to keep records of agrichemicals applied for periods

of 1 to 3 years, but few States require annual

reporting. Outside of California, no State has a

recordkeeping system to track the extent and locations of agrichemical use, nor does the Federal

Government currently maintain a national agrichemicaluse database. Better information on agrichemical

use, which would help farmers and policymakers

evaluate potential impacts of farming practice changes,

could be obtained through voluntary or obligatory

reporting programs.

Many members of the agricultural community,

however, are deeply concerned about potential

liability associated with government agencies’ use

of records in assessing agrichemical use patterns.

Fear of liability thus could reduce farmers’ participation in voluntary recordkeeping programs to the

extent that any data collected would not provide a

sufficient or accurate basis for improved policymaking. Farmers will be more likely to keep records and

report agrichemical use voluntarily if they are

exempted from liability or if they receive assurance

that label-directed use will not make them liable for

environmental contamin ation by agrichemicals. In

the case of obligatory agrichemical use reporting,

farmers might choose to reduce their liability

concerns by having commercial applicators apply

agrichemicals for them.

Computer and Information Technologies

State and local governments and agricultural

extension need to use relevant and effective formats

in presenting information to farmers on protecting

groundwater and other natural resources. If information is presented in a format that is not used by

farmers in resource-affected areas, it will not induce

land users to make desired farm practice changes. In

Iowa’s Big Spring Basin project, for example, even

traditional information formats such as extension

pamphlets, field demonstrations, and trade fairs

were used by a minority of farmers in learning about

agrichemical contamination of groundwater (103).

This needs to be considered when evaluating the

potential effectiveness of newer formats such as

computer models. If some traditional formats, which

have been available for 50 years, are used by less

than 20 percent of all farmers, it may not be realistic

to expect widespread audience receptivity to newer

formats (126).

Computer software programs can be important

tools in improving agrichemical decisionmaking.

The effectiveness of computer tools for use on the

farm in improving agrichemical management, however, could be limited by the low percentage of

farmers who own and use computers for farm

management purposes. Roughly 12 to 14 percent of

all farmers use personal computers, mainly for

financial recordkeeping and tax purposes (72). Large

farm operators presently account for most sales of

agricultural software and this trend seems likely to

continue in the future.

The private sector has been active in developing,

selling, and supporting microcomputer software for

such purposes as improving nutrient, pesticide, crop,

and water management (e.g., Deane’s Information

Services) (32). Because the agricultural software

market is small, however, it does not generate a high

volume of demand. Thus, the trend is for the private

sector to increase agricultural software costs per

customer (85), which restricts agricultural software

accessibility to producers who can afford it.

Some computer software and support services

also are available to producers at little or no cost at

CES and SCS offices. These include information

systems such as SS1S (soil survey information

systems) or software programs for improved agrichemical selection and management (box 5-L). Pesticide

and nutrient management programs available from

CES in some regions to improve agrichemical

decisionmaking include:

●

●

●

herbicide use decision-support packages, such

as SOYHERB (124,80,71);

Integrated Pest Management packages, such as

the Field Crops Insect Management program

(74); and

plant disease decision-support packages, such

as a computer-based advisory system for soybean plant diseases (137).

Expert systems for integrating whole-farm management are under development at the Univerity of

Missouri (62), The Pennsylvania State University

(8), and Michigan State University (58). A national

research and development effort is also underway to

implement a national Computer-Aided DecisionSupport System (CADSS) that will attempt to

integrate existing and evolving modules into a
226 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 5-L-Soil Survey Information System

County soil survey reports, which contain information on the locations of different types of soils,

are large, technical documents which are difficult

and time-consuming to interpret manually. The Soil

Survey Information System, or SSIS, is a computer

software package developed for the State of Minnesota to quickly access the soil survey, relate it to a

specific tract of land, and present the information in

a graphic display or printout (6).

SSIS accesses soils information for one section

of land at a time. (One section equals 1 square mile,

or 640 acres.) Depending on information available,

a county’s SSIS program can incorporate physical

and chemical properties of soils (soil texture, pH,

organic matter), soil productivity, and groundwater

pollution susceptibility by nitrates and some pesticides.

SSIS was developed at the University of Minnesota for use on standard microcomputers by extension and county government staff, State policy

makers, students, and individual landowners. SSIS

has been used principally to appraise individual

land parcels, make recommendations on soils and

crop management, and establish field eligibility for

State and Federal conservation programs (i.e.,

Conservation Reserve Program), On farms, SSIS

can be used to select sites for soil samples, improve

fertilizer and herbicide management, and develop

conservation and cropping plans. SSIS, currently

only developed for the State of Minnesota, has been

incorporated into another software program,

SOILSAMP, which allows farmers to keep track of

soil samples taken within fields.

SSIS maps can also be overlaid with other

digitized maps such as land use, land ownership,

vegetation, and drainage patterns, Map overlays are

useful to county and State program officers to

identify target areas, allocate resources or incentives programs, or concentrate educational efforts.

database system cross-linking information from

several sources (60). CADSS will utilize national,

regional, and local services of ARS, CES, and CSRS

and include an environmental component.

Integrated research efforts on production systems

also employ computer programs coordinated

through artificial intelligence to produce information for farmers addressing multiple production and

resource concerns (173). Although such systems

may in the future provide more comprehensive

information to farmers, their current use appears to

be more applicable to developing basic computer

systems technologies and identifying interactions in

basic and applied research rather than meeting

existing needs of individual farmers.

POLICY OPTIONS TO SUPPORT

IMPROVED DECISIONMAKING

ON AGRICHEMICAL USE

People who make decisions about nutrient and

pest management in agriculture constitute a diverse

group and include private applicators, commercial

applicators, and the individuals who advise them.

The commercial sector is probably just as important

to consider as private applicators, because roughly

half of all agricultural agrichemicals are applied by

commercial applicators, and agrichemical dealers

are responsible for advising large numbers of private

applicators. A comprehensive approach to improving nutrient and pest management decisions to

reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater

will consider activities by all types of agrichemical

applicators and advisors. Comprehensive approaches

to enhancing nutrient and pest management will

include improved point-source controls, more efficient agrichemical application, and agrichemical use

reduction through greater efficiency and nonchemical practices.

A variety of congressional options exist to provide assistance to private and commercial applicators, agrichemical dealers, and environmental advisory firms to reduce agrichemical contamination of

groundwater. These options commonly require broadening of agricultural research, education, and technical assistance objectives, expanded information

gathering, and increased agency coordination.

Options To Assist Agrichemical Applicators

Assistance can be provided to agrichemical applicators in several ways to improve nutrient and pest

management decisions. The range of assistance

available to applicators, however, will depend on the

local ‘‘mix” of State, local, and Federal education,

demonstration, groundwater monitoring, and financial support programs. Assistance opportunities will

be influenced by the degree of coordination and

commitment among public-sector assistance personnel; expertise and services available in the

private sector; and presence of farmer-to-farmer

information and referral networks. The more oppor-
Ch. 5---Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater • 227

tunities that are available, the more likely applicators will be able to make nutient and pest management decisions that reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

Publicly funded assistance programs can be

designed to address needs of al! or only some of the

applicators in an affected area. Intervention programs to assist farmers in changing practices to

reduce groundwater contamination can begin by first

obtaining profiles of the ‘‘target’ population of

farmers in the area, their resources, constraints, and

typical management practices. Such profiles can

identify groups needing different assistance strategies, common mismanagement problems, and individuals who are likely to need more assistance based

on their practices, available resources, and location

relative to critical groundwater supplies.

Agrichemical Use Information

Many agricultural producers do not keep routine

field records of the types, amounts, and locations of

agrichemicals used. More accurate and complete

agrichemical use information at the farm level would

have two main benefits. First, agrichemical use

information would help producers and technical

assistance personnel evaluate whether excess or

inappropriate agrichemicals are being applied and

any costs involved. Second, aggregated information

on agrichemical use would help policymakers evaluate impacts of proposed pesticide regulations or

other agrichemical restrictions that could affect

agricultural production. Voluntary or regulatory

programs to track agrichemical use will call for

agrichemical recordkeeping and some type of reporting system for evaluation.

Congress could direct USDA to develop and

support on-farm agrichemical record keeping and

reporting systems to facilitate agrichemical t racking. Agrichemical recordkeeping provides the means

for farmers to quantify and evaluate nutrient and pest

management costs. Recordkeeping may be the most

important prerequisite to reducing the gap between

actual agrichemical rates used and rates that are

economically and environmentally optimal. Farmerbased assistance programs in Pennsylvania and Iowa

indicate that recordkeeping efforts can reduce unnecessary expenditures for agrichemicals. Quantification of excess agrichemical costs could provide

significant motivation for farmers to optimize or

reduce agrichemical use.

Congress could direct USDA to conduct economic analyses of agrichemical use based on

national and regional agrichemical use databases. Agricultural economists and other social

scientists have insufficient information with which

to assess economic impacts of proposed changes in

agrichemical use, largely because so few data are

available on actual types and amounts used at the

individual farm level. Economics of nutrient and

pesticide practices thus have not been studied

sufficiently at the individual farm, regional, or

national levels in order to make sound predictions

about the feasibility of management changes. Since

severe groundwater contamination problems may

result in proposals to restrict, reduce, or replace

agrichemicals in some areas, economic analyses

based on actual agrichemical use could be used to

determine courses of action most economically

feasible for producers.

Information on Alternative Agricultural

Practices

Producers and policymakers are asking for information on costs and benefits of alternative practices

that could at least partially replace agrichemicals

and on the distribution of these costs and benefits

among farmers and agribusinesses. Currently available research includes: 1) economic returns derived

from research plot data, 2) direct comparisons of

economic returns from conventional farms with

returns from farms using fewer agrichemical inputs,

and 3) comparisons based on modeling (18). However, research on alternative practices and farming

systems is limited and fraught with conflicting

results, which may reflect the sensitivity of such

research to assumptions about the economic potential of alternative practices (10).

Farmers who have implemented alternative practices can be found in nearly every region of the

United States, although these farmers constitute a

small minority. Case studies examining these farmers’ experiences can identify promising alternative

practices (96), but it is unlikely that the majority of

farmers will adopt alternative practices rapidly,

especially without better documentation of costs and

benefits (141). Because additional time, labor,

financial, and other management inputs usually are

needed to achieve agrichemical substitution, the

transferability of alternative farmers’ successes or

failures is difficult to predict without more comprehensive data from case studies.
228 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Congress could direct USDA to assess and

address research needs for conducting comparative economic analyses of agrichemical-based

and alternative farming practices. Adequate economic documentation will be a key prerequisite for

wider adoption of unfamiliar alternative practices

and systems. Information from an assessment of

comparative benefits and costs of agrichemicalbased technologies and alternative practices would

facilitate decisionmaking on farm practice changes.

Research questions for such an assessment include:

What types of alternative practices are being used as

viable replacements for agrichemicals? What adjustments in management, crop choices, and production

practices have farmers made to accommodate alternative practices? What were the costs involved and

benefits gained? Valid economic comparisons are

likely to require better accounting and valuation of

nonpurchased inputs, environmental impacts, and

beneficial and adverse interactions occurring in

alternative production systems. Since alternative

farmers typically produce a variety of commodities

through diversified enterprises, economic analysis

of alternative farming systems is less clear-cut than

analysis of specialized commodity production. Thus,

economic comparisons of alternative and conventional farming systems must be carefully designed,

since USDA data on production costs are tracked on

the basis of individual commodities and use of these

data may be inappropriate in comparing conventional and alternative production systems.

Options for Applicator Certification

and Training

The primary current means of encouraging proper

management of commercial fertilizers and generaluse pesticides is an ‘‘honor system’ based on

customers’ voluntary compliance with labeling instructions. Proper management of restricted-use

pesticides (RUPs), on the other hand, is encouraged

through labeling information and EPA and State

requirements that all RUP applicators be certified or

under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

Agrichemical management procedures and applicator training and certification programs are important

areas for Federal and State Governments to assess in

efforts to reduce agrichemical contamination of

groundwater.

Obtaining an Overview of State Programs

EPA does not maintain a regularly updated

national overview of State pesticide applicator

certification and training programs. No national

guidelines for the Pesticide Applicator Training

program exist, and the quality of the training varies

greatly by State. The lack of guidelines and a

national overview makes it difficult to obtain an

overall picture for assessing the status of applicator

certification and training programs and their adequacy in addressing environmental concerns that are

relevant to each State. Furthermore, EPA and most

States can only roughly estimate the numbers of

persons applying general-use pesticides in agriculture and of noncertified RUP applicators under

the direct supervision of certified applicators. Better

information on agrichemical applicators would enable policymakers to more accurately assess benefits

and costs of providing enhanced certification and

training programs. Better documentation and reporting on applicators also would provide incentives for

improving agrichemical management.

Congress could authorize EPA to maintain a

regularly updated national overview of State

pesticide programs, including applicator certification and training requirements. The lack of

regular Federal oversight on State applicator programs nationwide could hamper national responsiveness to environmental concerns related to pesticide use. Currently, a major obstacle to obtaining

State information on a regular basis is the Federal

paperwork-reduction regulation requiring Federal

agencies to obtain permission from the Office of

Management and Budget to send survey questionnaires to more than nine States at a time. EPA

authorization to maintain national pesticide program

overviews could provide a specific exemption from

paperwork-reduction regulations for the purposes of

assessing the status and adequacy of State pesticide

programs, Alternatively, State reporting requirements to EPA could be expanded to include State

program updates on a regular basis.

Congress could direct EPA and States to create

and maintain a national database on pesticide

applicators. States could require that the number of

noncertified applicators supervised by each certified

applicator be registered annually. States could annually report numbers and types of applicator certifications and numbers of noncertified applicators. Information on numbers of applicators would improve
Ch. 5--Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 229

benefit-cost analyses of proposed voluntary programs or regulatory changes to improve management skills and systematic oversight of pesticide

applicators.

Congress could direct EPA and States to create

and maintain a national database on agrichemical dealerships. States could report numbers and

locations of licensed facilities. Accurate information

on numbers of agrichemical dealerships would

improve benefit-cost analyses of proposed regulatory changes regarding dealership facilities or employee training requirements.

Aiming To Reduce Agrichemical

Mismanagement and Waste

Agrichemical mismanagement includes use of

inappropriate agrichemicals or formulations, use of

excess application rates, mixing or disposal in areas

at high risk of contaminating water sources, application at inappropriate times or under wrong weather

conditions, and improper disposal, all of which

contribute to the release of unnecessarily high

amounts of agrichemicals to the surrounding environment. The risk of agrichemical mismanagement

appears to be high, and has potentially serious

consequences in hydrogeologically sensitive areas.

Information on the extent and types of agrichemical

mismanagement, the situations and settings where it

is most likely to occur, and the most cost-effective

interventions for its reduction could aid development of technologies or programs to reduce agrichemical mismanagement and waste.

Congress could direct the USDA to conduct a

national assessment of agrichemical management

practices to identify certification and training

needs for agricultural, commercial, and residential users. Information is scant on the extent and

types of agrichemical mismanagement, its pointsource or nonpoint-source nature, and its likely

impacts on groundwater quality. A national assessment of agrichemical management practices could

be similar to the national IPM assessment conducted

in 1982-86. Information from this assessment could

help identify high-risk areas and educational needs

to prevent mismanagement. However, achieving

good agrichemical management by all land users

may not reduce groundwater contamination to the

extent that health-based contaminant standards are

not exceeded. This strategy does not address contamination due to climatic and technological-failure

causes nor extreme cases of hydrogeological vulnerability of soils (133). Nevertheless, reducing agrichemical mismanagement appears to be a highly costeffective strategy for addressing groundwater contamination in general.

An agrichemical management practices assessment could help determine the relative significance

of point-source v. nonpoint-source contributions to

groundwater contamination and the types of contamination sources that are most prevalent. Research to

address these questions could include assessments

of farmstead point-sources, livestock operations,

and agrichemical dealerships and case studies to

characterize point-source control practices and typical conditions of nutrient and pesticide storage and

handling facilities. Nonpoint-source contributions

could be assessed by determining nutrient and

pesticide application rates used by private and

commercial applicators and the sources of information used for calculating application rates. Research

to address these questions could include farmer

surveys, interviews, and observational farm case

studies. One problem likely to be encountered with

farmer or applicator surveys and interviews is that

responses are based on self-evaluation, which may

not accurately describe the actual quality of agrichemical management. Nor are farmers and applicators

likely to admit they are mismanaging agrichemicals.

Findings from such research efforts may have to be

interpreted in light of possible shortcomings and

limitations of the research methodologies.

Assessing Federal v. State Financial Support

of Applicator Programs

States currently provide 70 to 80 percent of

applicator certification and training finding, and

they are facing additional costs associated with new

Federal pesticide program requirements. Since State

and local funding sources are stretched increasingly

to meet EPA requirements, States will have difficulty expanding applicator certification and training

programs unless Federal funding is increased. The

high level of public concern about agrichemical

contamination of groundwater, however, may justify

increases in Federal support for pesticide programs.

Congress could direct USDA and EPA to assess

costs of expanded applicator certification and

training programs based on a national assessment of certification and training needs. Stricter

Federal requirements for agrichemical applicators

would provide more incentives for proper management of pesticides nationwide, particularly if they
230 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

apply to agrichemical users who have previously not

been required to be certified or trained. Clearly, use

of applicator certification and training programs to

reduce the potential- for agrichemical mismanagement and groundwater contamination will require

increased finding for applicator education. Benefitcost estimates of expanded applicator certification

and training programs could be used to inform

policymakers and the public on the costs and

trade-offs involved. Since program expansion cannot be achieved without concomitant financial

support, such support may first have to be generated

through informed public discussion and decisionmaking.

Another option would be for Congress to direct

EPA and USDA to assess costs and provide funding

for expanded applicator certification and training

programs in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas

only. Rather than supporting nationwide changes in

applicator certification and training programs, Congress could call for expanded applicator programs

solely in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas. More

rigorous applicator programs could improve agrichemical management practices in these areas, especially

if they were expanded to include applicators of

fertilizers and general-use pesticides as well as

noncertified applicators.

Alternatively, Congress could immediately increase Federal subsidies to States for applicator

certification and training programs. Because

accountability for pesticide applicator programs is

shared by EPA, USDA, and the States; specifically

earmarked funding and clear Federal directives may

be needed to prevent weak, nonrigorous certification

and training programs. If Congress wants EPA,

USDA, and the States to strengthen applicator

certification programs, regularly update applicator

education programs, and implement additional training programs in IPM, reduced-input, and nonchemical approaches; it can expedite these changes by

appropriating earmarked funding for these purposes.

An alternative is to require EPA to fund the

authorized 50-percent Federal share for States’

pesticide programs, but this option will likely take

EPA funding away from other areas. Congress also

could authorize education programs for other types

of applicators (e.g., private residential applicators).

However, if USDA’s and EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Training program is to be strengthened and

expanded, some resolution of the respective authorities of the two agencies must occur. Congress could

put the authority and appropriations for PAT programs solely into USDA-ES or clearly define the

respective responsibilities of the two agencies.

Options To Encourage Development of

Private-Sector Services

Some producers may not have the skills, training,

or time to identify or customize integrated practices

on their farms to reduce agrichemicals’ adverse

environmental impacts. One mechanism for assisting farmers to reduce adverse environmental impacts is through private-sector advisory services

(e.g., soil testing, pest scouting, IPM consulting).

However, the supply of pest, soil, or crop advisors

may be limited in some areas due to lack of

education and training programs that could prepare

trained personnel. Development of private-sector

environmental services may also be hampered by

lack of State licensing programs and potential

liability concerns. State and Federal governments

could play a role in facilitating the development of

such services as one strategy to reduce adverse

environmental impacts in agriculture. Development

of private-sector environmental advisory services in

agriculture could be fostered in several ways.

Congress could direct the USDA-Extension

Service to provide extension training for agrichemical dealers. The Cooperative Extension Service

could magnify its environmental education efforts

by training agrichemical dealers, each of whom may

advise hundreds of farmer-customers who purchase

agrichemicals from them. The Federal Government,

for example, might provide funding for at least one

extension specialist per State to conduct agrichemical dealer training. Agrichemical dealer training

could be designated as a temporary program to

address specific groundwater concerns or it could be

established as an ongoing education program to

support dealer licensing, certification, or accreditation. In ongoing programs, CES could train employees in proper agrichemical storage, handling, and

waste disposal procedures and equipment maintenance. A less costly alternative would be for

Congress to authorize a single appropriation for

USDA to develop dealer education materials which

could be utilized by States CESs on a voluntary

basis.

Congress could direct EPA and USDA to

develop agrichemical dealership licensing guidelines for States. Dealership-based environmental
Ch. 5--Farmer Decision making & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater • 231

advisory services could be developed through State

licensing, accreditation, or liability insurance programs. For example, licensing programs could

require dealerships to provide IPM information or

use IPM principles in all commercial services. States

could also require agrichemical dealers to train

employees in groundwater protection principles,

IPM techniques, and other environmentally related

topics as a condition for licensing or accreditation.

Dealership licensing and accreditation guidelines

could also include construction and maintenance

specifications for commercial agrichemical storage,

handling, and disposal sites. Implementation of the

latter guidelines would likely require a State inspection system to verify dealership compliance.

Congress could direct USDA to conduct a

national assessment to identify the need for and

supply of private-sector agricultural services to

reduce adverse environmental impacts by agriculture. Current capacity of commercial environmental advisory firms to offer farmers soil-testing,

pest-scouting, and agrichemical-recommendation services may be inadequate to meet potential demand.

USDA, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of

Commerce, could obtain estimates of the numbers

and types of agricultural service firms currently

available and evaluate whether current training and

development programs are adequate to provide

sufficient service delivery. One mechanism to obtain

such estimates would be through an Agricultural

Services Survey similar to the one that was discontinued in the Census of Agriculture in 1979. Based

on its estimates and assessment, USDA could

identify training or support programs that would

expand private-sector advisory services available to

farmers. Support programs could include State

accreditation or licensing for consultants and internship programs for agricultural and environmental

science students.

Congress could direct the Small Business

Administration to provide startup financing and

training for small agricultural advisory firms.

The Small Business Administration and Job Training Partnership Act programs could be vehicles for

training and startup of environmental advisory firms

that could expand the range of services to agricultural producers. New firm startups would help

increase the supply of advisory professionals in the

private sector and provide employment and training

opportunities in rural areas. Training programs

could be implemented at State or community colPhoto credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

Beneficial insects are mass-reared in laboratory cups to

produce sufficient numbers for release in fields. Private

firms and services supporting alternative methods of

pest control are likely to increase with demand.

leges, and these could include pest scouting, soil

testing, and crop and field monitoring services.

Congress could direct USDA’s Extension Service and Agricultural Cooperative Service to

conduct joint organizational training and support for farmer cooperatives formed to provide

advisory services. The Agricultural Cooperative

Service (ACS) is the USDA agency which provides

organizational assistance to farmer cooperatives.

The USDA could encourage the establishment of

cooperatives, similar to Pennsylvania’s Crop Management Associations, which help producers pool

financial resources to hire their own field consultants. ES and the Economic Research Service could”

complement ACS startup activities by providing

cooperatives with assistance on agronomic, economic, and other technical aspects of cooperative

advisory services.

Congress could expand USDA’s Agricultural

Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)

cost-share programs for integrated crop management. An ASCS integrated crop management program being tested in 1990 currently funds up to 100

farmers per State for cost-share assistance for

advisory services to reduce agrichemical use and

improve agrichemical management. One goal of this

program is to encourage the development of privatesector advisory services. To this end, Congress

could direct USDA to expand this ASCS program
232 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

and increase cost-share funding available for advisory firms.

Options To Improve Extension Support

for Enhanced Decisionmaking

State CESs have suffered financial and personnel

cutbacks in recent years, which will make it more

difficult to meet the needs of individual farmers in

addressing emerging environmental concerns. CESs

could increase their technical assistance impacts by

increasing coordination and cross-agency training

between CES and other State and local agencies

involved in agricultural and resource conservation.

Congress could direct USDA and encourage

States to conduct cross-training of technical

assistance staff in different agencies to foster

coordination and consistency in information and

assistance delivery. A variety of agencies provide

information and technical assistance to producers on

agricultural management and natural resource protection. However, technical assistance staff in one

agency may not be aware of or use the educational

materials and guidelines developed by other agencies. Effective use and implementation of educational and planning materials will depend on:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the validity and usefulness of water-quality

information;

the degree to which all technical assistance

staff understand and integrate the information

into daily procedures;

staff skills in conveying new information and

techniques to landowners; and

their degree of commitment in using the

materials and convincing landowners of the

importance and trade-offs of incorporating

water quality into decisionmaking.

Thus, cross-training programs could include CES

educational materials on water quality and agrichemical management, SCS guidelines for conservation

cross-compliance plans and comprehensive resource

planning, and ASCS materials on integrated crop

management services. As a result, SCS conservationists would be more likely to use water quality

materials at the field office level, and CES staff

could play a greater role in supporting implementation of SCS’s Resource Management Systems (RMSs).

SCS and CES also could be encouraged to coordinate their efforts better with conservation districts

and State government agencies to ensure consistent

use of new water quality materials and resource

planning guidelines. Furthermore, issue-oriented

continuing education and training workshops could

be used to develop staff capabilities in managing

water quality programs. Such issue-oriented training

could be an operating part of each agency’s management programs. Career advancement or salary increases could be based on the successful completion

of courses and training. Those who already have the

training could test out of specific programs, to avoid

wasting time on unnecessary review and to avoid

being penalized for not participating.

Congress could direct USDA to develop and

promote long-term natural resource planning

assistance to help agricultural producers integrate environmental protection objectives into

production decisions. Producers’ integration of

resource-protection and crop-production objectives

could be facilitated by development of educational

materials and planning methods for integrating

natural resource protection measures. One promising approach to addressing these gaps is through

SCS’s “progressive conservation planning” concept, which encourages land users to go beyond

installation of single conservation structures and to

implement RMSs addressing all relevant resource

management concerns. However, SCS methods for

progressive conservation planning and RMS implementation do not seem to be well-defined and

other agency priorities are typically more pressing

for SCS conservationists. As a result, progressive

conservation planning may not receive sufficient

support or emphasis at the field office level. One

possible strategy to increase RMS implementation is

to educate local conservation committees about

RMSs and the planning guidelines for achieving

more comprehensive consideration of resource impacts during development of conservation plans.

Education of conservation groups at the grass-roots

levels could provide the “demand-pull” for more

comprehensive resource management assistance from

SCS.

Congress could direct USDA to assess the

effectiveness of current methods used nationwide

to disseminate information and technical assistance to producers on agrichemical contamination of groundwater and remedial farm practices.

Alternatively, Congress could direct USDA to

focus assessment of information and assistance

delivery-systems in hydrogeologically sensitive

areas. Site-specific information on groundwater

quality and vulnerability is an important prerequisite
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . 233

in identifying where, when, and how groundwater

protection actions should be undertaken. Significant

efforts are underway to define the extent of agrichemical contamination of groundwater and to generate

knowledge of remedial practices, but little attention

is being given to the effectiveness of different

dissemination methods to encourage adoption of

remedial practices where needed. Methods to disseminate information and encourage adoption of

remedial farm practices must recognize the complexity of the technology transfer process and

include efforts to understand the needs and capabilities of multiple target audiences. Further, eligibility

for competitive grants for agricultural research could

be expanded to allow assessments of different target

audiences in designing effective programs to facilitate dissemination of remedial farm practices.

Overall, little is known on a national level

regarding the capability of local assistance networks

to define and specify the groundwater contamination

problem. Thus, research on the adequacy of existing

information and assistance-delivery systems could

include assessments of:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the extent to which potential and actual groundwater contamination by agrichemicals is clearly

defined and specified to farmers;

extent of research and extension’s knowledge

of viable farming practice changes to reduce

contamination;

extent to which land users are currently being

supplied with needed information and assistance; and

extent to which current research and extension

methods recognize that different farmers need

different types and sources of information.

Additional emphasis needs to be placed on ways to

mobilize or modify existing information and education programs to address existing problems with

existing technologies and management strategies.

In areas where agrichemical contamination of

groundwater has been confined, the information

and assistance delivery systems could be assessed

and modified to increase the effectiveness of voluntary programs to change farming practices. Since

such programs are likely to be more effective if they

are based on an in-depth understanding of current

farming practices and farmer constraints, a twopronged approach (i.e., traditional “top-down” and

farmer-based) to providing farmers with information

and technical support may be especially appropriate

for assistance programs in these areas. These approaches could include farmer surveys, case studies,

support of farmer-to-farmer information networks,

development of recordkeeping and planning tools

for farmers, advisory services, and on-farm experimentation and demonstration plots. Integrating the

traditional technology transfer process with a farmerbased approach could increase dissemination and

implementation of remedial practices in these areas.

Options To Improve Research Support

for Enhanced Decisionmaking

Redirected and coordinated research efforts would

contribute to a better understanding of how farmers

can be encouraged to protect natural resources in

general and reduce agrichemical contamination of

groundwater in particular. Effective voluntary approaches will be based on a good understanding of

farmers’ constraints and will require farmers’ access

to pertinent and usable information and adequate

assistance.

Directing Research To Support

Technology Adoption

Social, economic, and environmental factors will

affect the adoption of practices that reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater. However, agricultural research and development efforts often

underemphasize these factors during development

of technologies and management practices. Since

agricultural practices that reduce agrichemical contamination will do little to improve groundwater

quality if they are not widely adopted, research

efforts could involve increased participation by

social and environmental scientists in developing

technologies and practices that can be successfully

integrated into farming systems. Critical questions

that should be answered for agricultural technologies as they are developed include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

are there likely to be social, economic, and

environmental obstacles to adoption?

if such obstacles exist, what are they and how

could they be addressed in implementation

programs?

who are the proposed adopters and will the

technology or practice be within their means?

and

are the necessary institutional supports available to ensure continued use or operation of

technologies if they are adopted?
234 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Lack of attention to the ultimate target of research

and development efforts is likely to result in peer

adoption rates. Lack of institutional support, for

example, has been identified as a key constraint to

more widespread adoption of IPM techniques.

Congress could direct USDA to develop farmer

“profiles” that would identify categories of

farmers based on production practices, access to

information, and constraints to adopting new

technologies. Relevant characteristics to distinguish

categories could include farm size, operating capital,

and tenure as well as predominant crop and cropping

system. Some of this information could be obtained

from the National Agriculture Census and future

Census’ could be expanded to include key questions

to provide the necessary information. Further, USDA’s

National Pesticide Use Survey could be expanded to

include a ‘‘Pesticide-Use Decisionmaking” component that could provide more specific information

relative to agrichemical-use decisions. Farmer profiles could be developed frost at a national level to

identify general categories and then refined further

at the local level.

Broadening Farmer Input

Congress could direct USDA and the landgrant universities to assess roles of farmer-tofarmer networks and work with them in implementing use-reduction and nonchemical practices for groundwater protection. Informal groups

of farmers have formed in several areas of the

country in response to the issue of finding viable

methods of reducing agrichemical inputs. One

research option could be assessment of these local

assistance networks and identification of ways to

support their functions. Plans are being developed in

many States to accelerate information and assistance

through traditional university, extension, and conservation agency networks, but few are considering

formal support for the development and maintenance of farmer-to-farmer information and assistance networks. One possibility would be to pay

farmers for conducting field demonstrations or

experiments related to reduced agrichemical use or

nonchemical management practices in return for

participation in a local network where experimental

results were reported. Funds could be used to

support dissemination of results in multiple formats

both within and beyond the network. The role of

government agencies and private-sector organizations in this process thus would be one of support

rather than leadership.

Congress could direct USDA to assess current

mechanisms for obtaining farmer input into

development of BMPs and other farming practices and production systems. Despite criticisms

that the traditional research and extension system is

too “top down, ” USDA is still considered a

grass-roots agency and does incorporate some mechanisms for farmers to provide input to researchers

and extension agents through local extension advisory committees, soil and water conservation commissions, and local commodity groups. However,

the effectiveness of these traditional communication

charnels in transmitting farmers’ concerns and ideas

to researchers and extension staff has not been

adequately assessed. What are the roles of these

groups? Who participates? How representative are

these groups of whole populations of local farmers?

Research on these traditional farm-based input

groups could identify mechanisms by which these

organizations could be made more effective or

representative in providing research advice. Farmerto-farmer networks are one mechanism to gain

understanding of the concerns and constraints of

different producer groups. Research administrators

could facilitate researcher-farmer meetings and encourage involvement of a broader range of farmers

in developing funding priorities for research and

design of research extension activities.

Congress could direct USDA to develop protocols and criteria for on-farm field experiments.

Several States have implemented demonstration

programs involving on-farm experiments, technical

assistance, and support of farmer-to-farmer networks. Current examples include the Sustainable

Agriculture program of the Wisconsin Department

of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection; the

Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Energy and

Sustainable Agriculture On-Farm Demonstration

Program; Iowa State University Leopold Center’s

cooperative relationship with the Practical Farmers

of Iowa; and the California Energy Commission’s

Farm Energy Assistance Program. However, these

programs do not provide sufficient incentives for

large numbers of farmers to offset risks involved

with field experimentation and most programs

require farmers to go through a formal grant

application and review process, thus limiting participation. As a result, these programs will have impacts

only on relatively small numbers of farmers at first,
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . 235

which will make it important for States to provide

funding and personnel support for adequate dissemination of results. Federal or State funding for such

programs could be increased on a short-term basis,

with the intent that as soon as implementation of

remedial technologies reaches pre-determined levels

in target areas, funding could be phased out.

Additionally, such programs could be established in

areas of the country where groundwater contamination potential is high.

Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research Processes

Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research

will become increasingly important in developing

agricultural production systems that integrate social,

economic, and environmental objectives. Multidisciplinary research involves specialists from several

disciplines who contribute to the research but who

do not necessarily work together to identify and

resolve cross-sectoral conflicts between their separate research efforts. Interdisciplinary research, on

the other hand, involves specialists from several

disciplines who interact within the framework of a

systematic, tested method to assure that the overall

research effort is internally consistent and that

foreseeable conflicts are identified and resolved.

Most land-grant university researchers have more

incentives to conduct basic, disciplinary research

than multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research.

Dearth of incentives to participate in collaborative

research will likely impede development of farm

practices which are suited to local environmental

conditions. However, incentives for institutions

which receive Federal funding for agricultural research may be changing. For example, funding for

agricultural research by agencies other than USDA

tends to be directed toward institutions exhibiting a

capacity for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary

research. Although some incentives are changing,

researchers will probably need further encouragement to engage in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Congress could establish an agricultural research task force with a mission to identify the

obstacles to systems-oriented, interdisciplinary

research within the agricultural research system.

The task force could conduct an assessment of

USDA and federally funded land-grant university

research, and identify disincentives to interdisciplinary research arising from institutional structures,

policies, or practices (e.g., proposal review requirements). The task force might expand its analysis to

examine disincentives posed by professional advancement requirements (e.g., publication in peerreviewed disciplinary journals). Based on this analysis, the task force could provide recommendations

for encouraging adoption of interdisciplinary research approaches within the agricultural research

system.

Congress could direct Federal agencies to

develop research protocols and methodologies

for conducting interdisciplinary agricultural research that integrate social sciences. Federally

funded research programs recommend that persons

experienced in managing and working on multidisciplinary teams evaluate multidisciplinary grant

proposals and that at least one research team member

be experienced in multidisciplinary research. Research programs could also include sociologists

linked to delivery issues on project teams and peer

review panels for proposals. Protocols and research

methods could be designed by national scientific

research organizations in collaboration with professional societies.

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Ag Consultant, Publisher’s Statement (Willoughby,

OH: Meister Publishing Co., June 1989).

American Association of Pest Control Officials

(AAPCO), “Financial Survey of the Cooperative

EPA and State Pesticide Regulatory and Educational Programs,’ 1989.

American Farm Bureau Federation, “Groundwater

and Environmental Pollution Self-Help Checklist

for Farmsteads and Farm Fields, ” Natural and

Environmental Resources Division, Park Ridge, IL,

2d cd., 1988.

American Society of Agronomy, “ARCPACS: The

American Registry of Certified Professionals in

Agronomy, Crops, and Soils,” Certification Procedures and Standards, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, n.d.

Anderson, E.W., and Baum, R. C., “How To Do

Coordinated Resource Management Planning,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 43, No. 3,

May-June 1988.

Anderson, James L., and Robert, Pierre C., “Soil

Survey Information System: A User Friendly Soil

Information System,’ Agrichemicals and Groundwater Protection+-4?esources and Strategies for

State and Local Management, proceedings of a

conference held October 24-25, 1988 (St. PauI, MN:

Freshwater Foundation, 1989) pp.159-162.
236 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Anderson, M. D., “Practices and Values of North

Carolina Farmers,” Proceedings of the International Sustainable Agricultural Systems Conference, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH,

September 1988.

Avery, B. C., “Growing Experts, ” PennState Agriculture, p. 27, Spring/Summer 1989.

Barlett, P.F. (cd.), Agm”cultural Decision Making:

Anthropological Contributions to Rural Development (New York: Academic Press, 1986).

Batie, S. S., and Taylor, D. B., “Alternative Agriculture: Economics and Impacts,” paper presented at

Institute for Alternative Agriculture Conference on

Integrated Farrning Systems, Washington, DC, Feb.

28, 1989.

Bawden, R., MacAdam R., Valentine, I., and

Packham, R., “Systems Thinking and Practice in

the Education of Systems Agriculturists, ’ Agricultural Systems, vol. 13, 1984, pp. 205-225.

Bennett, J. W., Of Time and the Enterprise: North

American Family Farm Management in a Context

of Resource Marginality (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1982).

Bennett, J. W., ‘‘Research on Farmer Behavior and

Social Organization,’ New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research, Kenneth A.

Dahlberg (cd.) (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld, 1986).

Brooks, N. L., and Reimund, D. A., Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Where Do Farm Householh Earn Their Incomes?

Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 560, February

1989.

Bultena, G. L., and Hoiberg, E. O., “Sources of

Information and Technical Assistance for Farmers

in Controlling Soil Erosion, ’ Conserving Soil:

Insights From Socioeconomic Research, S.B. I.mvejoy and TL. Napier (eds.), Soil and Water Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, IA, pp. 71-82,

1986.

Busch, L., and Lacy, W. B., Science, Agriculture,

and the Politics of Research (Boulder, CO:

Westview Press, 1983).

Buttel, F. H., and Gillespie, G. W., Jr., “Preferences

for Crop Production Practices among Conventional

and Alternative Farmers, American Journal of

Alternative Agriculture, vol. 3, No. 1, 1988, pp.

11-18.

Cacek, T., and Langner, L., “The Economic Implications of Organic Farmin g,’ American Journal of

Alternative Agriculture, vol. 1, No. 1, 1986, pp.

25-29.

Calvin, D., et al., Handbook for Establishing and

Operating Crop Management Associations in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Crop Management Associa20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29,

30.

31.

32.

33.

tion, The Pennsylvania State University, University

Park, PA, January 1989.

Caneff, D.M., “Technology Resistance on the

Farm: A Case Study of Six Wisconsin Farmers,”

unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin,

Madison, WI, 1986.

Cenex-Land O’Lakes, “Fertilizer Plant Package

Module” and “Chemical Label Module,” AgriSource: Information System for Crop Technology,

St. Paul, MN, n.d.

Center for Rural Affairs, Resource Audit and

Planning Gui& for Integrated Farm Management,

Small Farm Resources Project, Hartington, NE,

1987.

Center for Rural Affairs, Resourceful Farming: A

Primerfor Family Farmers, Small Farm Resources

Project, Hartington, NE, Fall 1987.

Chambers, R., and Jiggins, J., “Agricultural Research for Resource Poor Farming: Transfer of

Technology and Farmin g Systems Research,’ Agn”-

cultural Administran”on and Extension, vol. 27,

1987, pp. 35-52.

Chambers, R., and Jiggins, J., “Agricultural Research for Resoume Poor Farmers: A Parsimonious

Paradigm,” Agricultural Administration and Extension, vol. 28, 1987, pp. 109-127.

Chronicle of Higher Education, “Facts About

Higher Education in Each of the 50 States and

D.C.,” September 1988. In: Merritt, 1989.

Cleveland, R., Maritz Marketing Research, personal

communication, Nov. 29, 1989.

Cohen, S. Z., Director of Groundwater Programs,

Biospherics Inc., testimony at hearings before the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works on Pesticide Issues, June 10, 1988. In:

Cohen, 1989.

Cohen, S., “Pesticides and Nitrates in Groundwater: An Introductory Overview, ” contractor report

for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Tdmical Information Service,

August 1989).

Contant, C. C., “Evaluating the Effectiveness of

Information Dissemination in the 1987 Integrated

Farm Management Demonstration Project,’ Public

Policy Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City,

IA, December 1988.

Daberkow, S., ‘‘Agricultural Input Industry Indicators in 1974-85,’ U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 534, November 1987.

Deane Information Services, Agricultural Computing: 1988 Agriculture Sofware Directory, Deane

Information Services Newsletter for Computer Users

in Agriculture, 1989. In: Knezek and Black 1989,

Downing, K., Schutte, L., Shelito, R., and Zerr, R.,

“Report of the Water Management Task Force,”
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater • 237

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45,

46.

Countryside Council, Marshall, MN, 1987. ln:

Padgitt, 1989.

Epp, D. J., and Shortle, J. S., “Agricultural Nonpoint

Pollution Control: Voluntary or Mandatory?’ Journal of Soil and Waler Conservation, pp. 111-114,

JanuaryFebruary 1985.

Esseks, J. D., “Farmers’ Perceptions of Ground

Water Problems,” Center for Government Studies,

University of Northern Illinois, DeKalb, IL, for

Agricultural Law and Policy Institute, Washington,

DC, 1989. In: Padgitt, 1989.

FAEIS, Food and Agriculture Education Information System, “Fall 1987 Enrollment in NASULGC

Colleges of Agriculture,” USDA Office of Higher

Education Programs and Texas A&M University,

1988.

FAEIS, Food and Agriculture Education Information System, “Fall 1987 Enrollment in the Agricultural Sciences and Renewable Resources at the

AASCARR Institutions, ” USDA Office of Higher

Education Programs and Texas A & M University,

1988.

Federal Code of Regulations, 40 CFR 171 (Oct. 9,

1974).

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(~), as amended (86 Stat. 973), sec. 3(d)(l).

Feller, I., Kaltreider, L,, Madden, P., Moore, D., and

Sims, L., The Agricultural Technology Deliveq

System: A Study of the Transfer of Agricultural and

Food-Related Technologies, Institute for Policy

Research and Evaluation, The Pennsylvania State

University, University Park, PA, 1984.

Fleming, M. H., ‘‘Agricultural Chemicals in Ground

Water: Preventing Contamination by Removing

Barriers Against I.mw-Input Farm Management,”

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol. 2,

No. 3, 1988, pp. 124-130.

Fliegel, F. C., and van Es, J. C., “The Diffusion

Adoption Process in Agriculture: Changes in Technology and Changing Paradigms, Technology and

Social Change in Rural Areas, Gene F, Summers

(cd.) (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983), pp.

18-28.

Fruhling, L., “Farmers May Lose Millions on

Fertilizers,” Des Moines Register, June 15, 1986.

Fugate, S., Head, Educational Services Unit, National Agricultural Library, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, personaI communication, BeltsvilIe,

MD, May 8, 1990.

Gianessi, L. P., ‘ ‘Lack of Data Stymies Informed

Decisions on Agricultural Pesticides,” Resources,

No. 89 (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future,

Fall 1987).

Gianessi, L. P., “The Potential for Alternative Agriculture,” paper presented at the 1989 State Affairs

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

Conference of the National Agricultural Chemicals

Association, Washington, DC, Nov. 14, 1989.

Gold, R., Coordinator, Environmental Programs,

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

University of Nebraska, personal communication,

Aug. 11, 1988.

Graves, C., Chief, Budget Branch, Budget and

Accounting Division, Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personat communication,

Washington, DC, Jan. 31, 1990.

Ground Water Monitor, “Massachusetts To Aid

bcal Communities in Protecting Ground Water

Sources, ’ vol. 5, No. 17, 15 August 1989, p. 164.

Ground Water Monitor, “Ground Water Briefs,”

VOi. 5, No. 17, 15 August 1989, p. 169.

Ground Water Monitor, “EPA Resticts Atrazine

Use To Protect Ground Water, ” vol. 6, No. 4, 13

February 1990, p. 32.

Hallberg, G., “Nitrates in Iowa Groundwater, ”

Rural Groundwater Contamination, Frank M. D’kri

and Lois G. Wolfson (eds.) (Chelsea, MI: kwis

Publishers, Inc., 1987), pp. 23-68.

Hallberg, G., “Model Farms Demonstration Project, ’ Design Plan, Iowa Department of Natural

Resources, Iowa City, IA, Sept. 27, 1989. f

Halstead, J. M., Batie, S. S., and Kramer, R. A.,

“Agricultural Practices and Environmental Attitudes of Rockingham County, Virginia, Dairy

Farmers: Results of a Survey,” Department of

Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1988.

Haney, W. G., Krome, M., and Stevenson, G, W.,

Sustainable Agriculture Research Sourcebook, Wisconsin Rural Development Center, Inc., Black

Earth, WI, 1986.

Hargett, N. L., and Berry, J. T., “Ttiy’s Fertilizer

Industry,’ ‘ Temessee Valley Authority, National

Fertilizer Development Center, Circular Z-239,

Muscle Shoals, AL, July 1988.

Harrison, R., “The REAP Act: A Brighter Future

for Iowa’s Diverse Environment,’ Iowa Conservationist, vol. 48, No. 7, July 1989, pp. 3-7.

Harsh, S, B., and Brook, R. C., “The Integrated

Support Systems Project at Michigan State University,’ Proceedings of Second International Conference on Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, F.S. Zuzmeta (cd.), University of Florida,

1988. In: Knezek and Black 1989.

Helmers, G. A., Langemeier, M. R,, and Atwood, J.,

“An Economic Analysis of Alternative Cropping

Systsms for East-Central Nebraska,” American

Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol. I, No, 4,

1987, pp. 153-158.

Holt, D. A., “Report of Experiment Station Committee on Policy (ESCOP) Support Committee on

Computer-Aided Agricultural Decision-Support Sys-
238 • Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

terns, ” CAADSS Sub-Committee Chair, Sept. 27,

1988.

Hopkins, Y, Economic Analysis Branch, Office of

Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, personal communication, Nov. 29, 1989.

Ikerd, J., hwins, R,, Bond, L., Duffy, M., Tilmon,

D., and Hewitt, T., ‘c~w-~pu~susfiable Agriculture Farm Decision Support System, Farm

Decision Task Force Report, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, October 1989.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, “Opinion

Survey, ” unpublished staff report, 1986.

Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Integrated Farm Management Demonstration

Program: 1987 Summary Report, Pm-1305, Iowa

State University of Science and Technology, Ames,

IA, December 1987.

Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, “Iowa State University Projects Demonstrate

Best Management Practices at 60 bcations,”

Integrated Farm Management Notes, No. 1, p. 3,

Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Program, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA, February 1988.

Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, “Butler County Project,” Cooperative Extension Circular IFM-l, Iowa State University of

Science and Technology, Ames, IA, March 1989.

Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, ‘‘Project Benefits Water, Soil, Farmers’ Pocketbooks,” Integrated Farm Management Notes, No.

5, pp. 4-5, Iowa State University of Science and

Technology, Ames, IA, September 1989.

Jackson, G. W., Jones, S., and Webendorfer, B.,

“Farrnstead Assessments: A Means To Manage

Farm Sources of Groundwater Contamination,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield VA: National Technical Information Service, May 1989),

Kaap, J. D., ‘‘Implementing Best Management Practices to Reduce Nitrate Levels in Northeast Iowa

Groundwater,” Proceedings of the 1986 Agricultural Impacts on Groundwater Conference, Omaha,

NE, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH,

1987.

Kelling, K. A., and Wedberg J. L,, “Extension Education for Agrichemical Dealers on Groundwater

Protection: An Extension Perspective,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, August 1989).

King, R, P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and

Zimdahl, R. D., ‘‘Bioeconomic Modelling to Simulate Weed Control Strategies for Continuous Corn

Zea Mays,” Weed Science, vol. 34, 1986, pp.

972-979.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

Kneze~ B., and Black, J.R., “Computer-Based

Decision Support Systems for Farmers: Applications for Groundwater Protection, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Semice, November 1989).

Krause, R. A., “Crop Data Management Systems

Computerized Pesticide Recommendation System

(ACPS) for Meeting California’s Pesticide Regulation Challenge,” Agrichemicals and Groundwater:

Resources and Strategies for State and Local

Management, Conference Proceedings, Freshwater

Foundation, St. Paul, MN, Oct, 24-25, 1988.

Landis, D. A., Harsh, S. B., Black, J.R., Brook, R. C.,

and Harmon, R. J., ‘‘Field Crop Insect Management

Module, ” paper presented at Workshop on Use of

Computers in Integrated Pest Mamgement, Las

Vegas, NV, April 1989.

Lanyon,L.E., Pruss, J., and Calvin, D., “Farrner-Backto-Farmer Information Management for Enhanced

Implementation of Integrated Pest Management and

Other Input-ConseNative Crop Production Practices, ’ proposal submitted to National Research

and Extension Program on Imw-Input/Sustainable

Agriculture, The Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA, 1988.

Lasley, P., “Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll: 1988

Summary,’ Pm-1298, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1988.

Lightfoot, C., and Barker, R., “On-Farm Trials: A

Survey of Methods,” Agriculture Adrninistration

and Extension, vol. 30, 1988, pp. 15-23.

Lionberger, H., and Gwin, P., Communication

Strategies: A Guide for Agricultural Change Agents

(Danville, IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers,

1982). In: Nowak, 1989.

Lukens, J., Director, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, personal communication, Fay -

etteville, AR, Mar. 22, 1990.

Lybecker, D. W., King, R. P., Schweizer, E. E., and

Zimdahl, R. L., “Economic Analysis of Two Weed

Management Systems for Two Cropping Systems,

Weed Science, vol. 32, 1984, pp. 90-95.

Madden, J. P., and O’Connell, Paul, “Early Results

of the LISA Program, ’ Agricultural Libraries

Information Notes, vol. 15, Nos. 6/7, June/July

1989, pp. 1-10.

Marshall, W. E., President, Microbial Genetics Division, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., ‘‘Overview on the Need for Structural Reform in Agricultural Research,’ Reform and Innovation of Science

and Education: Planning for the 1990 Farm Bili,

Committee Print, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, S. Prt. 101-61, Washington, DC, December 1989.
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 239

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

Mayland, D., Farmer, Buffalo Center, IA, personal

communication, Mar. 22, 1989.

McDowell, G. R., “Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture: Negotiating or Abandoning A Social Contract,” Choices, vol. 32, second quarter 1988, pp.

18-21.

McGrann, J. M., Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M University, personal communication, College Station, TX, Aug. 18, 1989.

Merritt, R., <

‘Integrating Agricultural and Environmental Studies in Colleges of Agriculture and

Natural Resources, ’ contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Service, September 1989).

Minnesota Department of Agriculture, “Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Project Application s,’ memorandum from Jim Nichols, Commissioner of Agriculture, St, Paul, MN, Jan. 3,

1989.

Montagne, C., Sindelar, B, W., Kroos, R.R.H.,

Bauder, J. W., Jobes, P. C., and Sims, J. R., “Holistic

Resource Management as a Groundwater Protection

Strategy in Agriculture,’ contractor report prepared

for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service,

June 1989).

Moore, K. M., “Water Quality Concerns and the

Public Policy Context,” paper presented at the

Rural Sociological Association Annual Meeting,

Athens, GA, 1988. In: Padgitt, 1989.

Napier, T. L., “Farmer Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices: I.cssons for Groundwater Protection, ’ contractor report prepared for the OffIce of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, January 1989).

National Agricultural and Natural Resources Curriculum Project, Food and Agricultural Systems

Task Group, Systems Approaches to Food and

Agricultural Problems (New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 1986).

National Association of Conservation Districts,

“Proposed Strategy for Protecting Surface and

Ground Water from Adverse Impacts Resulting

From Agricultural Activities,” Washington, DC,

June 1989.

National Association of Consemation Districts,

‘ ‘America’s Conservation Districts Workload Analysis Survey,” Washington, DC, March 1990.

National Association of Conservation Districts,

“Conservation Districts: A Description of Their

Origin, Development, and Functions,” unpublished

report, Washington, DC, 1990.

National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy

Research, Agriculture and Water Quality, Report of

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

Workshop Proceedings, Washington, DC, Apr. 4-5,

1989.

National Research Council, Board on Agriculture,

Alternative Agriculture (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1989).

National Research Council, Board on Agriculture,

Investing in Research (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1990).

Nielsen, E. G., Miranowski, J. A., and Morehart,

M.J., Investments in Soil Conservation and Lund

Improvements: Factors Explaining Farmers’ Decisions, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Sewice, Agricultural Economic Report

No. 601, January 1989.

Norris, P., ‘‘A Case Study of Investment in Agricultural Sustainability: Adoption and Policy Issues for

Nitrogen Pollution Control in the Chesapeake Bay

Drainage, ” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA,

December 1988.

Nowak, P.J., “The Adoption of Agricultural Consemation Technologies: Economic and Diffusion

Explanations,’ Rural Sociology, vol. 52, No. 2,

1987, Pp. 208-220.

Nowak, P. J., “Implementation of Soil and Water

Conservation Policy,” Making Soil and Water

Conservation Work: Scientific and Policy Perspectives, Daniel W. Halbach, C. Ford Runge, and

William E. Larson (eds.) (Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society of America, 1987).

Nowak, P. J., “Agrichemicals and Ground Water:

Assumptions About Farmer Information Processes,’

Agrichemicals and Groundwater Protection: Resources and Strategies for State and Local Management, Conference Proceedings, pp. 31-36, Freshwater Foundation, St. Paul, MN, Oct. 24-25, 1988.

Nowak, P.J., “Local Agricultural Information and

Assistance Networks Relative to Groundwater Protection, contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, April 1989).

Nowak, P. J., and Korsching, P. F., “Social and

Institutional Factors AITecting the Adoption and

Maintenance of Agricultural BMPs,” Agricultural

Management and Water Quality, F. Schaller, and G.

Bailey (eds.) (Ames, IA: Iowa State University

Press, 1983), pp. 349-373.

Oliveira, V. J., and Cox, E. J., The Agricultural Work

Force of 1987: A Statistical Projile, Economic

Research Service, U. S. D, A., Agricultural Economic

Report No. 609, May 1989.

Olson, R. A., 6 ‘Nitrogen Problems,’ Plant Nutrient

Use and the Environment (Washington, DC: The

Fertilizer Institute, 1985).
240 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

Osteen, C. D., and Szmedra, P. I., Agricultural Pesticide Use Trenak and Policy Issues, Economic

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Economic Report No. 622, September

1989.

Padgitt, S., ‘‘Agriculture and Groundwater Issues in

Big Spring Basin and Winneshiek County, Iowa,”

Cooperative Extension Service, CRD-229A, Iowa

State University of Science and Technology, Ames,

IA, 1987.

Padgitt, S., “Monitoring Audience Response to

Demonstration Projects: Baseline Report (Audubon

County),” CRD-273, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1988.

Padgitt, S., “1988 Interim Report: Monitoring

Audience Response Component of Integrated Farm

Management Demonstration Project,” Cooperative

Extension Service, Pm-1345, Iowa State University, Ames, LA, 1988.

Padgitt, S., “Farmers’ Views on Groundwater

Quality: Concerns, Practices, and Policy Preferences, ’ contractor report prepared for the OffIce of

Technology Assessment (Springlleld, VA: National

Technical Information Service, 1989).

Padgitt, S., “Farm Practices and Attitudes toward

Groundwater Policies: A Statewide Survey,” Iowa

State University Cooperative Extension Service,

IFM-3, Ames, IA, October 1989.

Pampel, F., Jr., and van Es, J. C., “Environmental

Quality and Issues of Adoption Research,” Rural

Sociology, vol. 42, No. 1, Spring 1977, pp. 57-71.

Paul, J., “Marketplace Professionals,’ Agrichemical Age, October 1988, pp. 8-9.

Peats, S., Gait, D., Andrew, C., Walecka, L.,

Hildebrand, P., and McDermott, K., “Farming

Systems Research and Extension: Status and Potential in Imw-Resource Agriculture, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, 1986.

Poli, B., National Program baler for Pesticide

Education, Extension Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, personal communication, Washington,

DC, May 21, 1990.

Porter, K. S., and St”unman, M. W., Protecting Groundwater: A Guide for the Pesticide User (Ithaca, NY:

NYS Water Resources Institute, Cornell University,

1988).

Power, J. F., and Broadbent, F.E., ‘Proper Accounting for Nitrogen in Cropping Systems, ’ Nitrogen

Management and GroundWater Protection, R.F.

Follett (cd.) (New York, NY: Elsevier Science

Publishing Co., hC., 1989), pp. 159-181.

Pruss, J., Crop Management Coordinator, Pemsylvania Crop Management Association Program, The

Pennsylvania State University, University Park

PA, personal communication, Jan. 4, 1990.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

Rawlins, Stephen L., “Systems Science and Agricultural Sustainability,” National Forum, vol. 68,

No. 3, Summer 1988, pp. 19-22.

Reese, C. D., Chief, Training and Certification,

Office of Pesticides Programs, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, personal communication, Oct. 24, 1989.

Reinhardt, K., Deputy Assistant for Conservation

Planning, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication, Washington, DC, Nov. 22, 1989.

Renew America Project, The State of the States

1988: Reducing Pesticide Contamination, Focus

Paper 2 (Washington, DC: Renew America May

1988).

Renner, K.A., Blaclq J. R., and DeVuyst, E.,

SO YHERB: Herbicide Options for Weed Control,

An Integrated Decision Support Computer Program, Version 4.0, Cooperative Extension Service

and Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan

State University, East Lansing, Ml, 1989.

Richards, G.E., and MacCubbin, J.M., “ARCPACS:

A Decade of Progress,” Journal of Agronomic

Education, vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1989, pp. 21-26.

Richardson, J., and Mustian, R., “Preferred Methods for Delivery of Technological Information by

the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service:

Opinions of Agricultural Producers Who Use Extension Information,” paper presented to Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, New Orleans, LA,

1988. In: Nowa.lq 1989.

Rogers, E., “The Adoption and Diffusion of Technological Innovations in U.S. Agriculture,” OTA

Background Paper No. 27, Impacts of Technology

on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity,

October 1980.

Rogers, E., Difision of Innovations (New York

NY: The Free Press, 1983).

Root, K., National AgriChemical Retailers Association, personal communication, Nov. 27, 1989.

Ryan, B., and Gross, N. C., ‘‘A Study in Technological Diffusion, ” Rural Sociology, vol. 13, 1948, pp.

273-285.

Sands, D.M., “Farmin g Systems Research: Clarification of Terms and Concepts, ’ Experimental

Agriculture, vol. 22, 1986, pp. 87-104.

Savory, A., Holistic Resource Management (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1988).

Schepers, J. S., “Impact of Nitrogen Management

on Groundwater Quality,’ paper presented at American Association for the Advancement of Science

Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, Jan. 17,

1989.

Shields, E., Funding Environmental Programs: An

Examination of Alternatives (Washington, DC:
Ch. 5-Farmer Decisionmaking & Technical Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater ● 241

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

National Governors Association, 1989).

Shrader, W. D., “Effect of Erosion and Other

Physical Processes on Productivity of U, S. Croplands and Rangelands,” contractor report prepared

for Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and

Rangeland Productivity, Office of Technology

Assessment, Washington, DC, 1981.

Simmons, C., Osika, L. and Fund, M., The Barriers

to Soil and Water Conservation: A Kansas Study

(Whiting, KS: Kansas Rural Center, 1988).

Sinclair, J. B., and Michalsk.i, R. S., Soybean Piant

Disease Diagnosis, IlliNet System, Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, PPAT-P1 17, 1986. In:

Knezek and Black, 1989.

Smith, M. G., U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, “Can Farm Policy

Help Small Farmers?” Rural Development Perspectives, pp. 12-15, October 1986.

Taylor, A. G., Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, Springfield, IL, personal communication,

May 2, 1989.

‘Ibrck, M., and Kroese, R., “Imw-Input/Sustainable

Agriculture Research and Education: A Review of

Selected Private Organizations’ Activities,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, February 1989).

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Alternative Agriculture, Federal Incentives and Farmers’ Opinions, GAO-PEMD-90-12, Feb. 1990.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

An Assessment of the United States Food and

Agricultural Research System, OTA-F-272 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce,

December 1981).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and

Rangeland Productivity, OTA-F-166 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August

1982).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing

Structure of American Agriculture, OTA-F-285

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Aid to Developing Countries: The Technology/

Ecology Fit, Staff Paper, June 1987.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer

Policies for the 1990s-Special Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March

1990).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988 Fact Book of

Agriculture, Miscellaneous publication no. 1063,

Washington, DC, July 1988.

148.

149,

150.

151,

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1988).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ‘Why Do Farmers

Adopt Conservation Practices?” The Second RCA

Appraisal: Soil, Water, and Related Resources on

Nonfederal Land in the United States, pp. 4547,

June 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Cooperative Service, Farmer Cooperative Statistics,

1987, ACS Service Report 24, April 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, “Notice ACP210, New ACP Practice-Integrated Crop Management,” Nov. 3, 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ‘‘Trends in Farm Labor,” Agricultural Outlook, September 1984.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Inal”cators of the Farm

Sector, National Financial Summary, 1987, Washington, DC, October 1988.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service,

“Pesticide Applicator Training: State had Agencies Responsible for Enforcement of FIFRA and

Certification of Applicators of Restricted-Use Pesticides,” Washington, DC, June 1988.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service,

“Pesticide Education: State Extension Program

Leaders/Coordinators, Pesticide Chemicals Education, Safety and Training, ” Washington, DC, February 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service,

“Pesticide Education programs: Current Program

Needs, 1991,” draft report, Jan. 23, 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library, and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Gui&s and

Manuals for Pesticide Applicator Training: Janu -

aq 1979-August 1985, Citations from AGRICOLA,

Bibliographies and Literature of Agriculture No. 47,

Beltsville, MD, March 1986.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

Farm Production Expenditures, Annual summary

reports, Washington, DC, 1980-87.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, “A Standard State Soil Conservation

Districts Law,” Washington, DC, 1936.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, National Conservation Planning Manual,

Part 501 (Washington, DC: 1984).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, ‘Integrating Economics into the Conservation Planning Process, ” Economics Application

Work Group, 1989 -241—851:0061/SCS (Wash-
242 • Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, General Manual, Section 450-GM, Part

401, Amend. 4 (Washington, DC: February 1990).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, County Business Patterns, Washington,

DC, 1986 and previous years.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States,

Washington, DC, 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A4unicipalities, Small Business, and Agriculture: The Challenge of Meeting Environmental Responsibilities,

OffIce of Policy and Planning Evaluation, Washington, DC, September 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticide Programs, Drafl Report, ‘ ‘Review of State

Plan Questiomaires on Certitlcation and Training,” Preliminary Summary of Results,” Apr. 8,

1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticide Programs, Certification and Training

Branch, “Certification and Training Program,”

unpublished briefing outline prepared June 22,

1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticide programs, Pesticides Industry Sales and

Usage: 1988 Market Estimates, Economic Analysis

Branch, February 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Public AfftiS, “Standards for Certification of

Pesticide Applicators,” Washington, DC, May

1977.

Valent Corp., “The U.S. Farm chemical Distribution SystebT@y, Tomorrow, and the Year

2W,” walnut Creek, CA, March 1989.

Van Arsdalle, R.’Il, Vice President, Agricultural

Inputs and Services, National Council of Farmer

Cooperatives, personal communication, May 5,

1989.

172.

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

Wake, J., Kiker, C., and Hildebrand, P., “Systematic kuming of Agricultural Technologies,’ Agricultural Systems, vol. 27, 1988, pp. 179-193.

Whittaker, A.D., “Systems Approaches in Agricultural Research: Applications for Groundwater Protection,’ contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Spring13eld, VA: National

Technical Information Service, September 1989).

Williams, R.J., Hargett, N. L., and Berry, J.11,

‘‘Issues Affecting Dealer Service Decisions, ’ Tennessee Valley Authority, National Fertilizer Development Center, Circular Z-196, Muscle Shoals, AL,

October 1985.

Williams, R. J., and Ransom, J. M., “The Role of

Retail Fertilizer Dealers in Reducing Groundwater

Contamination: A Focus on Educational Needs,”

contractor repent prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, June 1989).

Wilson, K., and Morren, G., Systems Approaches

for Improvement in Agriculture and Resource

Management (New Yor~ NY: Macmillan, in press).

Wisconsin Rural Development Center, “Wisconsin

Farmers’ Constraints To Reducing Agricultural

Chemicals,” Black Earth, WI, 1989).

Womack, J., Assistant Division Chief, Agricultural

Statistics, Agriculture Division, Bureau of the

Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, personal

communication, Washington, DC, Sept. 20, 1989.

Zaltman, G., and Duncan, R,, Strategies for Planned

Change (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

1977).

Zinn, J. A., Congressional Research Service, Small

Farms-Current Issues and Alternative Policies,

Report No. 86-23 ENR, U.S. Congress, Mar, 15,

1986.

Zupancic, J., Soil Tee, Inc., Dodge City, KS,

personal communication, May 4, 1989.
Appendix 5-l-Selected State Agricultural and Water Quality Cost-Share Programs, 1988

State Type of program Administered by Source of funds Details

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Soil Erosion, Agricultural

Water Quality, Forestry

Range Improvement Cost

Share

Water Resource Conservation

Development Incentives

Soil Survey

Animal Waste Pollution

Abatement

General Conservation Practices

Agricultural Water Quality

Soil and Water Action

Projects

State Committee Technician

Program

Agricultural and Conservation

Development Commission

through the State Soil and

Water Conservation Committee

Apache Natural Resource

Conservation District

Soil and Water Conservation

Commission

California Department of Conservation Soil Resource Protection Project

Connecticut Department of

Agriculture through the USDA

Agricultural Conservation and

Stabilization Service (ASCS)

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

Control

Department of Agriculture

and consumer Services, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation

Department of Agriculture

and Consumer services, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation

State Soil and Water Conservation Commission

State General Fund

General Fund

State Income Tax Credit

Special Fund

Annual Appropriation by

General Assembly

Bond Act of the State of

Delaware, 1985

State General Fund

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services annual budget

Appropriations from State

General Revenue funds

Cost-sharing for soil and water conservation, agricultural water

quality and reforestation. Established base allocation of

1°/0 of appropriated funds to each of the 67 districts.

Remaining 330/. allocated on basis of problem identification.

A State grazing lands cost-share program for specific range

improvements on the Coyote Creek watershed. Cost-share

percentages range from 10 to 95°/0 per improvement with

a $10,000 maximum per lessee.

Up to $3,000 per year tax credit (l O-year limit) toward the

construction or restoration of ponds, lakes (20 ac/ft.

minimum), or other water control structures used for

irrigation, water supply, sediment control, agriculture, or

water management. A 3 year, 10°/0 tax credit of the costs

incurred in switching from groundwater use to surface

water.

$240,000 per year for 5 years. Provides pass through funds to

SCS to augment soil surveys in key agricultural counties of

State.

Cost-share is limited to animal waste systems. The funds are

used in conjunction with ASCS Agricultural Conservation

Program funds. The total combined Federal and State

cost-share amount cannot exceed 75% of the total costs of

the system. Landowners apply for State cost-share funds

at the local ASCS office. If the county ASCS committee

approves the application, it is forwarded to the State ASCS

committee. ASCS certifies completion and forwards the

bills to the Connecticut Department of Agriculture for

payment.

Cost-sharing for erosion and sediment control, water quality,

organic waste systems, water management, forestry,

wildlife habitat development, and others. The program

addresses both urban and agricultural concerns.

Cost-sharing for dairy operations in the lower Kissimmee River

Basin to install Best Management Practices for animal

waste management to reduce the phosphorus loading into

Lake Okeechobee. Provides up to 75% State cost-share of

actual project cost. Average $141,800 per project.

Six projects funded for 1988-89: 1) Water Quality Study; 2)

canal erosion and sediment control; 3) water conservation

project; 4) plugging free flowing wells; 5) Environmental

Learning Center; 6) National Weather Service Antenna.

Conservation commission contracts with county governments

to pay salary of conservation technicians. Technician is

hired by county but trained and supervised by SCS. Local

provides direction through its annual plan of operations.

SCS provides office space, vehicle, and working tools.

County pays all fringes and absorbs costs of any increase

in salary above initial base salary determined by conservation commission.

Continued on next page
Appendix 5-l-Selected State Agricultural and Water Quality Cost-Share Programs, 1988-Continued

State Type of program Administered by Source of funds Details

Idaho Agricultural Water Quality

Resource Conservation and

Rangeland Development

Loan Program.

Indiana Structural Measures

Illinois County Conservation Practices Program (CPP) Watershed Land Treatment

Program (WLTP)

Erosion and Sediment

Control

lowa Soil Conservation

Iowa Wind Erosion Control Incentive Program

Department of Health and

Welfare and Idaho Soil

Conservation Commission.

Program is administered locally by soil conservation

districts.

ldaho Soil Conservation commission in cooperation with

local soil conservation districts.

Division of Soil Conservation

Department of Agriculture

Division of Natural Resources

Department of Agriculture

Division of Natural Resources

lowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship,

Division of Soil Conservation

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship,

Division of Soil Conservation in cooperation with Department of Transportation

Water Pollution Control Fund

financed by State taxes on

cigarettes, alcohol, inheritance and sales tax

A portion of inheritance tax

collections.

Dedicated Fund-tax on

tobacco products

State General Fund,

Monies

State General Fund

State General Fund

Bond

State Road Use Tax Revenue

Up to $50,000 maximum cost-share per participant for Best

Management Practices identified by soil conservation

districts in the State Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan. Participants must be within the boundaries of an

approved project area as identified in the State Agricultural

Water Quality Plan.

Long-term (up to 15 years), low-interest loans (up to $50,000

at 69% or less) to farmers and ranchers for conservation

improvements through local soil conservation districts. The

conservation improvements eligible for the program are

determined and adopted by the local soil conservation

district. These measures may address resource needs for

management of rangeland, riparian areas, irrigated and

non-irrigated agricultural Iand on private and public land

within the State of Idaho.

—

CPP will be used to cost-share with farmers on instruction of

enduring practices. WLTP will be targeted to high-priority

watersheds for crest-sharing on enduring practices. Both

programs are designed to assist in meeting the State goal

of T by 2000.

Cost-sharing only for landowners who have had a complaint

lodged against them under the Illinois Erosion Control Law.

Soil Conservation-State funds made available to pay up to

50%. of cost of approved permanent soil and water

conservation practices. Mandatory practices installed to

comply with the lowa Erosion Control Law are cost-shared

at 75%. A one-time payment of up to $1 O/acre will be made

for a l-year contract to establish no-till, ridge till, and strip

till. The district will make a one-time payment of $6/acre for

contouring and $15/acre for contour stripcropping.

The program also contains three special incentives features:

1. Special Watershed Projects: Permits cost-sharing up to

60% of the cost of a project where the owners jointly agree

to a watershed conservation plan in injunction with their

respective farm-unit conservation plans;

2. Summer Construction Incentives;

3. Management Practices: Allows the commissioners of a

soil and water conservation district the option to allocate

not more than 30% of a district’s original and supplemental

allocation for the establishment of management practices

to control soil erosion on land that Is now rowcropped.

One payment of $1 ,000/acre for fields with windbreaks (must

be maintained 20 years); one payment of $500/acre for

grass windbreaks (must be maintained 20 years); and one

payment of $30/acre for lowa till (must be maintained for 5

years).
Conservation Practices Revolving Loan Fund

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship,

Division of Soil Conservation

State General Fund

Water Quality Protection lowa Department of Agricul- Lottery Funds

Projects ture and Land Stewardship,

Division of Soil Conservation

Kansas Water Resources CostShare Program

Water Resources-High

Priority Cost-Share Program

Water Resources-Watershed Planning Assistance

Program

Maryland Agricultural Water Pollution

Control

Minnesota Erosion Control and Water

Quality Management

Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM)

State Conservation Commission

State Conservation Commission

State Conservation Commission

Department of Agriculture;

Department of the Environment

Minnesota Board of Water

and Soil Resources

Minnesota Board of Water

and Soil Resources

State General Fund

State General Fund

State General Fund

Chesapeake Bay Water

Quality Loan Act of 1988

State General Fund

General Revenue Bondeasements; State General

Fund-program administration

Under terms of the no-interest loan program eligible landowners may receive a maximum of $10,000 for installation of

permanent soil conservation practices on their lands. A

conservation plan must be developed by the soil conservation district and the project must be approved by the district.

Revolving loan funds and public cost-sharing funds shall

not be used in combination for funding a particular soil and

water conservation practice.

These projects will protect the State’s groundwater and

surface water from point and nonpoint sources of contamination, including but not limited to agricultural drainage

wells, sinkholes, sedimentation, and chemical pollutants.

Water protection fund resources will provide administrative,

operational, and personnel support for the projects, and

funds for management and structural measures to address

identified water quality problems.

Provides up to 800/0 cost-share with landowners for enduring

water conservation practices to improve water quality and

quantity by the reduction of soil, water, and nutrient loss

from the land.

This cost-share program provides assistance to landowners

for land treatment in identified areas of high-priority needs

to develop and improve the quality and quantity of Kansas

water resources with respect to rural flood management,

agricultural water conservation, and nonpoint-source pollution.

Cost-share assistance for planning the development of a

targeted watershed area to solve a high-priority long-term

problem resulting from channelization processes over the

last 20 years.

Water Pollution Control: Up to 87.5% (up to $10,000/project,

$20,000/pooled project, $25,000/farm) cost-share for approved BMP for agricultural pollution control.

Beginning 7/1/85 a variable cost-share rate is in effect. Up to

75%. for high-priority erosion, sedimentation or water

quality problems; up to 50°/0 for less severe erosion

problems. Cost-sharing eligibility is tied to land capability

classification, erosion rate or distances from protected

waters of the State. Specifically, land capability classes

VI-VIII are excluded from cost-sharing eligibility.

The RIM program authorizes a State conservation reserve

which pays landowners to convert marginal farmland to

wildlife habitat or restore previously drained wetlands.

Farmers may choose between 20-year and perpetual

conservation easements in exchange for a single lumpsum payment. The 20-year RIM easement payment is 70%

of the present value of average cash rent in the area. The

payment for the perpetual easement is calculated as 100%

of the present value of average cash rent in the area. Of the

funds appropriated for the program, $750,000 is reserved

for conservation districts to cover administrative and

technical assistance costs.

Continued on next page
Appendix 5-l-Selected State Agricultural and Water Quality Cost-Share Programs, 1988-Continued

State Type of program Administered by Source of funds Details

Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation

Missouri Soil Erosion Control

Soil and Water Conservation

(Loan Interest-Share)

Soil and Water Conservation

(SALT: Special Area Land

Treatment)

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Native Prairies Restoration

Incentive

Montana Range Improvement Loan

Conservation District

Grants

Conservation District

Grants

State Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Missouri Soil and Water Districts Commission

Missouri Soil and Water Districts Commission

Soil and Water Distrists Land

mission

Missouri Soil and Water Districts Commission

Missouri Soil and Water Districts Commission

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,

Conservation District Division

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,

Conservation District Division

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,

Conservation District Division

General Fund

State FY-1982; Environmental

Protection Agency, Continuing 208 funds. State W83; State General Revenues; 1982 Constitutional

Amendment No. 1 establishing the Third State Building

Fund; and 1984 Constitutional Amendment establishing 0.1% sales tax for

soil and water conservation

1984 Constitutional Amendment No. 2

1984 Constitutional Amendment No. 2

Conservation Sales Tax

Amendment (1977)

Conservation Sales Tax

Amendment (1977)

Renewable Resource Development Fund-Coal Severance Tax Revenues

Coal Severance Tax Revenues

Resource Indemnity Trust

Funds

Rules and regulations have been developed and adopted by

the Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Commission.

Five Soil and Water Conservation Districts will be chosen

as pilot projects.

Up to 75% cost-share for eligible practices in conservation

plan. Cost-share for lands eroding above tolerable soil loss

limits, plus other special areas to encourage long-term,

less intensive land uses.

Interest drawn on State fund investments refunded to landowner for State’s share or private loan for eligible practices.

$2,500 to $25,000, loans qualify for interest-sharing,

10-year maximum. Predominant utilization of the program

is for no-till equipment (maximum term, 5 years).

Program combines benefits of State cost-share program and

Ioan interest program for landowners within locally identified higher priority watershed areas of 1,000 to 4,000 acres

needing treatment. Loan interest-share assistance for

landowner portion of cost-share practices to carry complete farm Resource Management Systems (RMSS) plus

loan interest-sharing for practices in RMSS not qualifying

for cost-sharing. Program also provides an annual grant to

districts for demonstration/Information/Technical needs to

support the project. SALT projects are funded for 5 years.

Additional incentives to farmers who complete wildlife habitat

and warm season grass practices on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreages. The incentive is 25% of

average county costs of eligible practices.

Additional incentive available in four test counties to promote

soil conservation and wildlife improvement through restoration of native prairie areas. The incentive is available for

2 years at $20/acre year with a 5-year maintenance period.

Rangeland Improvement bins-Up to $20,000 low-interest

loan exclusively for improving rangeland conditions. Administered locally by conservation districts. (Loans currently at 4%).

Grants to conservation districts (CDs) for projects and/or

equipment to promote on-the-ground conservation, Maximum grant $30,000.

Grants to CDs for district administration. Provided to CDs

whose county mill levy is not sufficient to finance all

administrative expenses.
Nevada

Nebraska

New Jersey

 .

Management Grant

Renewable Resource Development Grants

Conservation District Agricultural Energy Conservation

Grants

Energy Demonstration

Soil and Water Conservation

Farmland Preservation, Soil

and Water Conservation

North Carolina Agricultural Cost-Share Program

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,

Conservation District Division

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,

Water Resources Division

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,

Conservation District Division

Conservation Commission

Nebraska Natural Resources

Commission

New Jersey State Agriculture

Development Conmittee and

New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee (through

local conservation districts)

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Soil

and Water

Tax Credit for Purchase of Tax Commission

Conservation Tillage Equipment for Agriculture and Forestry

Renewable Resource Development Fund-Coal Severance Tax Revenues

Coal Severance Tax Revenues

Oil Overcharge Funds from

U.S. Department of EnergyState Energy Conservation

Program

Exxon Oil Overcharge Funds

State General Fund

Bonds of the State of New

Jersey :Totalof $50,000,000

authorized -88% for purchase of development easements; 120/. for cost-sharing with farmland owners.

State General Fund

N/A

Grants to CDs for demonstration type projects showing proper

riparian management practices. Program will emphasize

nonstructural type practices.

Grants to public entities (e.g., CDs) for development of

renewable natural resources.

Grants to CDs for projects that conserve energy and promote

sound soil and water conservation practices.

The conservation commission awards grant funds to CDs for

energy demonstration projects. The projects have been

associated with photovoltaic and infrared technology and

their uses in agriculture. To date about $73,000 have been

awarded.

Water Resources: Up to 75% cost-share for water impoundment structures, terraces, outlets, irrigation reuse pits,

grass seeding, tree planting, diversions, grade stabilization

structures, sediment control basins, and planned grazing

systems.

Bonds sold to initiate Farmland Preservation Fund for providing up to 80°/0 State share, 20°/0 county share of cost of

acquiring development easements on farmlands and or

500/0 costs of approved soil and water conservation

projects. Land must be enrolled in a Voluntary Agriculture

District as designated by the Agriculture Retention and

Development Act to be eligible for soil and waler conservation cost-sharing. Conservation projects must be approved

by the State Soil Conservation Committee, cost-share

practices must be part of conservation plan approved by

the local soil conservation district.

Begun as a pilot program in FY 1984-85. Has now been

expanded statewide and is currently available in 56 of 100

counties. Cost-share of 75%, up to $1 5,000/year/applicant,

for specified practices including conservation tillage, diversions, field borders, critical area plantings, sediment

control structures, sod-based rotations, grassed waterways, stripcropping, terraces, cropland conversion to grass

or trees, grade control structures, water control structures,

and animal waste management systems that reduce the

input of agricultural nonpoint source pollutants into the

waters of the state. Annual and long-term (3 year) agreements available.$825.000 goes to local conservation districts on a 50/50 cost-share basis to hire additional

technical assistance.

Provides for a State income tax credit of 25%, or up to

$2,500/year (the lesser) for the purchase of conservation

tillage equipment for use in agriculture and or forestry. The

amount of the tax credit may not exceed the individuals tax

liability for the year. Excessive credits may be carried

forward to the next 5 tax years.

Continued on next page
Appendix 5-l—Selected State Agricultural and Water Quality Cost-Share Programs, 1988-Continued

State Type of program Administered by Source of funds Details

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Wildlife Cost-Share Program

Agricultural Pollution Abatement

Natural Resource Protection

Soil Erosion and NPS Pollution Prevention

Discretionary Grants, Senate Bill 617 planning Funds,

District Operation Funds

Chesapeake Bay Agriculture

Program Financial Assistance Funding Program

South Carolina Forest Renewal

South Carolina Tax Credit-Conservation

Tillage and Drip/Trickle irrigation Equipment

South Dakota Shelterbelt Incentive Program

Game and Fish Department

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and

Water Conservation

Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Soil

and Water Conservation

Oklahoma Conservation

Corn mission

Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, Soil and Water

Conservation Division

State Conservation Commission Bureau of Soil and

Water Conservation

Forestry Commission

Tax Commission

South Dakota Department

of Agriculture Division of

Conservation

Interest money earned on

Game and Fish Reserve

Funds

Capital Improvements Fund

Capital Improvements Fund

State General Fund

State-General Fund Federal-EPA Chesapeake Bay

Program

Forest Renewal Fund (funded

with State appropriations and

assessment on forest products; 4:1 ratio-forest products: State appropriations)

N/A

State General Fund

matched by State Game,

Fish and Parks (GF&P) Funds

Wildlife-Provides 75 to 100% of funds for practices which

improve water quality and enhance wildlife habitat.

Cost-share for installing enduring practices for reducing

agricultural sediment pollution at not less than 75%. of cost,

but not more than $5,000 for animal waste management

and erosion control.

Provides up to 50% State funding of works of improvement to

promote natural resource management including erosion

control, drainage and flood control, water quality and water

supply, wildlife enhancement, streambank stabilization.

Effectively broadens the duties of the Oklahoma Conservation

Commission (OCC) and the Conservation Districts. Authorizes OCC to act as management agency having

jurisdiction over, and responsibility for, directing nonpoint

source pollution abatement programs outside the jurisdiction of cities and towns. It also empowers OCC to

administer a cost-share program which would provide

State funds to CDs for carrying out conservation or

management practices on the land to benefit the public

through prevention of soil erosion or nonpoint-source

pollution. The program is administered locally by CDs.

Funds for discretionary grants; planning grants; district operations; confined animal feeding; and Interagency Clean

Water Program.

Purpose of the Financial Assistance Funding Program is to

assist landowners with the cost of installing practices to

manage the disposal and application of nutrients on land

areas that are responsible for nonpoint-source pollution.

First priority is given to those high- and medium-priority

watersheds identified in the “agriculture and earthmoving

plan” developed under the 208 program, and other areas

the Commission determines are high priority based on

additional surveys and studies. The cost-share program is

administered by the State Conservation Commission cooperatively with conservation districts and the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.

Reforestation: Funds to provide site preparation, natural and

artificial reforestation or stand improvement on up to 100

acres per landowner.

Conservation Tillage and Drip/Trickle Irrigation Equipment:

Claim a 25% tax credit on expenditures (up to $2,500/year)

for purchase of conservation tillage equipment, drip/trickle

irrigation systems and dual-purpose truck and crane

equipment; a one-time credit.

Program pays $5/acre for new tree plantings or renovations for

a contract period of 10 years during which tree plantings

must be maintained.
Conservation Project

Grants

Utah Revolvingbxm-Agricultural

Resources Development Loan

Vermont On-Site Sewage Program

Virginia Reforestation of Timberlands

Chesapeake Bay Agricultural

BMP Program

Statewide Agricultural BMP

Program

Tax Credit for the Purchase

of Conservation Tillage Equip

ment

Washington Nonpoint Water Quality

Matching Grants for Conservation Districts

South Dakota Department

of Agriculture Division of

Conservation

Utah soil Conservation corn

mission

Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, Natural

Resource Conservation Districts

Division of Forestry

Department of Conservation

and Historic Resources, Division of Soil and Water

Conservation

Department of Conservation

and Historic Resources, Division of Soil and Water

Conservation

Washington State Conservation Commission

State General Fund

State General Fund; interest

on loans

State Appropriation and User

Fees

1/2 Reforestation of Timberlands State Funds; 1/2

Forest Products Tax

Commonwealth of Virginia

EPA Chesapeake Bay Program

Commonwealth of Virginia

N/A

Centennial Clean Water Act

Biennial Appropriation

Funds used to cost-share conservation projects on a matching

50/50 basis.

Provides low-interest loans for agricultural and energy conservation, range improvement, and watershed development.

One-time 4%. administrative fee; 3%. per annum interest

rate.

Service program to help towns administer ordinances regulating single-family home on-site sewage systems. Assistance in adopting, administering and enforcing local ordinances. Septic system evaluation, planning, design and

inspection services provided. Program supported by user

fees and appropriations from the State legislature.

Reforestation-Up to 50% ($60/acre) for site preparation and

planting seedlings for commercial species of pines.

Variable percentage or flat rates. State cost-share assistance

alone or combined with ACP cost-share rate not to exceed

the maximum rate established by the State ASCS Committee. Eligible practices include animal waste control facilities, diversions, grass filter strips, conservation tillage,

vegetative cover on critical areas, sediment retention,

erosion or water control structures, sod water, stream

protection, stripcropping, terraces, conversion of marginal

cropland to pasture or forest. flat rate rest-share practices

funded only by State.

Variable rate and flat rate cost-share incentives for selected

BMPs in Virginia’s Agricultural BMP cost-share manual.

Soil and water conservation districts administer this waterquality program locally to control sediment and nutrient

loss and animal wastes.

Provides for a 250/~ State income tax credit, up to $2,500, for

individuals and corporations for the purchase of conservation tillage equipment, defined as a no-till planter or drill. If

the tax credit exceeds the tax liability for that year, the

excess may be carried over for credit in the next five

succeeding taxable years until the amount of the tax credit

has been taken,

Makes available to the Washington State Conservation Commission 2.50/. of the Centennial Clean Water Act’s biennial

appropriation to provide matching grants to conservation

districts. The grants will be used to implement locally

identified projects that address nonpoint water pollution

problems identified in the districts’ annual plans of work. All

grants require a 25%. local match. Although the Commission does not require a county match, it will add bonus

points during project evaluation for district proposals

containing evidence of at least a 5% cash or in-kind match

from county government.

Continued on next page
Appendix 5-l-Selected State Agricultural and Water Quality Cost-Share Programs, 1988-Continued

State Type of program Administered by Source of funds Details

Wisconsin Soil and Water Resource

Management Program

Farmland Preservation Income Tax Credit Program

Wisconsin NPS Pollution Abatement

Overall administration by the

Department of Agriculture,

Trade and Consumer Protection with planning and

project implementation

activities administered

through county Land Conservation Committees (LCCS).

Local--County Government

State-Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer

Protection; Department of

Revenue

Department of Natural Resources

State General Purpose Reve- Program goal is T by 2000. A soil erosion control plan is

nues prepared by targeted, high erosion counties, with program

funds providing up to 50% of the cost to prepare the plans.

After the Department approves a plan, a county may apply

for implementation funds for cost-sharing, technical assistance, information and education, and other soil and water

resource management activities.

Wisconsin General Fund The program provides a mechanism for farmers subject to

farmland preservation agreements or exclusive agricultural

zoning (with soil conservation requirements) to receive an

income tax credit based on a formula which takes into

account farm income, property taxes, and income taxes

paid.

Wisconsin General Fund NPS Water Pollution Abatement-Up to 75% of cost of BMPs

identified in 208 Water Quality Management Plans for both

urban and agricultural NPS problems. Funds must be

spent in priority watersheds established in 208 planning

effort.

SOURCE: National Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, DC.
Chapter 6

Public Influences on Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater:

Findings, Issues, and Options

for Congress
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Summary of Obstacles to “Solving the Problem” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 .

Call to Action on Agriculture and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Overarching Barriers to Preventing Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . 257

CHANGINGPERCEPTIONSOFAGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT ... ........258

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Setting Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Focusing on Reduction of ’’Waste’’ in Agricultural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

CHARACTERIZING THE CONFUSION: THE PATCHWORK OF AGENCY

INVOLEMENT PREVENTION OF AGRICHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF

GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Organizations Involved in Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Trends Affecting Organizational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Potential Solutions to Common Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

REDIRECTING FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Major Programs Affecting Fanners’ Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Factors Hindering Effectiveness of Minor Changes in Farm Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Educating for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

THE BOTTOM LINE: QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Box

6-A.

6-B.

6-c.

6-D.

Boxes

Page

Federal Agencies Involved in Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Major USGS Activities Related to Agriculture and Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

Major EPA Activities Affecting Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Summary of the Major Components of USDA’s Water Quality Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

6-E. USDA Conservation Activities Related to Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

6-F. Selected State Programs Related to Agrichemical Contamination of the Environment . . . . . 275

6-G. Rationales for Federal v. State/Local Jurisdiction Over Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

6-H. Coastal Resources Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Figures

Figure Page

6-1. Losses of Agrichemicals to the Environment are Financial Losses to the Farmer . . . . . . . . . . 265

6-2. Primary Organizations Involved in Policymaking and Program Implementation

Related to Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

6-3. Range of Approaches to Agricultural programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

6-4. Comparison of Water Resource Boundaries and State Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

6-5. Network of Primary Federal Interagency MOUs on Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290

6-6. Government Costs for Agriculture Disaster Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Tables

Table Page

6-1. Federal Science Agency Support for Agricultural Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

6-2. Sample Restrictions on Aldicarb Use in Wisconsin and Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

6-3. Regulatory Options Available to States under the EPA Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

6-4. Sample Program Management Matrix of Research Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Chapter 6

Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of

Groundwater: Findings, Issues, and Options for Congress

INTRODUCTION

Since the founding of the United States, agriculture has been a mainstay of the economy, and an

important component of our cultural heritage. Although the number of farmers has declined over the

last 50 years, the food and fiber sector currently

accounts for about 18 percent of the gross national

product (GNP). Farm production accounts for about

2 percent of total GNP, and farm input industries

contribute only another 2 percent. The number of

farmers has declined to just over 2 million, or

roughly 3 percent of total employment (172).

Between 1970 and the early 1980s, agriculture

maintained a favorable annual trade balance while

almost all other sectors of the economy faced

growing deficits (178); that surplus declined with

the rise in the dollar’s value and other world

economic changes during the early 1980s. Since the

dollar’s devaluation, which began in 1985, the

agricultural surplus recovered substantially, from a

low of $5.4 billion in 1986 to $16.4 billion in 1988

(178). In addition, American agriculture has continued to produce a relatively low-priced domestic food

supply; on average, Americans spend only 15

percent of per capita income on food whereas other

developed countries may spend as much as 23

percent (e.g., Japan—21 percent, West Germany—

23 percent, United Kingdom-19 percent, Canada—

16 percent) (128).

Maintenance of an abundant and affordable food

supply has occurred despite the decline in number of

farmers due to the scientific and technological

advances occurring largely since World War II.

Since that time, farms have become more specializedmoving from a diversity of crop and livestock

products toward concentration on one commodity—

and more dependent on off-farm inputs. Further,

widespread adoption of high-yielding hybrid seeds,

commercial fertilizers, and pesticides increased

specialization in certain crops, even continuous

cropping of a single commodity crop. For certain

crops, such as corn, the costs of fertilizer and

pesticide inputs exceed all other operating costs

(1 12).

Commercial fertilizers and pesticides have been

widely accepted given their time and labor savings

and relatively low cost, particularly at times when

oil and natural gas prices were low. Product cosmetic quality standards and increasing pest resistance also have spurred agrichemical use. Wide

recognition of the benefits of agrichemicals may

have led to their application in larger amounts than

needed, or to more frequent, ‘‘prophylactic’ applications to reduce risk and assure consistent crop

yields. Few farmers, agricultural researchers, or

policymakers were considering the possibility of

unnecessary costs associated with wasted agrichemicals; some may have assumed that applying ‘a little

extra’ was still cost-effective in terms of reduced

time, labor, and worry. Farmers are likely to

welcome assistance and technologies that reduce

their operating costs or provide the same benefits of

lowered time and labor inputs. However, many will

understandably question the need to reduce agrichemical use if this means reduced income or increased

management demands or risk.

The United States also has seen an “environmental revolution’ occur during this century, emerging into a force of widespread national significance

since the late 1960s. Legislation restricting the

‘‘rights’ of those degrading environmental quality

have been increasingly enacted, following a progression from the more visible to less visible (e.g.,

end-of-pipe effluent controls to more general protection of surface-water quality); the more attributable

to less attributable (point-source pollution to nonpointsource pollution controls); the more easily blamed

‘‘corporate villains’ to less easily blamed “common man” (e.g., industry to farmers and households); and from specific human health hazards to

general environmental degradation threats.

The environmental concerns specifically attributed to agriculture have similarly followed a progression: from “on-site,” to “off-site” and, today,

to ‘‘out-of-sight. Concern over soil erosion’s

capacity for reducing soil fertility and thus farms’

productive capacity has run high since the Dust

Bowl era (1930s), prompting substantial Federal

involvement in farm and natural resource manage-

–253–
254 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

ment. Added concerns for surface-water quality,

such as sedimentation of navigable waters and lake

eutrophication, drove the development of conservation programs leading to those instituted in the 1985

Food Security Act. And today, concerns are arising

about agriculture’s contribution of invisible chemical gases to acid rain and climate change. Similarly,

concerns about agrichemicals, especially pesticides,

have moved from restrictions on use of those directly

hazardous to their handlers or other farmworkers, to

restrictions based on long-term hazards to the

consuming population, to wildlife, or to the environment generally.

The current concern about agrichemical contamination of groundwater can be seen, thus, as a natural

part of the progression of these trends. As governmental policy and programs address the “easier”

environmental concerns, the public enters debate

over the harder ones. Each ‘era’ involves balancing

public desire for zero-risk or zero-degradation of the

environment, on the one hand, and economic need

for chemical use or waste disposal on the other.

Because in agriculture at least, achieving zero

degradation is impossible, and because agriculture is

so important to the continuation of U.S. society and

economy, the trade-offs may seem more difficult.

Further, because agriculture has been largely exempt

from the environmental restrictions placed on industries, it is perhaps facing a more abrupt demand to

change. Transition to more environmentally responsible practices may require precipitous changes in

traditions and practices. However, this transition is

not substantially different from those that have gone

before in other sectors: the public wants the benefits

of a productive agricultural sector with a minimum

of environmental costs.

While it may be impractical to deal with all

cross-cutting environmental and agricultural issues

at once, going to the other extreme and dealing just

with groundwater out of the context of the surrounding environment may lead to inappropriate actions.

More specifically, laws that address only a fragment

of the hydrologic cycle will fail to address problems

completely, and may inadvertently create new problems (1 18), that will give rise to further public

demand for change. Because nonpoint-source groundwater contamination is largely beyond reach of

remedial actions, prevention of groundwater contamination is the only means currently available of

safeguarding a major environmental resource.

Similarly, it is impractical to expect that U.S.

agriculture solve its associated environmental problems instantly. A comprehensive approach to the

cross-cutting issues of agriculture and the environment will take time to develop, to implement, to

evaluate, and to adapt to ever-changing conditions.

Thus, development of policies today to deal with

agrichemical contamination need to be made with

consideration of how these policies, and the changes

in U.S. agriculture that they foster, will fit into the

larger picture of environmental and economic

change taking place in this country. This requires a

long-term view, and an analysis of the institutional

capacity for foresight and for change.

Summary of Obstacles to “Solving

the Problem”

Prevention or minimization of groundwater contamination from agricultural sources is fraught with

barriers, some of historical precedent and others

inherent to complex systems. Obstacles to preventing agrichemical contamination of groundwater

have been shown to include the following:

●

●

●

Inherent obstacles (see chs. 2 and 3), such as

the nonpoint-source character of contamination, complexity and variability in site characteristics, close linkages of groundwater with

other resources and resource issues, and uncontrollability of important factors such as weather.

Intrinsic obstacles (see ch. 4), deriving from the

functioning of agriculture within natural cycles

that cannot be halted; and the systems nature of

U.S. agriculture, such that pest control and

nutrient management cannot be separated from

other elements of farming, or from management of off-site resources.

Extrinsic obstacles (see ch. 5), deriving from

the diverse characteristics of farms and farmers,

the nature of the current structure of U.S.

agriculture, and the nature of agricultural and

economic policies.

In each of these are significant areas where

insufficient knowledge inhibits development of

clear-cut policies. Thus, legislation that endeavors to

be a cost-effective approach to reducing agrichemical waste or contamination of groundwater must be

designed for high levels of uncertainty. Further,

three cumulative lag times may make changes in

groundwater quality unnoticeable for decades: 1) lag

time of chemicals already applied and moving
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 255

through the soil profile to appear in groundwater; 2)

lag time in research to develop and make available

practices, especially if highly site-specific; and 3)

lag time in adoption of practices and transition of

farm management.

Several conclusions derived from this assessment

have clear policy implications. First, agriculture is a

national, strategic resource (13); the agriculture

sector of the economy is and will continue to be a

mainstay of the U.S. economy and society. Moreover, it can be considered a strategic industry in that

loss of the capacity to supply basic commodities to

the domestic population could be considered a threat

to national security. Options that severely reduce the

U.S. capacity (in terms of amount of productive

farmland, of farmland productivity, or of number of

skilled farmers) to produce food to feed the domestic

population are clearly adverse to the interests of

society.

Agriculture also is characterized by significant

natural and farm diversity: no technological “black

box” exists that can be universally adopted to solve

agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Moreover, agrichemical will not, in the foreseeable

future, be entirely replaced by other technologies or

management practices. Although we are entering a

new, and potentially revolutionary era in U.S.

agriculture, with a concomitant change in focus from

mechanical and chemical technologies to biological/

biotechnological, and informational technologies

(162), its ability to resolve the problems created by

current practices is not yet defined. Environmental

problems could be addressed by changes in bioengineering and information technology such that

agrichemicals, as they currently exist, may eventually be rendered a minor part of U.S. agriculture.

Still, strong forces are driving change in agriculture

requiring changes in the form and use of agrichemicals today.

Agrichemical contamination might be addressed

by simply banning (canceling registration and prohibiting new registration) all pesticides detected in

groundwater (or groundwater and surface water) to

date, or those fulfilling agreed-upon criteria for

“leachers.” However, this policy could not include

nitrate, the most common agrichemical groundwater

contaminant, which derives from multiple (including natural) sources, and is necessary for sustaining

agricultural production. In addition, banning all

chemicals appearing in groundwater could result in

cancellation of ‘‘non-leachers’ ‘—pesticides that arrived in groundwater through point sources. Such a

policy of banning pesticides without any consideration of the potential impacts of exposure (human,

animal, or ecosystem) to agrichemically-contaminated groundwater, is likely to be a politically

untenable solution placing potentially unnecessary

and therefore unacceptable burdens on farmers.

Only point sources of agrichemicals are readily

amenable to regulatory actions, given difficulties

and high costs of monitoring and enforcement for

nonpoint-source pollution. Further, the historical

dependence on incentives and voluntary adoption of

changes in farming practices implies that sweeping

regulatory actions will be controversial and not

easily instituted. Finally, the combined dearth of

necessary knowledge and the need to make assumptions and generalizations in national policy, disallow

any simple policy solution. There are no simple

answers: reducing agrichemical losses or contamination of groundwater likely will require a combination of new or modified programs involving education, incentives, technical assistance, technology

research and development, and regulation.

Call to Action on Agriculture and

the Environment

A growing public concern about risk to safety,

health, and the environment combined with an

apparent growing public distrust of governments

abilities to minimize or eliminate these risks is

spurring demands that Congress, and Federal and

State governments take action on agriculture and the

environment. The growing urbanization of the U.S.

population, and thus of Congress, will likely result

in more vociferous or numerous arguments that

agriculture address its associated environmental

problems.

Changing Views of Public Risk

Public concern over agrichemical contamination

of groundwater illustrates the extent to which

perceptions of risk are changing. While the presence

of agrichemicals in drinking water have been shown

to have some association with disease and mortality,

public surveys have shown that contaminated groundwater commonly is believed more risky than other

conditions suggested by some scientists to be more

hazardous to personal health (e.g., indoor air pollution). Individual and, thus, societal decisions about

risk may depend more on the conditions of exposure
256 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contaminaion of Groundwater

than on knowledge about the probabilities of adverse

outcomes. For example, people tend to accept risks

if they are self-imposed or if they are familiar.

However, agrichemically contaminated drinking

water involves an involuntary risk; one associated

with a resource for which there are no substitutes

(i.e., water), with unfamiliar multisyllabic chemical

names, and with uncertain and far distant consequences (6).

The public’s understanding of relative risks often

is called ‘‘perceived risk” to distinguish it from a

scientifically determined ‘‘real, ’ or ‘‘measured

risk. ” A common response to a disparity between

“perceived” and “measured” risk is to call for

increased communication with and education of the

public (64). Further, claims are often made that the

public is ignoring risks much more hazardous than

those appearing in the press and on television, and

thus their attention should be redirected towards the

‘‘real’ risks, presumably allowing the ‘‘perceived’

risks to sink low on lists of concerns: to end a

‘‘constant squishing of ants while the elephants run

wild” (85).

However, risk assessment, and thus risk management, cannot be value-free (19). The difference

between ‘‘measured risk” or “relative risk’ and

‘‘perceived risk’ may lie in the relative differences

between public and scientific estimates of values, or

differential knowledge about the extent and

strengths of values. For example, economists continue to try to thrust natural resources conservation

into economic terms, whereas the public seems to

care more that tap water has no additives than about

the monetary trade-offs involved in resource protection versus economic development. Thus, the obverse may be true, the scientists and decisionmakers

may need to listen more closely to the public’s risk

assessment.

Because the decisions about the risk of adverse

impacts from consuming contaminated groundwater

include societal valuations as well as scientific

determinations, they involve ‘‘transcientific’ questions-questions that cannot be answered by science

alone. And, because such questions involve consideration of values, and differing values are held by

different groups in society (e.g., consumers, producers, urban environmentalists), risk management and

communication decisions must be negotiated between those concerned and those who govern the

process that decides and acts on the risk. Clearly, the

public is unwilling to wait until scientific inquiry

provides all the facts necessary to determine an

uncontroversial, measurable level of risk. Instead, it

is calling on Congress to meet a challenge ‘posed by

policy-related science issues, characterized by uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes, and a need

for urgent decisions” (19).

When organizations are perceived to be ignoring

the values voiced in the debate, the public has a

tendency to lose faith in the ability or willingness of

the organization charged with minimizing risk, and

may undertake risk management on its own. For

example, information about potential risks from

consuming apples treated with a growth regulator

(Alar) prompted people to seriously reduce their

consumption of apples, causing apple growers to

lose nearly $25 million over a 2-month period in

1989 (173). Such unanticipated changes in consumption can have far more adverse impacts than a

gradual shift in production practices in response to

public concerns.

The oft-repeated statement that the U.S. food

supply is the most safe, most varied, and cheapest in

the world is now being countered by public pronouncements that belie a trust in the safety, and a

willingness to ‘‘sacrifice’ variety and low prices to

regain perceived safety (cf: 61). A recent news report

cited a demonstration against aerial spraying of

malathion to combat the Mediterranean fruit fly (the

“Medfly”) resolving into a chant to “Just say no to

oranges! (99). California orange growers may lose

substantial amounts of money by ignoring the

Medfly, but they may lose as much by ignoring the

public.

Growing Distrust in Bureaucracies

Consumers may increasingly take risk management into their own hands as trust in the government’s capability to protect them from unacceptable

risk declines. For example, discovery that EPA’s

estimate of the percentage of apples treated with

Alar was incorrect, and its later cancellation of the

use of Alar due to disclosure of additional health risk

information, only fueled a g-rowing public concern

that government organizations may be unable or

unwilling to provide the level of safety demanded by

the public. Similarly, EPA’s database on the impacts

of pesticides depends on studies conducted and data

generated by the chemical companies who stand to

gain by registration of the chemicals. This has long

been a suspected source of conflict of interest (cf:
Ch. 6-Public Influences cm Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 257

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service

The Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) damages numerous

types of fruit crops. Malathion spray programs used for

Medfly control in California have caused considerable

controversy.

48), and another reason for public distrust of

government assurances of safety.

As water resources problems in this country grow

increasingly complex and interrelated, so too have

the institutions and the programmatic and regulatory

cures devised by government. Fragmentation, excessive ‘‘red tape, ’ and lack of incentives for innovation have called into question the problem-solving

capacity of our institutions. . .. The problem centers

on the inability of governments to collectively

translate beliefs into tangible results. If left unattended, this problem will continue to seriously

weaken both the credibility and performance of

government services at all levels (86).

Increasing Urbanization of the American

Public and of Congress

U.S. agriculture has changed significantly since

the onset of the ‘‘chemical revolution. During the

Depression, farm families still made up one-third of

the U.S. population, and Federal government involvement in agriculture, already well-entrenched, expanded to include even more wide-ranging programs. In the 1980s, however, the budget crisis and

ballooning payments to farmers, consumer concerns

about food and drinking water safety, and increasing

concern about environmental quality led urban

interests and their representatives to reexamine the

Federal role in agriculture (135).

The number of congressional districts considered

“farm-oriented” totaled only 46 (out of 435) in

1986 (72). This number is expected to drop further

with congressional district reapportionment after the

1990 census. Urban interests have historically tended

to be more strongly ‘‘consumerism’ and ‘‘environmentalist” than agricultural interests (cf: 135).

While Congress and governments may prefer to

defer decisionmaking on agrichemical contamination of the environment until more information is

available, or until a path of incremental changes in

institutions, policies, and programs can be clearly

determined, it seems unlikely that the current public

clamor for action will subside. Actions to gain

needed knowledge, to develop technologies with

potential to reduce agrichemical contamination of

groundwater, and to increase adoption of such

technologies already are underway, promulgated by

Congress, by Federal agencies, and by State and

local government agencies. However, institutional

structures and interrelationships among these institutions, which were designed for or have evolved to

address other purposes, seem likely to hinder development of an integrated, comprehensive approach to

reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater or to reducing the adverse impacts of agriculture on the environment.

Overarching Barriers to Preventing

Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Protection of the Nation’s groundwater resources

has become an issue of pressing concern to the

public, to Congress, and to many Federal, State, and

local agencies. Agencies and organizations at all

levels are undertaking programs designed to affect a

farmer’s choice of technology, and thus the potential

for introduction of agrichemicals into groundwater.

Consequently, to the earlier list of obstacles to

preventing agrichemical contamination of groundwater must be added the overarching barriers-the

meta-obstacles-posed by organizational histories,

structures, and interrelationships that determine

policies and programs affecting farmers’ decisions.

These overarching barriers include:
258 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

●

●

●

●

rapidly changing perceptions of agriculture

and environment and lack of expressly defined

goals in either area;

multiplicity of organizations involved and difficulty defining relative roles or coordinating

efforts;

complex and entrenched missions and operating procedures of agencies and programs,

especially those with long histories, that commonly hinder incorporation of or directly conflict with new missions or goals; and

declining human and financial resources available to all levels of government, with concomitant concerns over dilution and duplication of

effort, and over inadequate information availability, reliability, and accessibility for decisionmakers at all levels of the public sector.

Each of these has myriad policy implications that

Congress could address.

CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF

AGRICULTURE AND THE

ENVIRONMENT

Introduction

Water circulates continuously through the hydrologic cycle (ocean, atmosphere, and land); movement of water from surficial sources to groundwater

or oceans and vice versa is a common attribute of the

cycle. Agrichemical contamination of water can

originate at various phases of the cycle. The route of

contamination commonly is difficult to determine,

highlighting the need for an integrated approach to

development of groundwater protection schemes.

The 1980s witnessed an expansion of the traditional view of agriculture to include concerns over a

broad spectrum of adverse environmental impacts

attributed to conventional agricultural production

practices. Agriculture’s environmental externalities—

“those costs borne by society and not reflected in

market prices for commodities’ ’-exist, although

they remain largely unexamined and unquantifie d

(34).

The environmental problems facing society and

agriculture particularly may be largely attributed to

the absence of a market for environmental quality.

Society and farmers may in fact place a greater value

on alternative uses for agricultural land than can be

generated through commodity markets (104).

The Conservation Title (XII) of the 1985 Food

Security Act (FSA) represented the initiation of this

expanded approach to the development of agricultural policy (34,50). This Title contained a significant environmental component and clear identification of agriculture’s responsibility for maintaining

the resource base. Further, the creation of the

Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture research program, and changes to other titles of the omnibus farm

bill, indicate the tone is set for increasing legislative

mandates related to agricultural impacts on the

environment.

Adverse off-site impacts from agricultural production (e.g., soil erosion, groundwater contamination) may have large price tags, particularly when

viewed in the light of recurrent commodity surpluses. Monitoring costs of potentially contaminated rural water-wells alone may range from almost

$1 billion to $2 billion or more (174,1 17,34).

Similarly, a 1985 study estimated that soil eroded

from agricultural lands into surface waters costs $3

billion to $13 billion annually ($6 billion midpoint;

1980 dollars) (34). Although farmers may be bearing

the costs of loss of farmland productivity due to

erosion, and some may face the costs of contaminated water supplies, for the most part the environmental costs of agricultural activities are not borne

by farmers, but by society.

Land-use and production practices of U.S. agriculturalists are now under scrutiny by the public-atlarge; detections of agrichemicals in groundwater

have served to catalyze public and political action.

As a result, new socially-determined values have

been identified to which the agricultural sector

(producers, institutions, etc.) will need to respond

(1 1). Despite ambiguous identification of the extent

of agrichemical contamination of groundwater or of

the realm of potential adverse impacts that may be

generated by this occurrence, agricultural production practices are seen as a serious source of

contamination (11),

Agricultural technologies and policies that have

encouraged heavy chemical use and resource consumption are now perceived as having promoted

agriculture’s current economic and environmental

problems. It has been suggested that broad changes

in policies and production approaches will be

needed to address these problems (34). The current

legislative debate seems to focus on mechanisms to

promote the integration of agriculture and environ.
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress . 259

mental concerns, with extremes falling into two

major categories: 1) those believing that continued

or increased agrichemical use would be environmentally catastrophic, and 2) others arguing that nonchemical production practices would render most of

U.S. agriculture economically unviable. Neither

situation is likely; reducing agrichemical losses and

thus the adverse environmental effects of agricultural production is not necessarily incompatible with

economic competitiveness (140,159).

The ability of the current agricultural system to

reduce the adverse environmental impacts of agricultural is under question (162). A recent, report by

the National Research Council identified a need for

significant enhancement in the research and development efforts funded through the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) as well as needs for multidisciplinary approaches to research and problem solving (1 13). The technological base from which

researchers may draw potential solutions is increasing, with major emphases on biotechnology and

information technologies. Ultimately the benefit of

these advances to agriculture will be determined by

how well they are integrated into a systems approach

to agricultural production; one that incorporates

productivity, economic viability, and environmental

and public health protection.

Changing Definition of Public Trust Resources

and Property Rights

Federal, State, and local governments exert substantial influence on agricultural land-use directly

through such actions as property taxation, purchase

or transfer of development rights, farmland preservation and right-to-farm laws, or more indirectly

through environmental requirements or agrichemicaluse restrictions (53,58). Governments also have

established public interests in “privately-owned”

resources such as surface water, wetlands, and

endangered species, and some analysts have suggested that this may eventually extend as far as soil

quality (9), or nature itself (147). The definition of

a resource, and how it may be used, changes as

knowledge and socially recognized values evolve.

The nature of property rights-an owner’s accepted rights to control, use, or otherwise dispose of

property-to natural resources has changed considerably since the publication of Rachel Carson’s

Silent Spring in 1969 (25). The rapid growth in

land-use regulations and resource protection programs illustrates the accelerating social concern for

ecological integrity. In relation to wetlands, an

important part of the hydrologic cycle, recent court

cases have affirmed that:

Private land owners own a slice of an ecosystemif not affirmatively obligated to protect the ecological role of their land, owners nonetheless do not have

the right to alter the land’s natural integrity by using

it in a way that is incompatible with that role (84).

Court decisions have applied the public-trust

doctrine-that the States hold certain resources in

trust for certain public uses—to virtually any public

use associated with surface water resources (e.g.,

navigation, fishing, recreation, aesthetics) (194,65).

However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently recognized Federal authority to supercede historical

States’ primacy over the hydrologic cycle in its

decision that Federal water law extends to protection

of the lands that affect surface-water quality (84).

Should the same principles be extended, for example, to groundwater recharge areas, agriculture and

other development activities could be restricted

beyond simple evaluation and registration of chemicals.

Inclusion of Agriculture in Environmental

Stewardship

Under a new view of agriculture as an industry,

liability for adverse environmental consequences

generated by the activities undertaken in production

has become an issue of broad public concern.

Identification of responsible parties and degree of

responsibility is a major point of debate. Is agriculture to be defined as a “strategic industry” such that

the burden of liability is to be shouldered by all those

who share in the benefits derived from its conduct

(e.g., the taxpayer)? Or will a strict “polluter pays’

approach be used? Likely, some compromise of

these two extremes will evolve.

Historically, precedence has led to exemptions of

specific agricultural activities from certain environmental protection acts. For example, irrigation

return flow water is specifically excluded as a

potential point source contamination route in the

Clean Water Act.

However, the President’s Water Quality Initiative

specified that “farmers are ultimately responsible

for avoiding contamination of water resulting from

management practices they apply to the landscape’

(165). Identification of agriculture as an industry

with off-site environmental responsibilities is a new
260 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

concept for many producers, particularly with regard

to responsibility or liability for environmental contamination. Further, many practitioners view the

water-quality issue largely as an information problem to be addressed through minor changes to extant

agricultural policies and programs, major emphases

on research, and little regulatory involvement. Most

agriculturalists view actions to reallocate property

rights as unnecessary (1 1).

For many years, farmer surveys and farm organization representatives have indicated strong opposition to regulatory approaches in agriculture (130).

Environmental regulations in agriculture have been

viewed as threats to U.S. agriculture’s ability to

provide an adequate food supply for meeting domestic and export needs (cf: 59). However, farmers and

farm organizations do not hold uniform views

regarding environmental regulation. More recent

surveys indicate that some farmers may have moderated their opposition to regulation, particularly in

relation to agrichemical use (95,130). Farmers thus

may be distinguishing between regulations with

clear personal health and safety implications and

those which they perceive to be poorly thought-out

reactions to exaggerated or poorly documented

environmental problems. Thus, representation of all

farmers as being uniformly opposed to regulation

fails to accurately portray the diversity of opinion

among farmers or the varied reactions to a broad

array of possible regulatory approaches.

Trends suggest that agricultural producers no

longer will be exempt from environmental responsibility. Whether any assignment of liability will be in

response to Federal or State legislative actions or

some combination of these however, has yet to be

defined. Legislative action at the State level indicates the beginning of an era of environmental law

that will affect agricultural practices (140), Landmark State initiatives exist that clearly identify

polluter liability based on current “best” scientific

knowledge. These have come despite the dearth of

knowledge of potential adverse health effects from

long-term exposure to contaminants at specific

levels.

Connecticut, for example, applied strict liability

for groundwater contamination, whereby the polluter was responsible for damages regardless of the

level of care exercised. The State is not required to

prove fault, negligence, or harm. After a court

finding that the owners of five of Connecticut’s

largest and most profitable farms were liable for

frees and provision of potable water to injured

parties, the Connecticut Governor’s Task Force on

Pesticides and Ground Water recommended that

strict liability remain in force, and that those

potentially liable (including golf course owners,

etc.) make mandatory contributions to a selfinsurance fund. The latter proposal was not adopted

although the law was revised to reduce the burden if:

●

●

●

●

Still,

agrichemical applications were made properly;

the applicator is an active agricultural practitioner and the agrichemical was used for

agricultural purposes;

plans to minimize contamination potential are

implemented by the applicator; and

complete records of agrichemical applications

have been maintained (12).

under the revised law, farmers and chemical

companies remain liable to some extent for contamination.

Detections of agrichemical contamination of private and public wells in California led to development and passage of Proposition 65 that clearly

establishes polluter liability for contaminating water

with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects,

or reproductive problems in humans. Under this

initiative, water contamination is defined as chemical content beyond what is considered the scientifically safe level. Proving its safety is the burden of the

polluter. The Proposition applies to businesses with

at least 10 employees (31,12).

A key advantage of policies emphasizing polluter

liability is that much of the enforcement and

monitoring responsibility falls under the purview of

private parties, while under a no-fault approach,

responsibility lies with public agencies. However,

disadvantages of placing responsibility in the hands

of private parties largely lie in the lack of incentives

for: 1) monitoring, 2) research on groundwater

issues, and 3) development of educational or preventative approaches to mitigate potential contamination. This construct becomes active once damage has

occurred, and relies on the judicial system to mediate

and determine liability and required compensation

on the part of the polluter. In these cases, the burden

of proof falls on the plaintiff (12).

Similarly, the precedent for liability for wrongful

or negligent acts leading to water contamination

currently exists. Criminal provisions exist within
Ch. 6---Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress . 261

numerous Federal environmental statutes, largely

related to: 1 ) knowing or willful violations, 2)

negligence, 3) misrepresentation of information to

regulatory agencies, 4) disclosure of proprietary or

confidential information, and 5) conflict of interest

(1 16). Certain pieces of legislation (e.g., Clean

Water Act) contain specific reference to punishment

for release of pollutants into clearly identified water

bodies or conduits thereof (e.g., ocean, sewer

systems, etc.). Certain groundwater ‘ ‘conduits’ or

‘‘tributaries’ may fall under this Act (196), and thus

penalties may apply.

Cross-Media Pollution and Media-Specific

Programs

The final form and fate of agrichemicals are

determined by their interaction with the agroecosystem in which they are applied. Certain cycles exist

that are essentially unalterable within an agroecosystem and these cycles affect how inputs move and

behave and where they ultimately will be deposited.

Environmental fate of agrichemicals may be

affected by many factors including type and method

of input, management approach, and the physical

and biological attributes of agroecosystems. For

example, nitrogen that is not taken up by an actively

growing crop may have a variety of fates including:

runoff (potential surface water contaminant), leaching (potential groundwater contaminant), volatilization (potential atmospheric contaminant), and immobilization (temporarily sequestered in organic

matter). Reducing the potential for loss via one

mechanism to one medium cannot ensure that loss to

another medium will not occur. Thus, agricultural

practices designed to conserve a specific resource

(e.g., groundwater, atmosphere, soil) may in fact

adversely affect another, particularly given the

cyclic nature of certain contaminants (e.g., nitrogen)

or contamination pathways.

Agricultural and environmental policy largely

have been predicated on impacts affecting a single

medium (e.g., air, surface water, groundwater),

single sources (end-of-pipe industries, agriculture

point source, etc.), or even single organisms (e.g.,

endangered species). While increasing recognition

of the cross-media nature of contamination argues

for development of a more systematic, comprehensive approach to environmental protection, the broad

array of potential sources, routes, and impacts of

contamination make development of such policies

and programs difficult.

Currently, approaches to address agrichemical

contamination of groundwater focus on regulatory

approaches based on chemical attributes, development of risk assessment methodologies, and research on transport and fate of potential contaminants. While these factors warrant incorporation in

environmental management approaches, the resultant Federal programs have not led to an integrated

approach but rather, seem to exacerbate the existing

fragmentation (132).

Prevention v. Remediation

Prevention has been asserted to be more effective

(economically and technically) than remediation in

agrichemical contamination of groundwater (cf:

117), and may be the more cost-effective approach

to controlling all forms of ‘environmental externalities. ’ The Science Advisory Board for EPA has

called for a more pro-active, preventative approach

to environmental pollution (102).

The advantages and disadvantages of remedial

treatment of contaminated aquifers has been an issue

of much discussion and scientific research. Given

current technology it seems that prevention of

contamination is more feasible than attempting to

reclaim aquifers. In many cases, the technology and

science necessary for aquifer clean-up simply may

not exist; in others, reclamation of degraded groundwater may be technically feasible but financially

prohibitive. Preventative groundwater protection,

however, is similar to preventative medicine. While

prevention is preferred, it seems it is easier to get

attention and allocate funding after problems occur

(1 19).

Certain EPA planning documents suggest that

aquifers known to be contaminated or unlikely to be

used for drinking water should be designated as

‘‘dumping areas,’ while pristine aquifers should be

maintained as drinking water sources, This strategy,

however, presumes sufficient understanding of underground water flow to ascertain that contamination will not move from one region to another ( 144).

It also presumes that the degraded aquifers will not

be needed in the future.

New Technological Revolution in Agriculture

New technological tools are becoming increasingly available for application in agricultural production. Advances in biotechnology show promise

for affecting current production practices significantly. For example, development of pest-resistant
262 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Table 6-l—Percentage of Scientists by Field at 4-Year Colleges and Universities Receiving Federal Science

Agency Support, 1987

Percent receiving

Number at USDA

Field of science and selected colleges/ USDA comp. NSF NIH

disciplines within fields universities funding grants grants grants

Agricultural scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,654

Economics related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,838

Plant biology-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,511

Biological scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,416

Agricultural-related biological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,778

Plant-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,098

Environmental scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,375

Hydrology and water resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Ail scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,746

63.3

68.1

63.6

9.5

28.2

48.0

4.6

23.2

6.8

3.2

NA

NA

0.1

‹0.2

NA

‹0.1

NA

0.2

4.8

1.0

6.0

15.8

17.6

29.0

35.5

27.3

12.1

1.6

0

1.5

45.6

19.2

5.5

1.5

0

18.5

SOURCE: National Research Council, Investing in Research:A Proposal to Strengthen the Aadcultural, Food, and Environment System (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1989). -

crop cultivars could have a dramatic effect on

pesticide use. Similarly, information collection and

dissemination techniques show promise for enhancing adoption and use of new technologies and

improving application of extant practices (e.g.,

“how-to” videos). While some of these advances

are still in their infancy, others are either on-line

(e.g., biocontrol agents) or will be available soon

(e.g., drought-tolerant tomatoes). Agricultural production methods certainly will be affected by such

changes in available technology.

Although USDA is the major actor in developing

and extending agricultural practices to producers,

other agencies also invest significant effort in

research and technology development related to

agriculture (table 6-1 ) (113). At least one-third of the

funding for agricultural research is granted by

agencies other than USDA (162). As agriculture’s

technological base broadens, the possibilities of

solutions to problems expands as well. However, it

is unclear whether this base is sufficiently broad or

whether the current research structure is adequate to

address the plethora of environmental concerns

related to agriculture (162).

It seems clear that the current public and congressional concern over the adverse environmental

effects associated with agricultural production practices is likely to result in policy changes affecting

agriculture. This situation offers a unique opportunity to develop policies and programs that integrate

agriculture and the environment. New agricultural

policy will have to address the changing conditions

posed by an expanding agri-technological base and

public concern over agricultural impacts on the

environment.

An ultimate goal of policy development maybe to

create policy that is sufficiently flexible to adapt as

these conditions continue to evolve (104). Clearly,

multidisciplinary research, development, and extension of agricultural production systems will be

increasingly needed. However, the current structure

of the agricultural research and education system

may not be adequate to fulfill this need.

Setting Goals

The agricultural community has long been criticized for not providing or developing a national plan

for agriculture (cf: 161,162,144). Policies and programs commonly are created to address individual,

and sometimes temporary problems, with little

consideration to the overall impact on U.S. agriculture. As programs are added or changed, the impact

of this evolving patchwork is modified, and interactions among the multiple components of agricultural

and other policies modify the patchwork in unanticipated and sometimes adverse ways. Even the USDA

has recognized the problems with “ad hoc, crisisoriented policymaking” (161). For effective, longterm agricultural development and maintenance of

environmental quality, clear-cut food and agricultural goals are necessary.

A goal is defined as the end toward which effort

is directed. The end point must be definable and, at

least in theory, achievable. The oft-stated mission of

U.S. agriculture is assumed to be: to provide an

ample supply of nutritious food for the consumer at

reasonable cost with a fair return to the farmer within

an agricultural system that is sustainable in perpetuity. However, this “goal” is open-ended and,

therefore, not achievable. Further, it contains many
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 263

unquantifiable facets. For example, what is meant by

an ‘‘ample supply?’ Does it mean production to

meet: a) U.S. demands? b) U.S. demands plus

economic demands of the world market? or c) U.S.

and world market demand plus confessional food to

poor countries? How would we know when an

‘‘ample supply’ is achieved? What is ‘‘nutritious’

food? HOW is it defined? Is a “reasonable cost’ to

consumers 15, 20, or 30 percent of disposable

income or some other figure? Is a‘ ‘fair return to the

farmer” 10, 15, or 20 percent of investment? And

would this “fair return” be achieved by: 1995?

2000? or 2500? Is a sustainable system one that

tolerates 5, 10, or 15 tons of erosion per acre

annually? Does it provide any allowance for or hold

any prohibitions on agrichemical contamination of

groundwater? (161).

These and other questions must be answered for

a goal to have meaning and to be useful for

agricultural policymaking, determining trade-offs in

resource allocation, or planning a research agenda.

With such questions remaining unanswered, these

activities become largely a futile task. Directives

that do exist often are so vague that Congress may

conclude that directives are being ignored at the

same time agencies conclude that they are being

addressed (1 19).

Congress has set well-defined, achievable goals in

other arenas in the past. Congress set a goal of

putting a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960s;

the goal was met. Congress has set goals for the level

of gasoline consumption for different sizes of cars by

certain dates. It should be possible for Congress to

set well-defined, achievable, goals for U.S. agriculture as well (161).

In the absence of explicit goals, confusion may

exist within the agencies regarding the appropriate

direction to take in program development. Agency

administrators tend to prefer legislative directives

that are brief in length and broad in authority, thus

providing a mandate but leaving flexibility to adjust

programs as circumstances change. Congress and

special interest groups, however, may prefer very

specific directives to ensure that the issue of concern

will in fact be addressed. Some sort of compromise

may be appropriate: a statement of specific goals

that includes a certain degree of flexibility and

sufficient time prior to evaluation to allow adaptation to changing conditions. In this way a program

may be adjusted as necessary, while retaining

assurance that there will be real criteria by which to

measure agency response (1 19).

The goals of USDA remain undefined and as such

complicate identification of priorities; leading to a

reactive rather than proactive institution. A recent

GAO report noted that significant constraints to

coordinated and consistent program implementation

exist within USDA (158).

. . .we believe that the Secretary needs to develop

and clearly articulate a management agenda for the

Department focused on important cross-cutting issues and improved human resource, information,

and financial management systems. GAO management reviews of other agencies indicate that Cabinet

secretaries have been able to implement reforms by

personally articulating policy and management priorities and by ensuring that the Department responds

effectively. The agenda should include a statement

of goals, required actions, and management systems

to monitor and evaluate achievement of said goals.

We believe that such an agenda would be an

important first step to ensure that USDA has the

appropriate organization, systems, and flexibility to

meet its challenges. Further, the next levels of

departmental political and career managers must

be held accountable for implementing this agenda

(158).

Under the existing Federal framework for environmental protection, addressing nonpoint-source

water contamination largely depends on increasing

the priority of water quality goals contained in

programs that are not specifically designed for

protection of water quality (8). However, the effectiveness of implementing these program subsections

may well depend on agency abilities to set goals,

develop an implementation process, and monitor

activities to determine success (i.e., the same factors

that GAO suggests are lacking in USDA). Additional conditions necessary for success include

flexibility to allow adaptation to changing conditions, commitment by implementing officials, and

political support (79).

The “T by 2000” program in Indiana is illustrative of the potential effects of environmental goalsetting at the State level. The program seeks to

reduce soil loss per acre in Indiana to the soil loss

tolerance-limit (’‘T’ or below, and, thus associated

sedimentation problems from agricultural and nonagricultural sources by the year 2000. The effort

began in 1983 with the establishment of the Soil

Resources Study Commission. The Commission
264 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches TO Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

was given the task of assessing State soil erosion

problems and relevant policies, laws, and practices.

Recommendations developed in this assessment

described operational structure, education and research, technical assistance, financial assistance,

and regulatory measures needed to achieve this goal.

Based on this analysis, legislation was enacted in

1986 to implement the operational structure. With

the addition of a lake-enhancement component

(controlling sedimentation and nutrient loss to

surface water bodies), broad public support was

gained leading to approval of funding and allowing

partial implementation of educational and technical

assistance aspects of the program. The initial two

years of the program have been deemed successful

(35).

POLICY ISSUE: Lack of Clear, Measurable,

Federal Goals for Agriculture and the Environment

Option: Congress could establish clear and specific

national goals to protect the physical and biological integrity of the environment generally, and

groundwater resources specifically.

No clearly identified Federal goals related to

agriculture and the environment exist. This hinders

congressional identification of current activities

relevant to issues of public concern such as agrichemical contamination of groundwater, and oversight of

resource allocation among competing priorities. The

precedent for identification of such goals at the State

level also indicates a potential for further development of fragmentary environmental protection efforts.

Program leaders within each of the agencies

should be able to define the working objectives,

goals, and implementation schedules under which

they are operating. Each of these agencies and their

respective offices should have clear and specific

measurable goals that are relevant, integrated, and

coordinated towards attainment of explicitly stated

national objectives. Each agency should have a

published working plan that states how they will

reach their goals and their timetable of implementation, Some agencies are already developing goals

and implementation plans, but Congress may wish

to ensure that all of the agencies take this action, that

the efforts are coordinated, and that they adequately

reflect the concerns of Congress and the public.

To reach such a set of goals, objectives and

timetables, Congress may wish to pursue a more

interactive planning process than is normally used.

Rather than a mandate, Congress might instruct the

respective agencies to submit working goals to

which Congress and the public could respond prior

to legislative action.

POLICY ISSUE: Need To Ensure Commitment of

Administrators to Goals

Option: Congress could clearly express its commitment to goals and priorities during confirmation hearings for administration nominees.

Authorizing legislation may mean little if not

followed with appropriations, however, equally

important is the coremitment of the administrators to

the program (125,1 19). Guidance afforded an agency

by top management can be crucial in developing

appropriate responses to environmental and technical issues. Thus, the appointment of high-level

management possessing the experience and technical background appropriate to the agency mission is

likely to be of great importance, particularly with

respect to formulation of agency initiatives in

response to sensitive agricultural and environmental

issues.

The offices of Secretary and Undersecretaries of

Agriculture, Administrator of EPA, Director of the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), etc., are presidentially appointed. Thus, congressional confirmation

hearings offer an early opportunity to assess the

capabilities and views of these potential candidates.

These hearings also provide a forum for raising

issues and discerning the depth of a nominee’s

knowledge of and concern for responding to critical

environmental issues. Potential exists during this

appointment process to reinforce congressional and

public concerns with the appointee.

Focusing on Reduction of “Waste”

in Agricultural Systems

Policy approaches that focus on waste reduction

seem to offer significant potential for reducing

groundwater contamination potential associated with

current agricultural production practices. Losses of

applied agrichemicals, excess energy use, etc. may

all contribute to increased input costs for practitioners as well as create the opportunity for environmental contamination through a variety of pathways

(figure 6-l). These wastes may be biodegraded into
Ch. 6--Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 265

Figure 6-l—Losses of Agrichemicals to the Environment are Financial Losses to the Farmer

Volatilization

Agrichemicals may be lost from an agricultural production system through a variety of mechanisms. These represent lost farmer

investments as well as potential costs to society.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990

other compounds, taken up by non-target organisms,

or lost to various pathways where they may become

pollutants in the hydrologic cycle. Actions to reduce

such waste could have beneficial effects on environmental quality generally and groundwater quality

specifically.

Thus, one promising approach to reducing the

potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater (as well as other media) is based on the

concept of waste reduction. Waste reduction for

agriculture may be defined as ‘‘reducing the generation, emission, or discharge of agricultural pollutants or wastes through modification of agricultural

production systems and practices’ (34). Most farms

could benefit from enhanced resource conservation

activities and improved use of the physical and

biological aspects of the agroecosystem (34,33,1 12).

Waste reduction approaches to agriculture also

may have beneficial impacts on other issues of

public concern, such as energy-use efficiency in

agriculture. New approaches to cultivation (e.g.,

conservation tillage) have been linked to increased

energy efficiency in terms of direct energy inputs.

Energy efficiency in U.S. agriculture increased 55

percent between 1974 and 1985, largely through

reduced tillage practices, increased control and

timeliness of agrichemical and irrigation water

applications, and other energy-conservation measures (148). However, use of energy-intensive agrichemicals increased 15 percent between 1974-85. Energy

components in fertilizer and pesticide production are

nearly 60 and 13 percent respectively (148). Clearly,

improving agrichemical application efficiency with

a goal of waste reduction also could have beneficial

effects on overall energy conservation.

Waste reduction as a policy initiative to address

groundwater contamination would require identification of the types of waste to be addressed (e.g.,

pesticides, nutrients) and the magnitude of reduction. Potential targets for waste reduction in agriculture might include: agrichemicals and livestock

wastes, soil erosion, and greenhouse gas emissions

(33). While such a policy tool is not specific to

particular farming systems, it maybe biased towards

heavy-input production systems. Organic production systems (cf: 163) could be viewed by some as

the ultimate pesticide waste-reduction approach,

however, such systems may rival conventional

systems in other types of waste production (e.g.,

nitrate from livestock wastes). Potential for practices

designed to reduce certain inputs could result in

greater difficulties with conservation of other resources (e.g., herbicide reduction requiring additional cultivation may lead to increased soil erosion

problems).
266 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Federal activities in development of agricultural

technologies are significant. Inclusion of waste

reduction as a goal of ongoing agricultural research

and extension programs, thus, could have a broad

effect. A possible approach could include: setting

priorities (e.g., identify “most wasteful” systems),

assessment of a feasible level of waste reduction,

identification of data gaps and the research needed

to fill gaps, identification of appropriate extension

and support programs, and development of a timetable and system for monitoring success of program,

Human resources and technical expertise was

available to help practitioners implement soil conservation measures as outlined in the 1985 Food

Security Act. However, dearth of such expertise

related to ‘‘agrichemical conservation measures’

inhibits adoption of production practices using

reduced chemical inputs (33). The scientific understanding of the effects of agrichemicals in food and

drinking water is limited in comparison to the

understanding of soil erosion processes and potential solutions. Thus, enhancement of organizational

structure and technical expertise necessary for implementing new conservation policies related to

groundwater protection is unlikely to occur rapidly

(33). Analysis of the current capacity, then, is crucial

to the development of rational timetables for achievement of water-quality conservation goals.

Design and extension of waste-reduction practices appropriate to cropping patterns or regions

highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination

could have significant impact on reducing the

potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater. However, development of strategies designed

for waste reduction will depend on availability of

information on agrichemical use patterns correlated

with cropping region and cropping pattern.

POLICY ISSUE: Establishing an Organizing Prin -

ciple for Goal-Setting

Option: Congress could establish an Agricultural

Waste Reduction Initiative to serve as an organizing principle for identifying goals for U.S.

agriculture and the environment.

Congress could direct agencies with agriculturally related responsibilities (USDA, EPA, etc.) to

develop strategies aimed at achieving reduction of

waste over the long term. Initial steps might include

identification of the technical and informational

needs to make decisions related to goal development

and timetables for emission reduction and prioritization of these needs.

Waste reduction policy development will depend

on: 1) accurate, current information on agrichemical

use and identification of waste-generating production systems, 2) technically sound information on

environmental fate of wastes in different settings, 3)

development of technically and economically feasible alternatives for high “waste-generating” production systems, and 4) research and technicalassistance systems adequate to support such changes

(33). This type of information could be used in

combination with identification of regions highly

vulnerable to groundwater contamination, and with

information on relative risks of exposure to humans

and the environment, to develop a strategy to protect

groundwater.

Critical questions that must be answered are: how

can conditions be created that would foster grower

adoption of waste reduction production practices?

and what forms of incentives and technical assistance structure and expertise are needed to support

such a change? Analysis is needed of the organizational structures and technical knowledge necessary

to support practitioners in implementation of new

program titles that may become part of Federal

legislative actions.

CHARACTERIZING THE

CONFUSION: THE PATCHWORK

OF AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN

PREVENTION OF AGRICHEMICAL

CONTAMINATION OF

GROUNDWATER

Setting goals, redirecting programs, or coordinating Federal efforts to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater is complicated by the number

and variety of organizations involved in agriculture

and water quality (figure 6-2). The Association of

State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators in 1985 identified “354 State and local

programs, and 32 programs in 17 Federal agencies,

which manage nonpoint-source activities and affect

water quality’ (8). These numbers have undoubtedly risen since then.
Ch. &-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 267

I I

r 1
268 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Organizations Involved in Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater

Identification of potential policy implementers, or

even development of a catalog of current groundwater protection activities, is hindered by the

breadth and diversity of public organizations operant in agriculture and groundwater contamination,

nonpoint-source pollution, water quality, or other

related environmental issues. In addition, some

basic organizational characteristics hinder an integrated approach to protection of groundwater from

agrichemical contamination.

●

●

●

This

Organizations at all levels of government—

Congress, Federal, State, local, and in some

cases regional or international-are or have

potential to become involved in protection of

groundwater from agrichemical contamination.

Within each of these levels, the types of

organizations with potential roles to play include the more traditional agriculture, environment, and public health organizations, as well

as newer interagency task forces, councils, and

boards that have been developed specifically to

address the issues.

Organizations differ in the types of activities

they use to effect change, including education

and voluntary programs, incentives designed to

lure decisionmakers into modifying farmmanagement systems, and regulations prohibiting certain types of activities. Organizations

typically have been designed (or have evolved)

to favor one type of influencing activity over

another.

Organizations also have tended to focus along

lines more restrictive than what is needed to

encompass the entirety of issues involved. For

example, agricultural programs may focus on

individual commodities; agricultural conservation and environmental protection programs

have tended to single out individual pollution

media; and health impact investigations may

single out cancer or reproductive hazards from

other potential health impacts.

multiplicity of actors, actions, viewpoints, and

approaches makes it difficult to generalize on

current or potential roles, evaluate extent of success,

or define lines of coordination and cooperation.1

The Role of Congress

Nearly 50 bills addressing groundwater topics,

many including agricultural issues, were introduced

in the 100th Congress (197), and roughly 20 were

introduced during the first half of the 101st Congress. In addition to the diversity of approaches

suggested in these bills, and an apparent lack of

consensus on the most appropriate response, the

sheer number of bills reflects a fundamental change

in Congress. Bills introduced into the 100th Congress were promulgated by or referred to at least 14

full committees (197) and involved almost twice as

many subcommittees (20).

Clearly, the agriculture/environment debate has

lifted agricultural policymaking beyond the House

and Senate Agriculture Committees, where it traditionally was focused (17). Agriculture no longer has

the widespread constituency it once had, and now

has to entertain concerns expressed by nonagricultural interests (21). However, agricultural

interests have maintained a strong traditional congressional lobby: at least 180 organizations representing agricultural interests are registered with the

U.S. Senate lobby (18).

At the same time, the number of Committees and

Subcommittees with some jurisdiction over environmental issues has grown rapidly. For example, the

number of committees and subcommittees using the

words ‘‘environment’ or ‘‘resources’ in their titles

grew from 0 in 1965 to 25 in 1990. This explains, to

some extent, the number of committees requesting

referral of agricultural bills containing environmental protection provisions, which includes much

recently proposed agricultural legislation. Historically neither the House nor Senate agriculture

committees have fully participated in developing

water quality legislation, which generally has been

developed by the environment and public works

committees (36).

With environmental jurisdiction scattered throughout Congress, no legislative constituency exists for

integrating agriculture and environmental policy,

nor for integrating environmental policy overall.

However, because the boundaries of many agricultural and environmental issues do not match political

boundaries-just as boundaries of aquifers do not

honor county lines-bargaining becomes essential

I More detai]ed discussions of Federal agency legislation and roles in protection of groundwater from agrichemical contamination can b fowd in

Nipp (1 19), Zinn and Tieman (197), FCCSET (56), and OMB (190).
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress • 269

Box 6-A —Federal Agencies With a Role in Protection, Remediation, and Mitigation of Groundwater

Contamination From Agrichemicals1

Executive Offices of the President

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPD Office of Policy Development

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

U.S. Department of Agriculture

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ARS Agricultural Research Service

ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

CSRS Cooperative State Research Service

ERS Economic Research Service

ES Extension Service

FmHA Farmers Home Administration

FS Forest Service

NAL National Agricultural Library

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

SCS Soil Conservation Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ORD Office of Research and Development

OECM Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Monitoring

OPPE Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation

OPTS Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response

OW Office of Water (including the Office of

Ground Water Protection)

U.S. Department of the Interior

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

NPS National Park Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Tennessee Vane-y Authority

NFERC National Fertilizer& Environmental Research Center

Department of Defense

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1OTA commissioned a survey of Federal Departments and agencies to identify relevant agencies and programs, their roles in agriculture

and water quality issues, and the extent of their involvement over the decade 1980-1990. The agencies listed above do not include other agencies

contacted, which may have a more minor or yet undefined role in groundwater protection, such as the Food and Drug Administration. In addition,

other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were contacted and do have programs that relate to agrichemical

use and groundwater contamination, but information on resources or perceived roles was not compiled for OTA. Each agency was asked to

interpret aspects of ongoing programs, budgets, and personnel that support groundwater protection and remediation. The voluminous information

collected is summarized in L.A. Dye, ‘‘The Federal Role in Reducing Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater, OTA commissioned paper,

1990.

to discovery of an efficient integrated solution (149). Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. GeoThe institution responsible for such an integrated

approach, Congress, has taken a fragmented approach. Instead of using the Committee room as an

arena for debating national environmental policy, it

has continued to expand and pass separate air, water,

and solid-waste pollution legislation, impeding more

integrative approaches (132). Groundwater may

become just one more medium to add to this list.

Federal Roles and Activities

At the Federal level, at least 30 Departments or

agencies have some influence over agriculture and

groundwater issues (box 6-A); discussion of each of

these organizations and their efforts is beyond the

scope of this assessment. However, the main Federal

organizations affecting agricultural contamination

of groundwater are the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), various programs within the U.S.

logical Survey (USGS), and the Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA), which houses the National Fertilizer & Environmental Research Center (NFERC). A

brief summary of their activities follows.

The Tennessee Valley Authority has responsibility for electrical power generation and other development efforts for the seven-state Tennessee River

Drainage Basin, including Tennessee, Virginia,

North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and

Kentucky. It also has broad environmental protection and natural resource management responsibilities for this area. The 201 TVA counties established

the cooperative “Land and Water 201” program in

1984 to: 1) reduce soil erosion, 2) improve water

quality, 3) increase farm income, and 4) serve as a

national model and demonstration for multiagency
270 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

cooperative soil and water conservation programs

(151).

The National Fertilizer Development Center was

created with the Tennessee Valley Authority Act in

1933, and is considered the lead national organization in fertilizer research and education. As part of a

recent TVA restructuring, the Center was renamed

the National Fertilizer & Environmental Research

Center, and redefined its mission to “be a leading

national source of nutrient-related information for

public and private use’ and to direct its research to

high-priority environmental issues (109,1 10).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts

groundwater quantity and quality assessment, monitors aquifers at a number of sites across the nation,

investigates temporal and spatial trends, and provides this information to Federal, State, and local

agencies in support of their groundwater protection

programs (box 6-B). It also maintains a large

scientific program to study movement and fate of

chemicals in the environment. More directly relevant, USGS is examining the impact of agricultural

chemical use on groundwater quality in several U.S.

regions in the pilot phase of its National Water

Quality Assessment Program (78).

Although the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) conducts a number of activities that affect

agriculture (box 6-C), its primary relevant regulatory

authority is over agricultural pesticides through the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA). The EPA regulates use of pesticides and,

through its designated State lead agencies, is responsible for ensuring that users of restricted pesticides

are trained in proper use. The first regulatory action

Box 6-B—Major USGS Activities Related to Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

The U.S. Geological Survey is engaged in a broad array of information collection, information management,

and research projects pertinent to groundwater management and protection.

Coordination and Dissemination of Federal Information on Groundwater. The USGS releases a comprehensive report on water resources annually: the National Water Summary. This report includes comprehensive

documentation on water resource quantity and quality for each State, and includes case studies of nonpoint-source

contamination. It also summarizes studies on managing and coordinating Federal and State water protection efforts.

USGS also maintains a computerized National Water Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE) and a

computer-based National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX).

National Water Quality Assessment Program. Since 1986 the NAWQA program has conducted assessments

of national and regional status of groundwater resources and monitors trends in factors that can affect groundwater

quality, Agrichemical nonpoint-source contamination problems are under study in seven pilot projects (197).

Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis Program. The RASA program was established in 1978 to gather data on

the quantity of water resources available in the nation’s aquifers. RASA’s objectives for each aquifer system study

are to determine the availability and chemical quality of stored water and discharge-recharge characteristics, and

to develop computer simulation models that may assist in understanding the groundwater flow regime and changes

brought about by human activities (98). Twenty-eight aquifer systems have been identified for study, fourteen of

which have been completed.

Federal-State Cooperative Program. USGS supports local efforts to collect data on ground and surface waters

through cost-sharing arrangements with State and local governments. For example, USGS has provided support for

mapping State aquifers, for monitoring pesticide contamination problems, and has assisted in developing wellhead

protection programs.

State Water Resources Research Institutes. Under this program the USGS provides grants to 54 State and

Territory Water Resources Institutes for research, information dissemination, and for training students in water

resources fields. Approximately 35 percent of the Institutes’ work is related to groundwater protection.

Reauthorization of the Institutes has been hindered by their incorporation in broad and controversial groundwater

protection bills.

Mid-continent Initiative. The USGS also is working in cooperation with the USDA’s Midwest Initiative on a

“Mid-Continent Initiative, ” a 5- to 10-year research program characterizing the environmental fate of the

widely-used agricultural herbicide atrazine. The area understudy, roughly bounded by the Upper Missouri and Ohio

River Basins, was chosen largely because of the coincidence of hydrologic boundaries with a region of intensive

agrichemical-use cropland (134).
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 271

Box 6-C—Major EPA Programs Affecting Agriculture

FIFRA Pesticide Programs

. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives EPA responsibilities for registering new

pesticides and for reviewing and re-registering existing pesticides to ensure that, when used according to label

directions, they will not present unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.

National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells

● The National Survey is underway to determine the presence and concentration of 127 commonly used agricultural

chemicals in 1,350 statistically selected wells. EPA expects to issue a draft report on the survey in late 1991.

Safe Drinking Water Act Programs

●

●

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to publish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for any

contaminants, including pesticides, which may have adverse health effects in public water systems (those serving

over 25 persons or with 15 connections). Standards established by EPA under the SDWA are also being used as

guidelines to assess contamination of groundwater in private wells. The EPA also sets nonregulatory health

advisory levels on contaminants for which MCLs have not been established.

The SDWA also established a Wellhead Protection Program (WHP) to protect wells and wellfields that contribute

drinking water to public supply systems. Each State must prepare and submit to EPA a Wellhead Protection

Program delineating the recharge areas around public water, identifying potential sources of groundwater

contamination within these areas, and addressing identified potential sources to protect the public water supply.

Although funds have been appropriated for the WHP Program, the EPA Administrator testified to the Senate that

only 30 States have submitted proposed programs for review and approval by EPA (10).

1987 Water Quality Act Nonpoint Programs

. Section 319 of the Act requires States and Territories to file assessment reports with EPA identifying navigable

waters where water quality standards cannot be attained or maintained without reducing nonpoint-source

pollution. States must also file management programs with EPA identifying steps which will be taken to reduce

nonpoint pollution in those waters identified in the State assessment reports. The Act authorizes up to $400

million total in Federal funding for implementing the programs. To date, 43 States and Territories have submitted

nonpoint-source pollution assessments to EPA, and 36 have submitted final management programs.

1987 Water Quality Act Clean Lakes Program

●

●

Section 314-of the Act requires States to submit assessment reports on the status and trends of lake water quality,

including the nature and extent of pollution loading from point and nonpoint-sources. Also, methods to control

pollution and to protect/restore the quality of lakes impaired or threatened by pollution must be described.

Financial assistance is given to States to prepare assessment reports and to implement watershed improvements,

as well as to conduct in-lake restoration activities. Several USDA small watershed projects have been coordinated

with Clean Lakes projects.

1987 Water Quality Act National Estuary Program

● Section 320 of the Act provides for identification of nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution,

preparation of conservation and management plans, and Federal grants to prepare the plans. Planning is underway

for 12 major estuaries.

‘Near Coastal Waters Strategy

. Through its Near Coastal Waters Strategy, EPA is integrating its water quality programs to target priority

programs and prevent pollution in near coastal waters. This includes the implementation of nonpoint-source

management programs in coastal counties and will, in several cases, encompass accelerated implementation of

agricultural conservation programs.

Regional Water Quality Programs

● The EPA and other Federal agencies are cooperating on several regional programs to reduce nonpoint source

pollution, including the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, the Great Lakes

Program, the Gulf of Mexico Program, and the Land and Water 201 Program in the Tennessee Valley Region.

SOURCES: After USDA/ERS, “Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and Consemation Situation and Outlook RepO@” AR-16, September

1989; and R. Barles, personal communication. Office of Ground Water Protection, Environmental Protedion Agency, Mar. 9, 1990.
272 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Photo credit: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Between 12 and 14 million private wells in the United States provide drinking water, most in rural areas. Private wells currently are

not required to be tested nor to comply with Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

taken against a pesticide registration due to groundwater contamination in the continental United States

was EPA’s ban of DBCP (1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane) in 1979. Since that time, EPA has canceled

other pesticides due to groundwater concerns, established an Office of Groundwater Protection in the

Office of Water, and added requests for data on

leaching for reregistration of a number of pesticides

(31).

The EPA has devised a “Groundwater Protection

Strategy” (180) in response to its diverse groundwater protection responsibilities, with four main

objectives:

●

●

●

●

to support State program development and

institution building;

to assess potential problems from unaddressed

sources;

to issue guidelines for consistent agency decisions affecting groundwater; and

to strengthen EPA’s organization for groundwater management and cooperation with other

Federal and State programs.

Following from that strategy, in which States

retain primary responsibilities and authorities to

protect groundwater, EPA developed a comprehensive plan to improve and coordinate Federal, State,

and local efforts to protect groundwater from agrichemical contamination (186). The key component of this

plan is development of pesticide/groundwater management plans by the States in accordance with

section 319 of the Clean Water Act. EPA also is the

primary sponsor of an interagency group, entitled

Water Quality 2000, that is preparing to address

reauthorization of the Clean Water Act in 1992.

The USDA has repeatedly expressed a growing

commitment to enhancing its water quality protection and improvement efforts, of which groundwater

protection is stated a major component. Numerous

reports listing water quality as a top priority (cf: 51)

and agency work plans have been released (cf:

175,167,168,166). These culminated in the development of the Water Quality Program Plan to Support

the President’s Water Quality Initiative” (165) (see

box 6-D detailing plan).
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 273

Box 6-D—Major Components of the USDA Water Quality Program Plan

USDA completed its Water Quality Program Plan to Support the President Water Quality Initiative in July

1989. Its objectives are to: “1) determine the precise nature of the relationship between agricultural activities and

groundwater quality; and 2) develop and induce the adoption of technically and economically effective agrichemical

management and agricultural production strategies that protect the beneficial uses. . .” of groundwater.

Education and Technical Assistance—Adoption of agrichemical use, waste management, and production

practices that may reduce or prevent contamination will be accelerated where existing of potential contamination

of ground or surface water from agricultural nonpoint sources has been identified as a public concern. Adoption will

be encouraged through enhanced education, technical and some financial assistance, and demonstration projects.

Specific projects include:

. expanding USDA and CES staff capacity to deliver educational and technical assistance to producers for

effective agrichemical and waste product management and environmental stewardship,

● demonstrating and delivering technologies and management systems for voluntary farmer, rancher, and

forester adoption and implementation,

● meeting State water quality requirements through education and technical assistance, and

. informing the public of program activities and achievements.

Research and Development---Research programs will be aimed at developing knowledge about the fate and

transport processes of agrichemicals, and at analysis of socio-economic effects of current and new agricultural

management methods to allow measure of the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative practices and systems.

Research programs will be designed to:

. develop methods for sampling, measuring, and evaluating groundwater contamination,

● conduct fundamental research to provide the basis for improved management of chemicals used in agriculture,

● improve agrichemical management and agricultural production systems, and

. evaluate economic, social, and technical impacts of new and improved management practices and systems.

Database Development and Evaluation-Data will be collected nationally on agrichemical use, related farm

practices, and links with the physical environment. Further, centralized systems for linking data and statistical

information on agricultural productivity, land use, agrichemical use, physical attributes of the land and surrounding

watersheds, climate, and water quality are envisioned. Specific goals are to:

. build National and State databases on agrichemical use and related farm practices, and

. provide digitized geographic information systems for State and Federal evaluation of alternative policies and

program strategies.

Interagency Coordination-The Water Quality Program Plan ‘‘involves the capabilities and activities of more

USDA Agencies, working in closer concert with a wider variety of Federal and State Agencies than any previously

established Departmental function” (165). USDA water quality programs are coordinated through a new Working

Group on Water Quality established in late 1989 as a unit of the Secretary’s Policy and Coordination Council, and

chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education. The Working Group is charged with: 1)

coordinating all USDA policies and programs relating to water quality activities; 2) developing and recommending

strategies for carrying out these activities; and 3) providing advice and guidance on water quality issues to the policy

council (176).

SOURCE: Unless otherwise noted, information is adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture and Cooperating State Agencies, “Water

Quality Program Plan to Support the President’s Water Quality Initiative” (Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, July

1989).

The USDA, through the Soil Conservation Serv- 6-E). No lead agency has been identified; rather a

ice (SCS), Economic Research Service (ERS), Working Group on Water Quality has been estabAgriculture Research Service (ARS), Cooperative lished to coordinate the activities of eight principal

States Research Service (CSRS), Extension Service USDA agencies and their cooperating State institu-

(ES), and Forest Service (FS) primarily conducts tions.

research, publishes information, and offers advice to

farmers on pesticide and fertilizer use, land manage- The Resources Conservation Act of 1977 requires

ment, and agronomic or silvicultural practices (box SCS to develop national plans and programs for soil
274 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 6-E—Major USDA Conservation and Water Quality Programs

1985 Food Security Act Provisions

●

●

●

●

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides annual rental payments to land owners and operators who voluntarily retire

highly erodible and other environmentally critical lands from production for 10 years. It also provides technical assistance

and cost-sharing payments up to 50 percent of the cost of establishing a soil-conserving cover on retired land. Rental payments

to any person may not exceed $50,000 per year. County enrollment is limited to no more than 25 percent of cropland, unless

USDA grants a special waiver. To date, approximately 30 million acres of cropland have been enrolled.

Conservation Compliance requires that farmers who produce agricultural commodities on highly erodible cropland have

approved conservation plans by Jan. 1, 1990, and finish implementing them by Jan. 1, 1995, or lose eligibility for USDA

program benefits.

Sodbuster provision requires that farmers who convert highly erodible land to agricultural commodity production do so under

an approved conservation system, or forfeit eligibility for USDA program benefits.

Swampbuster provision bars farmers who convert wetlands to agricultural commodity production from eligibility for USDA

program benefits, unless USDA determines that conversion would have only a minimal effect on wetland hydrology and biology.

Continuing Assistance Programs

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) provides financial assistance to farmers for implementing approved soil and water

conservation and pollution abatement practices. Cost-sharing payments to a given farmer may not exceed $3,500 per year on

l-year agreements, and may not average over $3,500 per year on multi-year agreements. Except for Water Quality Special Projects,

conservation priorities are set by States and counties based on local soil and water quality problems. Program initiated in 1936.

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) provides technical assistance by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) through

Conservation Districts to farmers for planning and implementing soil and water conservation and water quality improvement

practices. Program initiated in 1936.

Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) provides technical and financial assistance in Great Plains States to farmers and

ranchers who implement total conservation treatment of their entire operation. Cost-sharing assistance is limited to $35,000

per farmer contract. program initiated in 1957.

Small Watershed Program provides Federal technical and financial help to local organizations for flood prevention, watershed

protection, and water management, Program initiated in 1954.

Resource Conservation and Development Program assists multicounty areas in enhancing conservation, water quality, wildlife

habitat and recreation, and rural development. Program initiated in 1962.

Emergency Conservation Program provides financial assistance to farmers in rehabilitating cropland damaged by natural

disasters. Program initiated in 1978.

Rural Clean Water program is an experimental program implemented in 21 selected projects. It provides cost-sharing and

technical assistance to farmers voluntarily implementing best management practices to improve water quality. Cost-sharing

limited to $50,000 per farm. Program initiated in 1980; ends in 1995.

Model Implementation Program provides Federal cost-sharing and technical assistance to encourage practitioner adoption of

Best Management Practices that may beneficially affect water quality.

Extension Service provides information and recommendations on soil and water quality practices to land owners and operators,

in cooperation with SCS and Conservation Districts.

Farmers Home Administration provides loans to farmers and associations of farmers for soil and water conservation, pollution

abatement, and building or improving water systems that serve several farms. It may acquire 50-year conservation easements

to help farmers reduce loan payments.

Forestry Incentives Program provides cost-sharing up to 65 percent for tree planting and timber stand improvement for private

forest lands of 1,000 acres or less,

Water Bank program provides annual payments for preserving wetlands in important migratory waterfowl nesting, breeding,

or feeding areas. Program initiated in 1970.

Research Programs

●

●

●

●

Agricultural Research Service conducts research on new and alternative crops and agricultural technology to reduce

agriculture’s adverse impacts on soil and water.

Cooperative State Research Service coordinates conservation and water quality research conducted by State Agricultural

Experiment Stations and land-grant universities. This agency allocates and administers funds appropriated for special and

competitive grants for water quality research,

Economic Research Service estimates economic impacts of existing and alternative policies, programs, and technology for

preserving and improving soil and water quality. With National Agricultural Statistics Service, collects data on farm chemical

use, agricultural practices, and costs and returns.

Forest Service conducts research on environmental and economic impacts of alternative forest management policies,

programs, and practices.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ‘‘Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conservation Situation

and Outlook Report ” AR-16, September 1989.
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 275

and water conservation. The resulting report lists the

Department’s priorities for soil and water resource

protection for the next decade. The most recent plan

was completed in 1989, and included a significant

redirection from the last plan completed in 1982. In

the plan for the 1990s, water quality protection

moved from sixth to second national priority.

State and Local Level

State and local governments play perhaps the

most active role in groundwater protection (box

6-F), A variety of State departments and agencies

administer or cooperate in research, monitoring, and

technical assistance programs that provide information to producers on environmentally appropriate

farming practices. State agencies also may provide

financial or technical assistance to producers to

assist them in modification of farming practices (see

ch. 5, app. 5-l), and may regulate farming practices

or agrichemical use beyond those regulations promulgated by EPA.

At the State and local levels, pesticides are

regulated by State Lead Agencies (SLAs) that have

been granted FIFRA primacy by EPA. States may

ban chemicals from use in certain areas, or may

Box 6-F—Selected State Programs Affecting Agriculture and Groundwater Quality

States increasingly are enacting innovative and sometimes stringent environmental laws. These are “having

an indirect impact on Federal policy as States put pressure on the Federal Government to take similar action or as

industry goes to Congress in search of uniform Federal laws to replace the patchwork of conflicting State

requirements’ (93).

Ground Water Quality Protection Programs: Twenty-two States have developed comprehensive programs to

protect or improve groundwater quality. Most include one or more common program elements: 1) classification,

assessment, and mapping of groundwater sources; 2) groundwater quality standards, 3) groundwater quality

monitoring; 4) control of farming practices; 5) control of land uses; 6) economic incentives; and 7) education

programs (12). Specific examples include:

● Iowa’s Ground Water Protection Fund and Ground Water Protection Strategy, which uses pesticide

registration fees and fertilizer taxes to finance sustainable agriculture research and demonstration activities;

. Massachusetts Wellhead Protection Program, which established land use control and restricts pesticide use

in critical recharge areas around wells; and

. Wisconsin’s Risk Assessment Program, which is based on numerical ground water standards.

Best Management Practices: Thirty-six States provide financial or regulatory incentives for installing and

maintaining best management practices (BMPs) to promote soil conservation and protect surface water quality

(175).

. Financial incentives include: cost-sharing programs (26 States); income or property tax credits or deductions

(7 States), no-or low-interest loans (5 States); and purchasing conservation easements or development rights

in agricultural lands (3 States).

● Seventeen States require either approved plans or permits for activities that could cause soil erosion or

pollution discharges into waterways, or compliance with established permissible soil loss limits. Ten States

give farmers cost-sharing assistance specifically to help them meet the requirements.

Innovative State Financing Mechanisms: States will face competing demands for funding of groundwater,

drinking water, and surface water programs in the coming decade, potentially requiring many to develop alternative

funding mechanisms. Some States already have created innovative financing mechanisms, including: 1) user and

impact development fees; 2) dedicated tax revenue; 3) state revolving loan funds; and 4) special water quality

districts and utilities (74).

. Iowa’s 1987 Groundwater Protection Act established a Groundwater Protection Fund capitalized by user and

producer fees on pesticides, fertilizers, and other products contributing to nonpoint-source pollution.

. Minnesota established an environmental trust fund to be capitalized with one-half of the proceeds from the

State lottery. The fund is expected to reach $100-$200 million by the end of 1993.

● Washington State uses an $0.08 per pack increase in the sales tax on cigarettes to finance water pollution

control programs. Half of the funds are designated for wastewater treatment; 20 percent for ground water

protection; and 10 percent each for nonpoint-source pollution, lake management, and discretionary

purposes.
276 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

modify the label or use restrictions required by EPA.

For example, in the early 1980s the insecticide

aldicarb was found in a number of wells in Wisconsin and in shallow groundwater under an experimental plot in Florida (82). As a result, these States

enacted significant rate, timing, and spatial use

restrictions designed to minimize groundwater contamination (see table 6-2).

Most SLAs are State Departments of Agriculture,

but other agencies or even universities may serve as

SLAs. Programs to protect public drinking-water

supplies, regulated under the Safe Drinking Wate r

Act, commonly are implemented by State health

departments. The differing State authorities have

caused coordination problems in addressing agrichemical contamination incidents. For example, at least

three different agencies in each State became

involved in recent groundwater contamination events

in Florida, California, and Wisconsin. Several States

have established State interagency task forces or

coordinating committees to ensure communication

among agencies with pesticide and drinking water

responsibilities (31). These groups also commonly

work with sub-State agencies such as county health

departments, regional water quality control boards,

or regional planning organizations (cf: 23,74).

A number of States have issued laws and regulations regarding agrichemical contamination of groundwater (cf: 12,75). The States have taken diverse

approaches, ranging from taxation of agrichemical

purchases to fund special monitoring and extension

programs in Iowa, to designation of Special Protection Areas based on proven or potential contamination by agrichemicals in Nebraska (5). As noted

earlier, Connecticut has established strict liability

for contamination (12).

Several States also now require that field studies

be conducted in their States, in addition to those

required by the EPA for national product registration, in an attempt to account for differing local

hydrogeologic vulnerabilities. For example, groundwater studies are required in California and Florida,

costing up to $500,000 each (31). Should other

States choose to require local field studies, the cost

may inhibit development and registration (or reregistration) of even those pesticides unlikely to

cause groundwater contamination. However, EPA

currently is unable to supply States with the technical guidance necessary to extrapolate field and

Table 6-2-Sample Restrictions on Aldicarb Use in

Wisconsin and Florida

Wisconisin Florida

Rate Maximum 2 Ibs. active in- Maximum 5 Ibs. active ingredient per acre gredient per acre

Timing Maximum 1 application per Maximum 1 application per

2 years year

4 to 6 weeks after planting Between January 1 and

April 30 for citrus growers

(major users)

Spatial Moratorium areas defined Minimum of 300 meters

as 1 mile radii around lateral distance from a drinkwells with 10 ppb aldicarb ing-water well

or greater

Other May be applied only by a Warnings must be posted

State-certified pesticide ap- on the property and on

plication specialist wells near area of use

Label must contain warn- Use will be suspended in

ing of potential for ground an area if concentration

water contamination of more than 10 ppb are

found in drinking water

SOURCE: S.2. Cohen, “Pesticides and Nitrates in Ground Water: An

Introductory Overview, ’’contractor report prepared forthe Office

of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, August 1989).

laboratory results to different areas of the country

(31).

EPA’s proposed strategy for agricultural chemicals in groundwater includes a prevention strategy

and a response strategy, and relies heavily on a

decentralized, State implementation approach (181).

The prevention strategy relies on the development of

State regulatory management plans using a number

of regulatory options (see table 6-3) intended to

balance pesticide-use risks and benefits depending

on the site-specific nature of use, value, and vulnerability of the local groundwater resources. If management plans are not developed by States for areas of

suspected vulnerability to certain chemicals, use of

those chemicals may be canceled in those States by

the EPA. This program may burden some States,

particularly those with no analogous preexisting

program (100, 198).

EPA plans to issue five criteria./guidance documents to implement the strategy, but funding and

staffing required to produce these documents is

uncertain (31 ). The documents include:

●

●

●

minimum criteria for State groundwater monitoring programs;

minimum criteria for State response plans,

addressing water supply, monitoring, and registration issues;

criteria EPA will use to review State management plans for adequacy;
Ch. 6--Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 277

Table 6-3—Regulatory Options Available to States

Under the EPA Strategy

. Moratorium Areas

. Wellhead Protection Areas

. Well Set Backs (Buffer Zones)

. Future Well Requirements: Location, Depth, Construction

. Change in Rate of Application

● Change in Timing of Application

. Change in Method of Application

● Advance Notice of Application

. Integrated Pest Management

● Best Management Practices

. Additional Monitoring

● Additional Training and Certification

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and

Toxic Substances, “Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water:

Proposed Pesticides Strategy,” December 1987.

● criteria EPA will use to evaluate effectiveness

of State management plans; and

● a hydrogeologic document entitled ‘‘Techniques for Assessing the Natural Sensitivity of

Aquifers to Pesticide Contamination. ”

The latter document is scheduled for publication in

late 1990 (80).

Trends Affecting Organizational Activities

Controversies and confusion remain over apportionment of roles between Federal and State Governments, and type of approach to use for prevention of

agrichemical contamination of groundwater. New

trends in both these areas are further blurring th e

issues. Historically, agricultural programs have been

largely a Federal role and water-related and environmental programs have been a State role. Similarly,

agricultural programs have tended to rely on encouraging voluntary actions by farmers, and environmental programs have used regulatory options.

Changes in Historical Roles

After the American Revolution, the States were

accorded sovereign interests in navigable waters

and, thus, responsibility for managing and allocating

their water supply. This has been modified to some

extent through Federal legislation such as the Clean

Water Act (CWA) (28) and the Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) (141). For example, “navigable waters’ are redefined as the ‘‘waters of the United

States’ under the CWA, discarding the classical

view of waters that may be used for navigation

(196). These statutes provide the Federal government with substantial responsibility for setting

standards, and for developing and delegating federally defined water quality protection program management to States (149).

Environmental protection also was primarily a

State concern until the 1960s, but became increasingly a Federal concern during the 1970s and 1980s

(most notably with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on

Environmental Quality). During the latter two decades, a partnership of sorts has evolved among the

different levels of government, with each taking on

different responsibilities (149). Despite this evolving partnership, the Federal role continues to dominate environmental protection programs. Nationallevel legislation and Federal agency programs set

the national agenda, basic regulatory framework,

and determine many of the operating mechanisms

(132).

Within this framework, States generally are required to develop and, with EPA approval, implement environmental protection programs. However,

fiscal responsibility for environmental protection

programs has been shifting to the States. EPA grants

to State and local governments have declined over

the past 10 years in real terms, and area declining or

constant percentage of EPA’s budget. Thus, States

are funding a growing percentage of their program

expenditures (149, 11 1).

Despite confusion over who should do what, and

who should pay for what, the States have been at the

forefront of actions to prevent agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Most States now have a

legal framework that includes some means to

address agrichemical contamination of groundwater,

but few have developed preventative programs; in

most cases, a patchwork of laws exists rather than a

comprehensive groundwater management program

(12).

Two basic categories of regulations (beyond

regulations on the chemicals themselves) can be

used to prevent agrichemical contamination of

groundwater: 1) land-use controls that regulate the

location of certain types of development; and 2)

land-management regulations that restrict the types

of 1and-uses practiced, even though they may place

no restriction on the location or type of development

(24). Land-use controls, such as zoning, are traditionally the province of the States. Landmanagement regulations, which are more likely to

be adopted to prevent groundwater contamination

by agrichemicals, are being explored in States’ new
278 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

groundwater protection strategies, but depend heavily on information provided by Federal agencies.

“With the EPA giving the states the primary

responsibility for groundwater policy, and requiring

the development of State groundwater strategies,

States have begun to realize the deficit of informationboth institutional and physical-that they are now

facing” (12).

Historically, agriculture rested in Federal hands,

based on the premise that access to agricultural

information and technologies should be freely available to a largely agricultural populace. However,

with the rise of environmental concerns about

agriculture, decline in the farming population, and

declining Federal role in agricultural research and

technology development (cf: 162), decisionmaking

about U.S. agriculture is becoming increasingly

complex.

Diversity of Approaches

The two Federal agencies with authority to

control agricultural nonpoint pollution are the USDA

and EPA, each with different missions and approaches. The USDA’s goal is agricultural production and it has a voluntary, bottom-up approach; the

EPA’s goal is pollution abatement, and it has a

regulatory, top-down approach (36) (figure 6-3;

177). To date, the Office of Management and Budget

has favored development of voluntary programs to

reduce agrichemical contamination, based largely

on economic considerations (124). Voluntary programs are seen as a form of ‘cost-sharing,’ whereby

costs of protecting the environment are shared by the

general public, rather than placed exclusively on

producers who are effectively ‘price-takers’ unable

to pass along increased costs of production. A third

approach to address environmental problems in

agriculture was developed in the 1985 Food Security

Act: cross-compliance denies farmers government

benefits unless they follow approved conservation

practices.

Voluntary-Voluntary approaches involve pollution controls implemented by farmers of their own

free will. Voluntary programs involve no external

coercion, primarily relying on: 1) research and

development of farming methods to reduce or

prevent pollution; 2) farmer education to increase

awareness about contamimination pathways and pollutionreducing practices; and 3) demonstration and technical assistance to show farmers how to implement

new practices and to convince them of their benefits

(97,37,101). Farmers incur no legal penalty if they

do not adopt proposed practices, but unfamiliar

practices may be associated with some level of

economic risk.

Of the three approaches, voluntary programs

allow the farmer greatest flexibility in choosing

crops, field sites, and farming practices. Examples of

voluntary approaches include information dissemination and field demonstrations of practices by CES

and SCS and in federally funded programs such as

the Model Implementation Program and Rural Clean

Water Program (97,146).

The main advantages to voluntary approaches are

their political acceptability and flexibility. Farmers

and their representatives have long opposed regulation in agriculture, which explains in part why

voluntary pollution control programs have prevailed

as part of agricultural policy (107). Voluntary

program flexibility also allows for easier adjustment

to changes in technical knowledge (180).

Voluntary programs’ main disadvantages, however, are low participation rates and ineffectiveness

due to inadequate or non-uniform implementation

(97,47). Participants may reduce pollution originating from their own lands significantly, but nonparticipants continue to pollute, especially in the

absence of adequate incentives to change. Furthermore, cost-share incentives for implementing practices are subject to local approval and interpretation

as to what is politically, technically, and economically feasible (180). As a result, such practice-based

voluntary programs are ineffective in areas with

inadequate public support (83).

One hundred percent participation in voluntary

programs, however, still may not achieve sufficient

pollution reduction to attain desired water quality

goals or standards. Only minor reductions in sediment and nutrient losses have been achieved through

most voluntary programs, for example, even in areas

with intensive information and demonstration campaigns (182,154,47,129). Compared to regulatory

approaches, voluntary programs also have high costs

in personnel, time, and finding (143). As a result,

researchers, public interest groups, and some farmers have begun to criticize voluntary pollution

control programs in agriculture because 50 years of

voluntary soil conservation programs have not

achieved societal goals for reducing erosion (47).
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 279

Figure 6-3-Range of Approaches to Agricultural Programs

Educational

Public presentations

School programs

Household chemical cleanup days

Waste 011 collection programs

Free water analysts programs

Aquifer hotlines

Publicity tactics

-Bumper stickers

Mascots

Poster contests

Billboards

-Aquifer area roadsigns

Operational

Contamination hotlines

Agricultural practices

Soil conservation

-Limit chemical application

Engineering practices

industrial practices

Contingency programs

-Hazardous material spill

teams

Water system

Interconnection

Construct Ion practices

Economic

Water use taxes

Phased capital improvements

Purchase of development rights

Land purchase

Watersheds

-Sensitive areas

Public land retention

Eminent domain

Conservation/scenic easements

Property tax Incentives

Tax abatements

-Water conservation

-Water saving device

installation

Letters of record to landowners

Regulatory

Special management districts

Zoning regulations

-Special zoning & overlay districts

● Floodplain

● Conservation

● Well field

Permits and waivers

Transfer of development rights

-Performance standards

Cluster zoning

Reduced density zoning

Subdivision and plannted unit

Development ordinances

-Building and landscape codes

● Double plumbing

● Grading & soil restoration 

● Water & sewer hookup

Well development standards

Aquifer penetration restrictions

States and federal designations

(Critical areas or sole source)

Watershed rules & regulations

Many approaches exist to address agricultural nonpoint pollution. In general, USDA tends to use a voluntary, bottom-up approach and EPA

follows a regulatory, top-down approach.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, “Principles of Groundwater for Reeource Marragement Systems: Field-lmvel Training

Manual,” SCS South National Technical Center, Fort Worth, TX, August 1987.

Cross-compliance-Cross-compliance approaches

involve pollution controls implemented by farmers

(e.g., use of specific Best Management Practices—

BMPs--or plans based on specific BMP combinations) in order to be eligible for certain program

benefits. Cross-compliance programs are composed

of: 1) specified pollution-reducing management

practices; 2) a government-based program that

provides benefits only to those using specified

practices; and 3) verification and enforcement mechanisms to ensure eligibility of program beneficiaries.

The first cross-compliance programs to control

agricultural nonpoint pollution from soil erosion

were contained in the 1985 Food Security Act

(FSA), representing the only Federal-level step

taken so far toward making agricultural pollution

control approaches more restrictive. The FSA requires farmers to implement approved conservation

plans for highly erodible lands as a condition for

receiving Federal farm program benefits. Crosscompliance approaches still rely on voluntary adop

tion of pollution-reducing practices; they limit

farmers’ options only if the farmer chooses to

participate in the government programs. Moreover,

only certain commodities are covered by government programs, so only producers of these commodities are potential cross-compliance participants.

Cross-compliance programs, like the voluntary

programs, tend to be more politically acceptable

than regulatory programs. However, the main disadvantage to cross-compliance programs is that their

implementation depends on base program participation, not on the severity of pollution problems (l).

Base-program dependence also means that cross-
280 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

compliance incentives mirror base-program incentives, which may not be great enough to induce

participation in the first place. For example, were

payments reduced to bring down farm program

costs, the penalty for non-compliance with conservation provisions also would decrease (38). Crosscompliance incentives could also disappear altogether if the base program is discontinued. Crosscompliance programs have other disadvantages, also

associated with voluntary programs, in that they

depend on local public and administrative support

and local interpretation of USDA pollution control

regulations (123).

Cross-compliance programs also are subject to

regulatory modification by the department or agency

administering the base program, influencing the

types of pollution controls that are implemented. In

the FSA’s conservation compliance program, for

example, USDA regulations were changed to allow

farmers to implement ‘‘Alternative Conservation

Plans” (ACPs) on their highly erodible lands and

remain eligible for farm program benefits.

Regulatory and local administrative changes thus

affect the extent and uniformity of pollution control

achieved through cross-compliance programs, and

the extent of such changes is likely to reflect the

intensity of commodity crop production in local

areas. The greater the intensity of commodity crop

production in an area, the more pressure is placed on

administrators and congressional members to permit

continuance of highly polluting practices as ‘‘technically, politically and economically feasible. ”

Administrative ‘‘malleability also has implications for groundwater pollution control, because

groundwater contamination is likely to be worse in

hydrogeologically vulnerable areas with high agrichemical-use intensity. Local administrators may be

responsive to pressures from agricultural interests to

weaken pollution control requirements unless countered by high levels of interest expressed by nonfarm populations. Cross-compliance programs alone

are thus unlikely to achieve significant reductions in

agrichemical contamination of groundwater in these

areas.

Regulatory—Regulatory approaches involve pollution controls implemented by farmers in response

to laws or rulings that impose penalties for noncompliance. Regulatory approaches require: 1) clear

specification of what must be done or not done; 2)

clearly defined penalties; and 3) verification and

enforcement mechanisms. Examples of extant regulatory approaches are complete or partial pesticide

bans, prohibitions on fall application of fertilizers,

and requirements to triple-rinse pesticide containers

prior to disposal. Regulatory approaches give farmers the least flexibility by requiring them to act in

specified ways to avoid penalties.

Regulations have the advantage of allowing

farmers and agricultural firms to know what is

expected of them and to achieve economies of scale

based on these expectations. However, uniform

national regulations applicable to a wide range of

hydrogeologic conditions would place excessively

strict controls on areas where groundwater contamination may not occur or insufficient controls on

areas where contamination potential is severe. An

alternative would be to implement regulations only

in vulnerable ‘‘target’ areas. However, such “target’ area regulation may increase the cost of crop

production in these areas thus placing these farmers

at an economic disadvantage. Highly restrictive

regulations in the most severely affected areas have

the potential to cause people in these areas to go out

of business, which makes strong support of such

regulatory approaches unlikely. The challenge for

regulatory programs is to specify farming practice

requirements that are stringent enough to reduce

pollution but that do not prohibit management

strategies that will maintain farm economic viability.

A key disadvantage to the regulatory approach in

agriculture has been opposition from farmers and

their representatives, and this may have unintended

adverse impacts (e.g., farmers may refuse to provide

information voluntarily on agrichemical use and

management to research and extension staff (91)).

Regulation is rarely a popular policy, especially in

the case of agriculture. In the last 20 years, however,

farmers may have moderated their opposition to

regulation, particularly in relation to agrichemicals

(130). In some studies, farmers made distinctions

among combinations of regulatory practices and did

not universally reject regulation (175,70,81). Reduced farmer opposition, combined with recent

public concern about health effects of nitrate and

pesticide pollution, may result in more serious

consideration of regulatory measures in integrated

pollution control approaches to reduce groundwater

contamination.
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 281

Other key disadvantages to regulation are the cost

and feasibility of enforcement. If regulations are not

designed realistically, if enforcement monitoring is

unlikely, or if penalties are small, farmers may

simply disobey the law (139). Regulatory enforcement is difficult in agriculture with potentially

polluting activities ranging over wide areas, and

enforcement is not a significant or well-accepted

function for most State and local agricultural agencies. Thus, the lack of institutional mechanisms to

enforce regulations in agriculture is another reason

why regulatory approaches to pollution reduction

have been difficult to advance. However, the potential for regulatory penalties may be a significant

inducement for farmers to voluntarily adopt contamination-reduction practices.

Another disadvantage is that regulatory approaches

tend to be medium- or resource-specific, lending

themselves easily to prohibition of specific practices

that adversely affect a single resource. Regulatory

approaches to address multiple resource concerns

are more difficult to design, because integration of

numerous practices, each designed to protect a

specific resource, into an appropriate management

system for a particular site is difficult. Documented

implementation plans and follow-up audits could

serve as regulatory enforcement mechanisms for

‘‘mandatory systems’ in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas, but these would be costly in terms of

personnel and time.

Integrated Approaches To Reducing Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater-Past response

to voluntary nonpoint-source pollution control programs indicates that “doing more of what has been

done in the past’ will not adequately address soil

erosion and surface-water quality problems (47). It

is unlikely that practitioners will widely adopt new

practices, with attendant new risks, without significant incentives or penalties for noncompliance.

Thus, solely voluntary programs are likely to have

even greater shortcomings in addressing groundwater contamination, which is invisible and more

difficult to measure than erosion and surface-water

pollution. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of voluntary, cross-compliance, and regulatory

approaches, it seems likely that an effective approach would combine elements of all three strategies.

An integrated groundwater pollution reduction

program for agriculture could emphasize voluntary

and cross-compliance approaches on the national

level to improve agrichemical management, reduce

point-source contamination, and spur adoption of

technologies that replace agrichemicals or reduce

waste associated with their use. In hydrogeologically vulnerable “target” areas, however, agricultural impacts on groundwater may need to be

regulated to a greater extent along with intensified

voluntary efforts and defined, nonmodifiable standards for allowable practices in cross-compliance

programs. The challenge will be to devise appropriate mixes of the three approaches in these areas.

For example, following the model established in

Nebraska, “Natural Resource Districts” or “Agroecological Regions’ might be identified based on

agricultural and hydrogeologic characteristics. A

tiered program could be established for each region

based on actual risk to water consumers and the

environment (1 19). In areas where contamination is

low or unlikely, education and voluntary programs

might be emphasized. Districts with higher actual or

potential contamination risk might require farmers

to participate in certain programs (e.g., showing

receipt of attendance at a nutrient management

program prior to purchasing nitrogen fertilizers). In

areas showing severe contamination, use of particular chemicals or farming practices might be banned

entirely. With such a program, Federal, State,

regional, and local roles would have to be closely

coordinated.

Potential Solutions to Common Problems

A wide range of organizations have influence over

policy, programs, and farming practices that may

have potential to reduce agrichemical contamination

of groundwater, and a broad range of policy instruments exists that can be haphazardly implemented,

or integrated into a comprehensive package. However, development of a comprehensive approach

will

●

●

●

●

●

●

require:

congressional leadership,

clarification of roles,

coordination/integration of programs and approaches,

dealing with the legacies of agency histories,

evaluating adequacy of authority, and

evaluating resource (staff, funding, information) adequacy.
282 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Taking the Helm: Options for Congress

Identification of national goals, and determination

of the national agenda, for agricultural and environmental issues is the province of the Congress. The

special properties of agrichemical contamin ation of

groundwater, its relationship to integrating agricultural and environmental policy, and the need to

coordinate Federal and State efforts, have until

recently been neglected under the pressure of

providing immediate public safety (12). Foresight—

the “systematic process of bringing lateral and

long-range implications into policy decisions” (71)--

has not been formally brought to bear in consideration of agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

On the other hand, the House of Representatives

has developed rules that require it to incorporate

foresight into its processes: 1) multiple referral of

important bills to several interested committees

ensures that multiple viewpoints are incorporated

into legislative debate; 2) requirements that each

committee ‘‘shall on a continuing basis undertake

futures research and forecasting” on matters within

its jurisdiction (160); and 3) requirements that

inflationary impact and long-term budget estimates

accompany each bill (71). Still, multiple referral of

bills has served to impede passage of key legislation,

eventually allowing the budget process to force

passage of ‘least-controversy” bills (e.g., “FIFRALite’;

2

cf: 4), and committee staff largely are too

enmeshed in day-to-day committee work to undertake much futures research. Congressional research

offices can serve to focus debate on issues, but

cannot serve as forums for resolution of controversy

over national goals.

Integration of agricultural and environmental

policy requires the Congress to give full consideration to the effects of policies on the objectives of

other sectors. Successful integration also presupposes an administrative structure designed to anticipate conflicts, determine acceptable trade-offs, and

foster selection and implementation of a coherent set

of instruments that will achieve joint objectives

(127,128). The agricultural-environmental agenda

has grown substantially in the last two decades;

concern over groundwater quality is just the latest

manifestation of that agenda.

POLICY ISSUE: Lack of a Central Forum for

Congressional Consideration of Agriculture and

Environmental Issues

The U.S. Congress does not have a filtering or

integrating mechanism to ensure that all components

of agricultural legislation consider potential for

unintended impacts on agricultural productivity,

agrichemical use, groundwater quality, the rural

environment, or other areas in which there is a public

interest. Similarly, no centralized forum exists to

ensure that environmental legislation does not conflict with legitimate public interests in agriculture. A

congressional-level organizational unit might provide such a forum, ensuring that open debate,

integration or determination of priorities, and foresight are incorporated into decisionmaking on agriculture and the environment.

Option: Establish New Congressional Committee

Congress could establish a Joint Committee on

Agriculture and the Environment (or a Natural

Resources and Environment Committee with a

broader mandate) with specific jurisdiction to

bring goals for agriculture and the environment,

beginning with agrichemical contamination of

groundwater, into open debate, to review the

Federal role in U.S. agriculture, and to review all

extant and proposed legislation for possible

implications for the environment.

Alternate Option: Establish Alternate Congressional Forum

Congress could establish a temporary Selector

Ad Hoc Committee on Agriculture and the

Environment, or a National Agricultural Policy

Study.

Either body would be formed of congressional

Members and staff representing interested committees, whose express mandate is to provide to the

Congress analysis of: 1) relevant trends, 2) changing

goals for agriculture and the environment, and 3)

potential conflicts in extant and proposed legislation. Such a committee, or a facsimile thereof, would

need at least the following attributes: 1) not historically tied to any particular constituency, 2) not tied

exclusively to a narrow subdivision of environmental or agricultural policy, and 3) not hindered by

jurisdictional narrowness from considering the full

2

“FIFRA-Lite” is a term coined to refer to the 1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which deleted reference

to the controversial issues of reimbursement liability, and groundwater contamination (cf: 4).
Ch. Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings,Issues, & Options for Congress ● 283

realm of relevant questions. As such this entity

might begin to promote congressional consideration

of the range of national goals and Federal roles in

agriculture and the environment,

Establishment of a Joint Committee allows coordinated consideration of issues by both chambers of

Congress, and may be necessary for an issue covered

by widespread jurisdiction in both chambers. Although establishment of a Joint Committee may be

more cost-effective than creation of committees or

policy study groups in each chamber, consideration

of integration of agricultural and environmental

legislation may require only a temporary congressional forum.

Either chamber may create a temporary Select

Committee to conduct continuing comprehensive

reviews or to resolve issues fragmented jurisdictionally among several standing committees. For example, a Select Committee To Investigate the Use of

Chemicals, Pesticides, and Insecticides in and with

Respect to Food Products was created in 1950

because the House Committee on Agriculture “was

occupied with other matters and because that standing committee did not have jurisdiction over public

health questions’ (188). The Select Committee

issued its final report in 1953, and was disbanded.

Select committees are expected to be of temporary

duration, with clearly defined subject matter and

method of inquiry, and shall deliver products (e.g.,

reports, bills) to standing committees with jurisdiction over parts of the issues as well to to the House.

However, a House Committee on Rules report (1 88)

on establishment of Select Committees lists concerns with proliferation of congressional committees, including increasing congressional costs and

space problems, imposing additional committee

burdens on Members, and potential interference

with the standing committee system. Therefore, the

Subcommittee established guidelines for establishment of new committees, including:

. the proposed select committee must deal with

a significant and major issue;

. the present committee system does not address

the issue effectively, for reason of fragmentation of jurisdiction over subject matter, or

because of lack of staff resources for investigation, or to permit a broad perspective not

available through any one standing committee.

Developing a comprehensive approach to agriculture and the environment clearly fits within these

guidelines.

The House of Representatives also has the option

of creating an Ad Hoc Committee expressly to

consider one or a certain group of bill(s) (188,132).

The first such committee was the Ad Hoc Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf, established in the

U.S. House of Representatives in 1975, including

representatives from major House committees with

a role in energy development and environmental

management of the outer continental shelf. This Ad

Hoc Committee was created to “prevent major

jurisdictional problems involving six or more standing committees’ and was considered a success

(188).

A National Ocean Policy Study was created in the

Senate in the early 1970s, with the purpose of

providing a forum for ocean-related matters that

have multiple committee jurisdiction. Although not

technically a subcommittee, and not a recipient of

legislative referrals, the Policy Study was composed

of Senators with an interest in the development of a

comprehensive oceans policy, and developed numerous pieces of legislation for consideration by

relevant Senate committees. It also aggregated an

interdisciplinary group of congressional staff who

could devote full time and effort to consideration of

the complete range of ocean issues. Were a National

Agricultural Policy Study established, it could be

accompanied by a non-congressional National Agricultural Policy Review Commission established to

assist in analysis and presentation of viewpoints on

goals.

Clarification of Public Roles

The relative roles of the Federal agencies, and

State and local governments, have not yet been

detailed. Clearly all levels of government will have

to work with the private sector and individuals to

reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

To date, agencies at all levels of government have

been attempting to undertake virtually all types of

activities.

As States undertake initiatives to address water

quality and agriculture, it will be necessary to sort

out Federal, State, and local roles more clearly. This

will be a difficult task. For example, arguments for

regulatory uniformity, consistency of standards, and

balanced treatment of farmers among different
284 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Box 6-G—Rationales for Federal v. State/Local Jurisdiction Over Issues

Justification for Federal level program Justification for State/local program

National problem or interstate/inter-local problem Regional/local problem

Need for detailed scientific/technical information Need for detailed information on local circumstances

Substantial externalities, information requirements, or All benefits and costs are within the jurisdiction

economies of scale

Need for uniform treatment of individuals, polluters, or Flexibility and ability to provide more innovative

municipalities solutions

Need to resist pressures to attract or keep industry by Relatively homogeneous taste (goal) of local population

reducing environmental standards

Need for minimum standard of health or ecological Problem pervasive enough to be of major concern to the

protection community

To reduce duplication and ease industry compliance for Need for rapid implementation

industries that engage in much interstate commerce

To reduce absolute burdens on municipalities Need for more assured funding (e.g., earmarked tax v.

general revenue)

To compensate losses aggregated in time or space by

decisions made prior to the pollution control law

However, “it is not clear which levels of government are more likely to represent the desires of future generations,

particularly in a mobile society. ”

AFTER: F.G. Sussman, “Environmental Federalism: Allocating Responsibilities for Environmental Protection” Staff Working Paper

(Washington DC: Congressional Budget Office, September 1988).

regions provide a rationale for a strong Federal role. guidelines into meaningful groundwater standHowever, diversity of hydrogeology, farmer charac-

—

ards (73).

teristics, and farming practices suggests a need to A consensus on the appropriate allocation of roles tailor approaches to local conditions (1 11) (see box

6-G). among Federal, State, and local organizations will

be necessary to ensure that a coordinated, nondupliMost likely, a tiered approach, involving actions cative, and comprehensive system is developed to

at all levels of government, maybe most appropriate. achieve the multiple public objectives of agriculture

For example, the Executive Director of the Associa- and environmental quality.

tion of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control

Administrators suggested that States should have Even with substantial Federal involvement in

primary responsibility for managing groundwater program development, it seems likely that a majority

quality and quantity, and identifies the Federal role of actions will be implemented by the States, given

the site-specificity of groundwater vulnerability and

as:

●

●

●

●

providing technical assistance, research and

development, and information dissemination to

the States;

assisting States in the review and definition of

geologic and climatic conditions controlling

groundwater quality and quantity, but having

no responsibility in groundwater quantity management;

involving States in Federal activities and providing adequate financial support for State

programs addressing interstate groundwater

quality; and

developing useful mechanisms for States to

translate research results, risk analysis, and

the diversity of agricultural practices. Congress

needs to ensure that a framework exists so that

Federal directives actually can be implemented.

POLICY ISSUE: Lack of Clear Federal Agency

Leadership

Confusion exists over leadership within and

among Federal agencies with responsibilities for

agriculture and environment. In the absence of top

agency leadership, some lower level officials may be

reluctant to develop or implement groundwater

protection policy (1 19).

The question of leadership roles among the

agencies similarly can produce difficulties in re-
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 285

spending to policy initiatives. An often-raised issue

in numerous groundwater quality hearings of the

100th Congress was which of the Federal agencies

should be designated as the “lead agency” in

groundwater protection. Given specialized expertise

among a number of the agencies (e.g., USGS-data

collection and coordination; EPA—standards and

regulatory structure; USDA--crop and farm management, education and technical assistance, research; TVA—nutrient management) designation of

a single lead agency probably is undesirable.

Executive agency reorganization could aggregate

relevant authorities and responsibilities in a single

agency, such as the oft-proposed Department of

Natural Resources. This would allow clear identification of authority and accountability. However, it

probably would not be appropriate for one organization to hold both regulatory and assistance responsibilities. Further, even if such an organization did not

include regulatory authority currently held by EPA,

large-scale reorganization involves serious disruption of programs and does not necessarily result in

improved coordination. It may be more appropriate

to assign specific domains of groundwater protection responsibilities to each of the agencies that

complement the assignment of specific goals (1 19)

including a mechanism to ensure interagency coordination.

Option: Identify Lead Role Responsibilities For

Multiple Agencies

Congress could specifically identify lead agencies for subsets of the issue. Based on historical

specialization in certain areas related to agriculture,

to environmental protection, and to hydrogeology,

agencies could be assigned specific lead roles to

coordinate data collection, data management, information dissemination, and research program development.

Congressional identification of agencies or programs that could lead efforts in certain sub-areas of

the issues probably is unnecessary. The OMB and

the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) efforts serve to

identify natural roles for the agencies to take, and

identification of lead agency status is at least

partially defined via the Memoranda of Understanding already established among the agencies. However, congressional recognition of the established

roles, and explicit oversight of completion of

activities within those areas, might encourage coordinated action.

Alternate Option: Require Development of an Interagency Plan by Federal Agencies

Congress could require that USDA, EPA,

USGS, and TVA/NFERC develop an Interagency

Proposal for Groundwater Protection in Agriculture detailing needs, roles, means for communication and coordination, etc Congress may wish

to request that the relevant agencies put together an

interagency proposal, and perhaps an interagency

budget, to develop and implement comprehensive

groundwater protection programs.

The agencies are already somewhat experienced

in developing groundwater protection budgets for

OMB. The agencies also already have developed

documents that could serve as the foundation for an

integrated interagency plan. However, given the

current extent of confusion over definition of roles

and approaches, and bureaucratic slowness in adopting new approaches or programs, this is unlikely to

provide a timely analysis, nor a comprehensive

view.

Moreover, an integrated interagency plan and

budget proposal would require review and approval

by each of the congressional authorization and

appropriations subcommittees related to the agencies. Thus, the resulting budget and plan would have

to be modular, so that each agency’s component

could be reviewed and approved by the appropriate

congressional subcommittee, or Congress would

have to develop the capacity for intercommittee

authorization, appropriation, and oversight.

Legislative Authority and Flexibility

USDA has broad organic authorities to address all

issues related to American agriculture; its authorizing legislation, commonly called the Farm Bill, is

reconsidered by the Congress every 5 years. Consequently, programs to protect groundwater from

agricultural chemicals have developed within offices that have broader historical mandates and

functions. Other offices have programs specifically

directed towards protecting groundwater quality.

Like USDA, USGS has broad organic authorities

to pursue its primary missions. According to an

OMB Circular A-67 (1964), USGS is charged with

responsibility for interagency and intergovernmental ground- and surface-water data coordination, and
286 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

with encouraging consistency in data collection and

storage. In addition, the Water Resources Research

Act authorizes USGS to provide finding to States,

although such funding has been declining (197).

However, additional authorizing legislation could

serve to give agencies specific direction and priorities within their broader range of activities, and to

legitimize specific activities (1 19).

POLICY ISSUE: National Fertilizer & Environmental Research Center Activities Dependent on TVA Oversight and Appropriations

TVA authority is based upon the 1933 Tennessee

Valley Authority Act. The National Fertilizer &

Environmental Research Center (NFERC) was created to assist with modernization of agriculture in

the River Basin, but has since established itself as a

national ‘‘center of excellence’ in fertilizer research

and development (76). However, funding continues

to be allocated to the NFERC under appropriations

for the regional authority and, thus, can be strongly

affected by decisions made with regard to the

organization as a whole.

Option: Make NFERC an Independent National

Center of Excellence

Congress could separate NFERC authorization and appropriations from the Tennessee

Valley Authority, and redefine it as an agricultural research center of excellence, perhaps as

part of the land-grant system, or as a stand-alone

center based on the model of the National Center

for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) or the National Institutes of Health. An independent NFERC

could be created that would have explicit authority

to undertake, sponsor, or direct national research,

development, extension, information dissemination,

and education efforts related to agricultural nutrient

management and development. The center could

continue to focus on commercial fertilizers and

livestock waste management, or could be expanded

to include additional agricultural nutrient-related

issues, such as basic agroecosystem research.

Incorporation in the land-grant system might

allow NFERC to define protocols for experiments to

be replicated by other land-grant research centers on

differing hydrogeologic sites. However, if NFERC

becomes part of the land-grant university system, its

funds would be allocated under the Hatch Act, and

the avenue for special allocations may be narrow.

If the new organization were modeled on NCAR,

a joint Federal-university consortium organization,

it might focus more strongly on basic research and

on computer simulation modeling of environmental

fate of chemicals and modeling of the nitrogen cycle,

for example. Similarly, funding could be allocated

from USDA, EPA, the National Science Foundation,

and other Federal research agencies. As a National

Center, it may be joined in the future by other such

“centers of excellence” focusing on other agricultural issues, and comprise one part of a coordinated

group of research centers such as the National

Institutes of Health,

As an independent center of excellence, funding

and personnel decisions could be made related to

nationally -identified needs. Separation of NFERC

from TVA probably would require increased appropriations to NFERC to cover costs of support

services currently obtained from TVA, in addition to

those required to expand programs or develop new

efforts. Separation of NFERC also could entail a

reduction in appropriations to TVA. However, in

light of TVA’s experience and expertise with

various forms of power-generating utilities, it might

profitably reorient its environmental programs towards those more directly relevant to power generation, such as management of hazardous waste, or

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

POLICY ISSUE: Lack of Comprehensive EPA

Authority

EPA is unique among the four primary agencies

in that all of its programs are specifically mandated

by law. It does not have the broad organic authority

available to the other agencies, and hence has less

flexibility to develop programs. Existing legislative

mandates set the tone for the agency’s agenda and

program development. Thus, perhaps the piecemeal

approach contained in the mandates themselves

work against a comprehensive or integrated response to environmental problems (152). Because

legislation tends to focus on specific media, EPA

and its programs are organized to address these

specific media, rather than to track pollutants as they

move among media. In addition, by their nature,

regulatory programs require specific authorizing

language, and little clear authority exists for EPA to

regulate privately -owned drinking-water wells (119).

Option: Provide a Systems Approach in Organic

Legislation For Environmental Protection
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 287

Congress could establish clear means to coordinate regulatory programs relating to protection of water quality throughout the entire

hydrologic cycle, and clear authority to undertake a preventative approach, in an organic act

for a Department of Environmental Protection.

Several legislative proposals have been put forth in

an effort to elevate EPA to Department level.

Proponents argue that the associated increase in

flexibility and ability to operate proactively defend

elevation to Cabinet-level status (152). It has been

suggested that EPA’s level in the bureaucratic

hierarchy works against its ability to coordinate

effectively with other key agencies despite a clear

cause for EPA concern in the interests and activities

of these agencies. Supporters of proposals to elevate

EPA to Department level also argue that equal

footing with other departments is needed to promote

widespread integration of environmental policy in

other programs ( 152).

It has been suggested that EPA’s lack of Cabinet

standing indicates a lack of understanding regarding

U.S. environmental problems: environmental protection could be viewed as a temporary governmental responsibility and not a long-term effort to

protect the public interest meriting a change in

bureaucratic structure (152). However, elevation to

Cabinet level alone may not ensure that EPA

activities would be enhanced: funding must be

assured and potentially increased, and the organic

legislation will need to provide EPA the authority

and flexibility to deal with agriculture and water

quality issues in a comprehensive, coordinated,

systems fashion.

Formal congressional recognition of the continuous nature of the hydrologic cycle, and thus of the

myriad pathways of water contaminants, in an

organic act for EPA, might assist that agency to

develop coordinated water quality protection programs. A clear mandate to undertake preventative

programs, in addition to its regulatory responsibilities, could assist EPA to reorient its activities

from a contaminant- or media-specific focus towards more comprehensive water quality protection.

POLICY ISSUE: Fragmented Legislative Authority

for Water Quality Protection

At present, water quality concerns are addressed

in a number of separate pieces of distinct and often

uncorrelated legislation. Failure to integrate the

provisions of these distinct laws into a coordinated

set of statutes may lead to problems and conflicts in

their implementation. For example, since anhydrous

ammonia fertilizer can volatilize into the atmosphere, be washed into surface waters, or percolate

into groundwater, use of this fertilizer could be

covered not only by the diverse groundwater protection provisions already enacted, but also by laws to

protect surface waters, reduce air pollution, and

protect the global climate. The time may be approaching when a farmer who applies fertilizer on a

field may have to comply with the provisions of

more than a dozen separate pieces of legislation

(1 19). The demands of each of these separate Acts

could require different and sometimes contradictory

behaviors.

Option: Evaluate Water Quality Laws for Coordinated, Comprehensive Approach

Congress could create a “blue-ribbon” panel

of lawyers, administrators, and scientists to evaluate current water-quality laws, to identify areas

of conflict and overlap, and to suggest legislation

that would integrate extant laws into a rational

and consistent structure. Each law could be

modified in reauthorization accordingly, or an

omnibus water quality bill could be developed

that encompasses earlier legislation. Evaluation of

current legislation and authority could be undertaken concurrently with development of organic

legislation for a Department of Environmental

Protection, or could be conducted independently.

Reauthorization of water quality laws based on the

evaluation could assist in development of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to water quality

protection, but would not provide an ongoing

framework to ensure maintenance of such an approach as new water-related issues emerge.

Development of omnibus water quality legislation would allow for continued comprehensive

consideration of water quality issues, however, this

would require the integration of laws developed and

supported by separate committees within Congress.

Each committee responds to somewhat different

constituencies, each likely has a different set of

priorities, and sometimes fierce competition exists

between committees for jurisdiction. A comprehensive, integrated and rational set of groundwater laws

may be difficult to create under these circumstances.
288 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

legacies of Organizational History

Each Federal agency has a unique history and set

of resources for protecting groundwater. USGS has

a history of ‘pure science and research, ’ and limits

its activities to providing data and coordinating data

collection for other agencies. TVA/NFERC and

USDA combine data collection and monitoring with

basic and applied research, technology transfer, and

technical assistance. EPA engages to some extent in

the preceding activities, but also has regulatory and

enforcement responsibilities. Each agency has some

combination of ‘‘top-down’ and “bottom-up’ approaches with the well-known ensuing conflict

between addressing local or regional needs and

establishing programs based on visible national

priorities.

Jurisdictional issues among agencies also may

hinder effective programs. For example, EPA has

appropriations and authority to conduct pesticide

applicator training programs, but lacks the rural

infrastructure and communications network necessary to deliver the program. Consequently EPA

contracts with the USDA Extension Service for

delivery through its extension network. However,

funding has declined, and neither EPA nor USDA

may be committed to make investments in a program

where their respective responsibilities and authorities appear vague.

USDA and TVA have greater experience in

outreach and technical support, but both are wary of

direct involvement in enforcement programs. Conversely, EPA has demonstrated a repeated interest in

participating in education, outreach, and demonstration programs, and has some degree of experience in

each of these areas. Further, EPA has critical

information on pesticide management and handling

that may not currently be extended through USDA’s

channels. EPA lacks the outreach communications

infrastructure and personnel present within USDA.

Differences in administrative structure, approach

to environmental protection, and general wariness

by both agencies has hindered cooperative ventures.

Little research has been conducted on the efficacy of

various institutional structures or approaches to

protecting groundwater quality (192), so few conclusions can be formed.

POLICY ISSUE: Program Implementation Based

on Political Boundaries Rather Than Hydrogeological Regions

The arrangement of decentralized (regional or

field) offices of each of these organizations tend to

be based on political boundaries that rarely correspond with natural resource boundaries (e.g., groundwater basin, watershed). One early attempt to

subdivide the nation into meaningful water regions

(figure 6-4) shows little correlation between State or

county boundaries and water-resource boundaries.

This complicates agency coordination efforts: groundwater protection programs must link local, State,

regional, and Federal activities into a coherent,

coordinated action to be effective. Each of the major

agencies will have to develop national programs that

can be administered through hydrogeologically meaningful regions, potentially necessitating reorganization of field activities. However, efforts may more

easily be based on water-resource boundaries, as

illustrated by the SCS studies of groundwater

contamination within 37 “high risk” hydrologic

regions identified based on hydrogeological factors.

Option: Implementing Programs Based on Natural

Resource Systems

Congress could require that the relevant information collection, research, and outreach programs conducted by each of the major agencies

(e.g., USDA, EPA, USGS) be directed to hydrogeologically defined “ecoregions.” Most implementation organizations have jurisdictions determined

by political boundaries. This will hinder establishing

programs based on’ ecoregions, and may require

development of new organizational coordination

mechanisms, or restructuring of some organizations.

Thus, this may require that SCS, ES, and EPA

outreach services be combined into one massive

service; that outreach personnel be located within

the same facilities to aid coordination; or it may

require cross-training of SCS, ES, and EPA outreach

personnel.

Coordination of Interagency Activities

Given the many water quality protection programs underway, it is not surprising that widespread

concern exists regarding the extent of potential

duplication of effort and the level of cooperation and

coordination among Federal agencies. Some duplication may be desirable, as a way to ‘‘check the

system, ” but wasteful duplication of basic functions

and responsibilities should be avoided. Despite the

increase in agency coordination that has already

occurred (106), many believe that Federal programs

should be better coordinated, especially to provide
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 289

Figure 6-4-Comparison of Water Resource Boundaries and State Boundaries

Pacific Northwest region 17

region

21

The lack of correlation between State or county boundaries and water-resource boundaries may complicate the development of

comprehensive water quality protection schemes.

SOURCE: U.S. Water Resources Council, The Nation’s Water Resources, 1975-2000, VOIS. 1-3, In: Nipp, 1989.

consistent advice and assistance to States and

individuals (cf: 119,46,197).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

initiated the Interagency Task Force on Groundwater in 1987 to catalog Federal agency activities to

protect groundwater quality and to develop a coordinated interagency groundwater protection strategy.

These efforts culminated in the President’s Water

Quality Initiative for fiscal year 1990. The OMB and

Congress have cited needs for more detailed and

cooperative planning efforts to facilitate coordination within and among Federal agencies, resulting in

new coordinating mechanisms (56, 119). Subsequently, the Subcommittee on Groundwater of the

Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) was made responsible for:

. . . coordinating Federal nonregulatory groundwater

efforts related to research, resource assessment,

information management and dissemination, technology demonstration, technical assistance, training,

and education, The membership of the subcommittee includes the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Interior; the Council on

Environmental Quality; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration; the National Science Foundation;

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and the Office

of Management and Budget (56).

The Subcommittee also has responsibility for

facilitating implementation of existing Memoranda

of Understanding and other cooperative agreements

that exist among agencies (see figure 6-5). It seems

that, as water quality program staff interact, there is

a growing effort to plan and develop new programs
290 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Figure 6-5-Network of Primary Federal Interagency

MOUs on Water Quality

USDA

FS

• Soil and water

sample collection

● Expertise in

forest and range

management

SCS

● Technical

assistance

and personnel

ES

● Educational

assistance and

personnel

ARS

● Surfaceoriented research

I 1

USGS

● Soil and water

sample collection

● Lab analysis

● Substratumoriented research

EPA

● Water quality

database system

● Detection,

cleanup, and

protection of

groundwater

● Development

and enforcement

of groundwater

standards

The primary Federal agencies, and a number of other Federal,

State, and local organizations, have signed Interagency Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) allocating responsibilities for

various components of groundwater research, monitoring, data

management, and program activities.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990

jointly, such as the independently planned but

cooperatively merged USGS Mid-Continent and

USDA Midwest Initiatives to study effects of

herbicide use on groundwater.

Option: Prepare and Maintain Management Matrices of Agency Roles and Responsibilities

Congress could require that the OMB/FCCSET

Subcommittee on Groundwater prepare such

matrices showing clearly the activities undertaken by each relevant Federal agency or office to

protect groundwater from agrichemical contamination; and provide an accompanying report

detailing agency roles and responsibilities. One

tool that may allow ready identification of roles and

activities is the management matrix (1 19,120). Such

a matrix can show agencies and offices on one axis

and issues, components of the hydrologic cycle,

research topics, or similar categories on the other

axis. Responsibilities of each agency or office can be

listed in the resulting form. This procedure should

show readily where duplication is occurring, or

where important topics are not addressed.

Submatrices may be similarly constructed, such

as a research matrix. For example, the USGSsponsored Technical Integration Group--composed

of technical program managers from USDA, USGS,

EPA, and TVA/NFERC-has developed a research

matrix showing components of the hydrologic

continuum on one axis and the physical processes

affecting movement through the continuum on the

other axis (table 6-4). The resulting research matrix

can be used to identify which scientific disciplines

are pertinent to each hydrogeologic component, and

assists in identification of lines of coordination and

communication.

POLICY ISSUE: Coordinating Federal and State

Actions

Based on the 1984 Groundwater Protection Strategy, EPA has provided the States with roughly $40

million in grants since 1985 to support development

and implementation of Ground Water Protection

Programs (184). These programs are intended to

provide a State with a cohesive, resource-oriented

perspective to underpin the many federally directed

(e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act; Superfund) and State-initiated programs that

address specific sources of groundwater contamination. A State Ground Water Protection Program

provides consistent policies, approaches, and information within each State on groundwater vulnerability assessments, resource use and value classifications, State groundwater standards, and protection

priorities. Centralizing these functions in one program helps achieve consistency in groundwater

protection and cost-effectiveness in avoiding unnecessary duplication among different State agencies

and programs.

In 1988, EPA proposed a strategy to specifically

address the concern for pesticides in groundwater

(183). The key component of this source-specific

strategy is the development of pesticide/groundwater

management plans by a State as the basis for

continued EPA registration for State use of pesticides posing groundwater concerns. The Agency’s

pesticide strategy builds on the 1984 strategy by

requiring the State’s lead agency for pesticide

regulation (usually the State Agricultural Agency) to

develop its pesticide/groundwater management plan

in cooperation with the State’s lead agency for

groundwater protection (usually the State Water

Quality Agency or Public Health Agency). In this
Ch. 6Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 291

x x x x x

xx x :

x x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x xx x

x x

x x x

x x x

x

x x x x x

xx x x

x
292 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

reamer, protection objectives and approaches for

pesticides will more likely be consistent with other

groundwater protection efforts, and can build on the

work underway within the States on groundwater

resource mapping and monitoring (10).

EPA also has responsibility for overseeing State

NonPoint-Source Programs as established by Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The Act requires

the States to develop assessments of their nonpointsource pollution problems and Management Programs to address these problems. In EPA’s guidance

to the States, the Agency requested that States

include information on any known or suspected

groundwater problems caused by nonpoint-sources

and that such information be consistent with each

State’s Ground Water Protection Program (181).

EPA’s Regional Offices also were requested to

encourage the States to incorporate the groundwater

policies, approaches, and information of their

Ground Water Protection Programs in their NPS

Management Plan submissions to the Agency.

Congress has appropriated $40 million to EPA for

implementation of the Section 319 NPS Program in

1990, the first monies appropriated for implementation of the section. The Agency is providing grants

to States for demonstration and implementation of

best management practices (BMPs) for nonpointsource control; some of these projects are aimed at

groundwater protection (10). However, section 319

gives neither EPA nor the States additional enforcement authority, such that compliance is voluntary

(57).

Coordination of a State’s NPS Program with the

State’s Ground Water Program is intended to help

assure consistency in a State’s approach to groundwater protection across a wide variety of point and

nonpoint sources of contamination. Concomitantly,

such an approach allows the NPS Program to

integrate groundwater protection priorities of the

State’s Ground Water Program with those for

surface water, to develop an overall priority plan for

addressing nonpoint sources within the State. EPA

has underway a study to profile the degree of

coordination between these two programs that has

been achieved by the States.

Recent policy papers from EPA’s Ground Water

Task Force call for assuring consistent and coordinated groundwater policies and efforts across all

groundwater programs within or supported by EPA

and among other Federal agencies (185). The Task

Force also stated that the key means for achieving

such consistency and coordination is to ensure the

implementation of Comprehensive State Ground

Water programs (186). Many of EPA’s sourcespecific regulatory programs affecting agriculture

already have been coordinated with States’ Ground

Water Protection Programs, or plans for their

coordination are underway.

Given that many of the BMPs developed and

demonstrated under the NPS Programs and the

USDA Initiative likely will be proposed as components of, or alternatives to, regulatory programs, it is

important that these programs and efforts are each

coordinated with the States’ Ground Water Protection Programs. EPA and USDA currently are working to link States’ NPS Programs to the selection of

research and demonstration projects that USDA will

fund under the President’s Water Quality Initiative

(see box 6-D).

Option: Multiple Referral of State Agrichemical and

Groundwater Plans

Congress could have each State plan evaluated

by each relevant agency (USDA/ES, USDA/ERS,

EPA, USGS, etc.) or, alternatively, could establish a joint, interagency group to review State

plans. Because of the site-specific nature of groundwater contamination by agrichemicals and the concomitant site-specificity of farming practices likely

to reduce contamination, and because of the lead role

the States have taken in response to agrichemical

contamination of groundwater, coordinated development and approval of State Groundwater Protection Plans and Pesticide Management Plans may

provide one avenue for coordination of Federal/State

activities. However, having as many as 100 plans

reviewed sequentially or iteratively by up to 10

agencies likely would stall the planning process.

An alternative method of coordinating Federal

and State activities would be to have the State plans

reviewed by an Interagency Review Board comprised of representatives from the major Federal

agencies to ensure that plans consider all information available from the agencies, and to assist in

coordination of Federal and State activities within

each State. Regular reappraisals of plans and activities could allow readjustment of Federal and State

activities to achieve increasing coordination as

programs are implemented.
Ch. Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 293

Option: Develop a Coordinated Farmland Resources Management Program

Congress could establish a program based on

the Coastal Resource Management Act model to

achieve coordinated use and protection of farmland resources and reduction of adverse environmental impacts associated with agricultural production. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

of 1972 (Public Law 92-583) (30) established

coastal zones as areas of special significance to

States and the Federal government, and authorized

establishment of State Coastal Management Programs (CMP) (box 6-H). The CMP model encourages voluntary State participation, promotes centralization of State planning, establishes a clear line of

State-Federal communication and assistance, and

focuses on specific land areas and associated resources and multiple pollution sources.

The CZMA could serve as a model for development of an Agricultural Resource Management Act

promoting development of State Agricultural Resource Management programs (ARMP). As coastal

and nearshore resources clearly have been deemed

of special significance ecologically and economically, farmland has been determined to be of national

importance (cf: 54,22,131). And off-site impacts of

agricultural activities are of growing concern just as

the offsite-impacts of land-based activities became

of concern in coastal areas and nearshore waters. Just

as under a CMP, certain areas may need to be

protected from agricultural development (e.g., wetlands, riverine fringes, and other agriculturally

related highly vulnerable areas), but agricultural use

of the area also may need to be allowed in balance

with environmental protection goals.

An ARMP could be designed to protect farmland

resources and manage potential adverse environmental impacts (e.g., groundwater contamination).

Voluntary participation by States could be encouraged through a Federal grant-in-aid approach, as in

Box 6-H-Coastal Resources Management Program

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) established coastal zones as areas of special economic

and ecologic significance to the States and Federal government. The CZMA set Federal guidelines, however, it

lacked regulatory powers and thus its success depended on voluntary participation. This Act established precedence

for a Federal grant-in-aid program to encourage the protection and management of coastal resources while fully

recognizing State primacy over the identified resource. 1 The 1976 amendments to the Act clearly articulated”. . .a

national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone”

(Section 302 (a)).

The Act further recognized that the competition over resource use generated by population growth and

economic expansion commonly resulted in the biological and physical degradation of the coastal environment and,

thus, the Act was crafted as a mechanism to mitigate/ameliorate such adverse impacts (27).

Consequently, each of 32 coastal States, 3 territories, and 2 commonwealths developed Coastal Management

Programs (CMP) that:

1. identify boundaries and evaluate coastal resources requiring management or protection;

2. examine policies with respect to their ability to accomplish this task, or develop new policies that will

addresss the identified needs;

3. determine specific uses and geographic areas to be managed based on resource capability and suitability

analyses and socio-economic and public interest considerations;

4. consider the national interest in planning and siting of facilities that meet more than local requirements; and

5. include sufficient legal authority and organizational arrangements for program implementation and to

ensure compliance (55).

In addition to State coastal management programs, a national program for CZM is administered by the Office

of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) (previously the Office of Coastal fine Management) under

the Department of Commerce. The mission of this office is to encourage comprehensive and unified consideration

of land and water uses that are sensitive to maintaining the integrity of the coastal ecosystems (27).

1

‘‘[t]he key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage States to exercise

their full authority over the land and waters in the coastal zone, and, that this should include unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and

processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance’(Section 302 (h))” (27).
294 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

the CZMA, with grants for planning and plan

development, program implementation, and related

education activities. However, if protection of groundwater resources is deemed of significant importance,

a stronger, regulatory approach might be used. The

planning phase of State ARMP development could

include components such as:

●

●

●

●

A

identification of areas of particular concern

(e.g., aquifer recharge zones, areas deemed to

be highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination) to be eligible for the program;

development of program goals and steps for

implementation (e.g., Indiana’s “T by 2000”

program);

analysis of existing policies and programs for

potential conflicts with program goals, and

development of new policies to support program goals; and

demonstration of sufficient State authority and

organizational structure to implement the program.

national program for agricultural lands could be

established within USDA- to provide funds for

planning and plan implementation by States as well

as monies for acquiring lands that are clearly

identified as integral to maintaining the viability of

groundwater resources (e.g., aquifer recharge zones).

The office could provide a central location for

review and approval of State programs and ensure

comprehensive, integrated State approaches in program development.

An analog to the land acquisition approach was

found within certain legislative proposals seeking to

make aquifer-recharge zones eligible under the

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Lands eligible on a groundwater protection basis would be

removed from agricultural production for a specified

contract period. Given the nature of aquifer protection, and the site-specific nature of agrichemical

movement through the soils and underlying sediments and rocks, a long-term approach such as

outright State purchase of land or land-development

rights, may be in the best interests of groundwater

resource protection. State purchases of landdevelopment rights need not be held in perpetuity,

and would allow other land uses that are determined

benign in terms of groundwater contamination

potential.

If an Agricultural Resources Management Act

were enacted, it might be necessary to invest

additional resources to expand certain agencies in

order to support the Act’s implementation. Previously, SCS maintained an office responsible for

providing technical assistance to States and local

governments regarding farmland protection. 3 T h e

SCS computer-assisted Land Evaluation and Site

Assessment system (LESA) developed in 1981 has

been adopted by several States to facilitate their

farmland preservation programs. The SCS effort,

however, was discontinued in 1984 concurrent with

a USDA decision that farmland conversion was

greatly exaggerated (22).

State and local governments have developed data

collection and analysis, monitoring, incentive, and

zoning programs to implement farmland-preservation programs. Five states (Hawaii, Utah, Illinois,

Delaware, and Virginia) have developed LESA

systems since 1982 and a national survey identified

36 operational LESA systems in 19 States; the

number has increased since the completion of the

survey. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are

the newest trend in land-use planning. Although

these systems are not used widely yet, they allow

multiple variables (e.g.,hydrology, topography, soils,

land cover, land tenure, and other variables) related

to farmland to be displayed and analyzed together

(22). These capabilities would be invaluable in

implementing ARMPs that would require identification of vulnerable areas and development of indirect

and direct approaches to encourage program participation. Thus, ARMP programs may best be established in States where a farmland protection program

already exists.

Numerous approaches have been taken by the

States for selective protection of farmland. Information gathering and analysis methods are equally

diverse. Among the tools used by State and local

governments to monitor change and develop farmland protection programs are: farmland mapping

inventories, satellite tracking of landuse changes,

s~eF@and ~tectlon poli~ Act (fiblic hW 97-98) (FPPA) enacted in 1981 (regulations completed in 19~) identified fti~d M an impo~t

national resource and required Federal agencies to consider adverse impacts of policies on farmland presewation (13 1). This Act was in part a response

to a concern that metropolitan expansion was convdng prime farmland to nonagricultural uses (131). However, the FPPA has not been highly effective

in decreasing farmland conversion except where State farmland-protection programs exist. The Act it.sel.fdoes not require that a project be changed based

on its potential impact on farmland conversion only that such impacts be exarnined and alternatives considered (22).
Ch. 6---Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 295

computer-assisted decision-making programs (e.g.,

GIS), and land capability analyses (22).

Tax and financial incentives, land-use controls,

regulation, and acquisition or transfer of land or

partial interest in land currently are the major State

and local approaches used to protect farmland. All

States but Nevada use at least two of these approaches; tending to progress from the indirect (e.g.,

tax incentives; right-to-fare laws) to the more direct

approaches that require a strong public constituency.

Direct approaches may include purchase or transfer

of development rights, agricultural districting programs, property tax credits, agricultural-land tax

relief programs, comprehensive land-use programs

with farmland preservation as major goal; and

statewide zoning programs. Agricultural zoning

ordinances have been on the rise in 25 States. For

example, Oregon’s statewide land-use planning

program (begun in 1975) requires local governments

to identify prime agricultural land, usually by SCS

Class I-IV farmland, and apply exclusive farm-use

zoning, meaning restrictions on home construction

or land partitioning unless it is shown to increase

productivity (1 15).

Agricultural districting programs are voluntary

programs designed to preserve a certain amount of

farmland. These programs involve organization of a

farmland district as a legally recognized entity,

whereby the farmers agree not to develop the land

for a specific time period. The government offers

benefits to the district such as protection from

annexation or nuisance suits. Thirteen States have

enacted districting programs and New York alone

now protects nearly 8 million acres in this manner.

The approach is popular largely because it affords

long-term protection at low costs (22).

Expertise housed in ARS, ES, and SCS would be

integral in the implementation of ARMP. These

management programs would likely rely heavily on

the development of whole-farm agrichemical best

management plans. ES and SCS already have

experience in current application of Best Management Practices and Resource Management Systems

respectively, designed to address protection or

conservation of specific resources (e.g., soil, surface

water). Appropriate whole-farm agrichemical management plans would need to be developed on a

site-specific basis, however, and this may translate

into high costs in terms of additional personnel and

time. Further, the issue of groundwater protection is

relatively new and increased research efforts may

need to be directed towards development of practices designed to protect and conserve groundwater

resources.

POLICY ISSUE: Development of Combined Technical/Policy Expertise

Interagency and Federal/State/local program coordination or integration probably will require

unique talents and capabilities. Farmers and producers deal with one domain of priorities and problems.

Scientists communicate in their dialects of jargon in

a somewhat separate domain of priorities. Administrators function in yet another realm. Policymakers

struggle to broker public sentiment into public law.

Rare and few are the individuals that are fluent in the

dialects of each of these communities and fewer are

those that can travel freely among them.

A new “hybrid class” is needed of integrators

(e.g., scientist-farmers, scientist-administrators, and

scientist-policymakers) trained to communicate and

facilitate communication up and down the management continuum, as well as laterally among agencies

(1 19). The integrator needs a technical understanding of the issues under consideration, a grasp of

policy implications of the issues, the capability of

transcending the mindset of particular disciplines or

administrations, and the capacity to speak the

languages of the different specialties that are party to

the decision (66).

Development of policy-educated scientists, and

science-educated policymakers can be facilitated by

sharing personnel from professional associations

with Federal agencies or the Congress. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has

perhaps the largest such program, detailing approximately 40 individuals to congressional and Federal

offices each year. However, such sharing occurs

much less commonly in the case of professional

associations related more specifically to agriculture

and the environment. For example, for the last

several years the American Society of Agronomy

provides a Congressional Fellow detailed to the

Congress, commonly working with the House Committee on Agriculture. The Fellow provides a means

of direct communication between the Society and

congressional deliberations of agricultural issues.

Such associations could be expanded to include

Congressional Fellows detailed from other professional societies such as the American Geological
296 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Institute to congressional committees or to Federal

agencies.

Option: Encourage Interagency St@ Details

Congress could facilitate sharing of staff among

Federal agencies. One means to facilitate communication among agencies and offices is for them to

“borrow” each others’ staff. To some extent this

already is occurring. For example, the USDA has

stationed Soil Conservation Service employees at

each of EPA’s regional office, and a USDA employee is detailed to EPA headquarters to assist with

interdepartmental coordination (106). Some agencies also have detailed staff to congressional offices

and to OMB. However, the total number of staff thus

‘‘shared’ is small and positions may not be continuously filled. Formal mechanisms and reward systems could be established to ensure continuity in

interagency ‘‘cross-fertilization. ’

Another mechanism might be to encourage the

development of “Technical Integration Groups”

related to agrichemical contamination of groundwater; or to broader agriculture and environment

issues. One Technical Integration Group (TIG) has

been promulgated by the USGS and is now formally

recognized by EPA and TVA; USDA is involved in

the TIG although it has not formally recognized it as

a coordinating mechanism.

The TIG actually is composed of three levels of

groups: Strategy Teams, the Technical Integration

Group proper, and the Headquarters Group, each

comprising representatives from the participating

agencies, State organizations, and academic organizations. The four Strategy Teams, composed of

researchers from a variety of fields, regularly convene to identify and determine research needs,

protocols, etc. The Technical Integration Group is an

interdisciplinary team of technical program managers who ensure coordination of activities, many

suggested by the Strategy Teams, and have authority

to allocate resources to the programs. The Headquarters Team, still in formation, is expected to authorize

research plans developed by the Technical Integration Group (133).

The primary activity of the current TIG has been

to coordinate the Midwest (USDA)/Midcontinent

(USGS) Initiative. This research program is a

prototype cooperative research program on herbicide leaching in agricultural systems, focusing on

the 11 States forming the ‘Corn Belt. ” The methodologies for research and research coordination are

expected to be transferable to other regions and other

cross-agency research issues (133). Establishment

of other such interagency working groups probably

would improve interagency coordination and interdisciplinary, systems-approaches to research, program implementation, and policymaking.

Congress could facilitate development of technicalpolicy expertise by supporting development of

training and education programs for “hybridstudies, aimed at increasing interdisciplinary understanding in Federal agency personnel. However,

development of such expertise will take considerable time and money, and may do little to ensure

improved communication among Federal agencies

or Federal, State and local levels of government.

Coordination of Intra-Agency Activities

Complexity of programs and approaches and

multiplicity of actors occurs within as well as among

Federal agencies. The major Federal agencies have

developed mechanisms to identify and coordinate

programs relevant to water quality. The USDA has

the largest number of organizational units related to

agriculture and environment issues. However, coordinating systems may not include all relevant offices

within the agency, and coordination systems developed commonly are not easily amenable to congressional oversight. Centralizing coordinating responsibilities in single offices or committees might

improve responsiveness to congressional requests

and directives.

Option: Centralizing USDA Accountability for Coordination

Congress could require USDA to establish a

central person, office, or coordinating committee

that will be held accountable for coordination of

USDA activities related to agriculture and the

environment. Improving inter-office coordination

within the USDA might increase its flexibility in

response to emerging issues. A USDA Working

Group on Water Quality has been established within

the Secretary’s Policy and Coordination Council to

oversee implementation of the Water Quality Program Plan and to improve intra-agency and interagency coordination relevant to agrichemical contamination of groundwater. This could be formalized and expanded to comprise a coordinating

committee to address environmental issues at large,

reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary. Water
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 297

quality programs could be one set of issues coordinated by this committee. Alternately, a formal

position could be created in the Office of the

Secretary with express responsibility for coordinating all agency environmental protection efforts.

Means for Congress and the Federal agencies to

rapidly and accurately identify activities within

certain agencies are necessary for effective coordination and oversight of programs to protect groundwater from agrichemical contamination. Thus, agencies need to develop ‘vertical’ information systems

that provide information flow from field agents to

agency administrators (119). For example, a national

program leader in Washington DC may need to

know what kind of nitrogen management programs

are underway in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. In

such a case, the administrator can call the relevant

field agent for response, but what if the request is for

a concise summary of all nitrogen-related program

activities underway in 100 counties in the northeast?

As efforts are targeted towards areas of high

hydrogeologic vulnerability, such requests become

more likely,

At present, USDA has computerized systems

listing extension service activities (the Program

Document Data Base) and federally funded agricultural research programs (the Current Research Information System). However, these systems were not

designed to readily provide answers to questions

now being asked by policymakers and program

managers. Both have received criticism in recent

reports (cf: 158,121) calling for standardized classification systems and reporting formats.

For example, the Current Research Information

System (CRIS), maintained by the CSRS, catalogs

ongoing research conducted by the Agricultural

Research Service and the land-grant universities.

The CRIS system tends to categorize research

programs on the basis of commodity, following the

historical concern of the agricultural community

with production of an abundant and inexpensive

food supply. The system has been expanded to

monitor some broadly defined natural resource and

environmental issues, but is not yet capable of

categorizing projects on the basis of their contribution to groundwater quality protection or similar

issues. The CRIS system provides a ‘‘fwst cut’ at

isolating potentially relevant projects, but the resultant list must be manually searched and evaluated for

extent of research program relevance to the issue of

concern.

Option: Improving Program Tracking System

Congress could require that USDA expand the

CRIS system, specifically to categorize ongoing

research on the basis of current issues of public

and congressional concern and, perhaps, also to

include activities other than research promulgated or sponsored by the USDA. Alternately,

Congress might request that similar tracking

systems be fully developed for data collection,

education, and technical assistance following the

same type of reporting structure required by the

CRIS system.

A system is needed that can track the diverse

programs underway in dispersed offices so that they

can be integrated with national programs. Further,

the program information needs to be stored in such

a way that desired information is easily searched and

retrieved. However, a tracking system should not

create paperwork such that the resulting burden is

greater than the information benefits that result.

In order to accomplish this, some standardized

classification system, and a list of the relevant issues

of concern, must be generated. The list of issues

could focus solely on those relevant to agrichemical

contamination of groundwater, or could be expanded to include other issues of broad public

concern such as other environmental issues, rural

development, and trade issues. Congress could

develop the list of issues, or might require USDA to

develop the list as a first report on the CRIS

modification.

A classification system of current research or

programs would essentially constitute an agreedupon set of rules for defining the different type of

groundwater research and programs that are underway. For example, the criteria might determine

whether work is relevant to groundwater protection

or not, and under this, whether it is primarily: 1)

collection of data and samples, 2) analysis of

research and data collection, 3) management of

people involved in the above, or 4) development of

policy or regulations resulting from the preceding

activities (120). The research categories identified

by the Technical Integration Group could serve as a

starting point for developing a list of categories of

groundwater protection work (133). Congress could

require that an interagency body such as the
298 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

FCCSET Subcommittee on Groundwater or the

Technical Integration Group develop a classification

system that would be relevant across all agencies.

The list of issues of concern, and the classification

system probably will have to be reconsidered on a

regular basis. Programs and research, particularly

basic research can be relevant to a broad array of

popular issues. In addition, the issues themselves

change over time. Therefore, Congress might require regular reporting on potential new issues to

add, or ‘old’ issues that might be dropped from the

list. Providing for public discussion of the issue list

might allow for foresight on additional issues of

public concern. USDA activities related to those

issues could be identified, prior to their development

into public ‘ ‘crises. ’ With the use of agreed-upon

classification systems, it would be possible for

Congress to ask USDA or other agencies how much

is spent on groundwater data collection, research,

education, and technical assistance, and to receive

numbers that are likely to be more defensible than

those provided now.

Congress also could require that the agencies

jointly support an evaluation of current program

tracking databases and their relative utility. Based

on this evaluation, an optimal ‘‘Program Tracking

System” might be designed, using one standard

classification system. If the system were designed

specifically for groundwater protection from agrichemical contamination, the system might be coordinated

through the National Agricultural Library. However,

if Congress decides the system should track the

larger array of environmental and social issues

related to agriculture, it may be more appropriate for

FCCSET, OMB, or some other neutral agency to

manage the system.

Adequacy of Resources

Groundwater protection will be an ongoing process. It will require the development of a number of

products and investigation of numerous practices,

and these efforts will have to be sustained over a

number of years (1 19), In an era of diminishing

Federal fiscal resources, difficult decisions need to

be made about the public’s commitment to protecting groundwater from contamination compared to

other social concerns. No set of groundwater protection programs will succeed with sporadic, haphazard, and inadequate funding. For example, meeting

USDA’s stated commitment to water quality improvement will require a consistently high level of

effort for a number of years. This commitment

probably will require funding of agency groundwater programs over competing priorities and providing adequate staff resources (197).

Provision of this funding and staffing already is

under question. For example, the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy reported that ‘the

conventional problems of personnel limitations and

the need for staff training” hinder the Extension

Service’s ability to extend groundwater education

programs to practitioners (52). These ‘conventional

problems ‘‘ include inadequate funding, inadequate

numbers of personnel, and inadequate resources to

train and prepare extant personnel.

Furthermore, Extension Service and Soil Conservation agents operating at the county level have

multiple responsibilities; it is difficult for them to

allocate the time and resources to attend groundwater training programs, particularly if the issue is

not a high priority for the residents of their particular

county. The majority of the funds available to these

field agents comes from county and State governments, whose priorities thus take precedence. If the

Federal Government wants a large role in directing

the priorities of these systems, it probably will have

to share a larger part of the funding burden.

These problems extend beyond education and

extension. Water quality research in general, and

groundwater protection research in particular, is

long term and expensive. For example, one report

estimates that study of the movement of agricultural

chemicals through the soil profile into the groundwater usually requires drilling wells for sampling,

each of which may cost several thousand dollars.

Processing and analyzing one water sample for

agricultural contaminants, following EPA protocols,

costs several hundred dollars. Each site will require

a number of samples to follow fluctuation and

movement of the chemicals over time. If one sample

is taken from a well every 2 weeks in the course of

a year, analyzing these samples will cost $7,000 to

$8,000. Conservatively, if only 10 sampling sites are

chosen, then $70,000 to $80,000 a year would be

spent on sampling costs, $20,000 to $30,000 in

drilling costs, and further funds would be required to

cover labor and other costs (40).

Option: Substantially Increasing Funding for Programs Directly Relevant to Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress . 299

Congress could increase funding for extant

Federal research, education, and extension programs, and grants to States for such programs,

based on direct relevance to reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater. Many of the

groundwater research and education programs developed under the President’s Water Quality Initiative have ‘‘matching funds” requirements, where

State or local governments must match the Federal

allocation to receive funds.

Despite the lead role States have taken, financial

resources are sufficiently scarce that States seem

willing to comply with Federal guidelines in order to

secure new dollars. Moreover, State readiness to

respond to Federal dollars seems widespread. For

example, in fiscal year 1989, after discounting

congressionally earmarked projects, CSRS received

about $1.8 million in new funds for groundwater

research to be carried out across the nation. Nearly

240 research proposals were submitted, of which

only about 20 could be funded. State researchers and

educators have developed proposals, but finding

from the Federal government probably is necessary

to conduct these programs, and to leverage the

coordination of the diverse State programs into an

integrated national program (193).

Expansion of research, education, and extension

programs to incorporate the whole suite of agriculture and environmental issues may be costly. For

example, the National Research Council recently

released a report that called for a $500 million

increase in funding for agricultural research, in part

to address public concerns about the effects of

agricultural production on the environment (1 13).

Water quality is explicitly identified, and research

areas are specified:

●

●

●

●

developing cost-effective agricultural and silvicultural systems that minimize or, preferably,

eliminate surface and groundwater pollution

from both point and nonpoint-sources;

devising land management practices that reduce or eliminate the transport of pollutants

through surface and subsurface flows and

assessing the quantitative effects of such practices;

developing methods for increasing water yields

and availability while minimizing water quality

degradation;

using irrigation waters more efficiently;

●

●

●

designing innovative systems for restoring

water quality and preventing contamination

from nonpoint-sources;

developing cost-effective remediation systems;

and

understanding the economic and social effects

of possible abatement, remediation, and agricultural production strategies (1 13).

Research on groundwater protection, as well as

other environmental and natural resources issues,

could fit into this new funding framework should it

become available. However, increasing funding

substantially beyond that already provided by the

President’s Water Quality Initiative is likely to pose

difficulties in a time of fiscal austerity. Therefore,

evaluating and reorienting existing programs, and

existing appropriations, may be more appropriate

than massive new infusions of funds.

REDIRECTING FEDERAL

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Introduction

Agricultural policy represents a complex “web”

of programs governing commodity production, risk

management, resource conservation, and agricultural research and education. Federal agricultural

programs provide farmers with a variety of benefits

including commodity program price supports, income supports, and supply controls; crop insurance

subsidies and disaster payments; storage payments;

market enhancement subsidies; credit subsidies; and

conservation land rental and cost-share payments.

Farm policies affect cropping practices and related agrichemical use primarily by conferring

different relative benefits on commodities. Income

and price supports, for example, reduce economic

risks associated with growing seven major commodities, which encourages farmers to grow these crops

preferentially over other crops which are not “protected” by farm programs (e.g., some small grains

and perennial legumes useful in crop rotations).

Farm policies are criticized for creating certain

commodity surpluses and huge Federal outlays of

entitlement payments to farmers who are growing a

limited range of crops. In fiscal years 1987 and 1988,

for example, subsidies to farmers totaled $25.5

billion and $20.3 billion, respectively (174). Critics

charge that such subsidies inflate the Federal deficit,

distort production incentives, increase farmer de-
300 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

pendence on Federal payments, and make U.S.

agriculture generally less competitive (7,77).

Differences in cost of agricultural production in

many regions also has been altered by subsidization

of agricultural inputs, such as irrigation water, as

well as through protection from liability for environmental damages (14). Federal programs affect farmers’ implementation of conservation practices to

reduce soil erosion and improve water quality, but

programs tend to make production a higher priority

than resource conservation (34). On one hand, some

program provisions encourage conservation through

cross-compliance requirements, voluntary costshare incentives, and technical assistance programs

encouraging conservation. On the other hand, commodity and risk-reduction programs can conflict

with conservation provisions by imposing shortterm planning horizons for production decisions and

discouraging long-term planning for resource conservation. Thus, in addition to restricting cropping

options, commodity and risk reduction programs

may provide disincentives to implementing conservation practices.

Furthermore, Federal programs are blamed for

subsidizing unnecessarily high levels of aggregate

agrichemical use by supporting agrichemicalintensive commodities, encouraging production of

crops in areas that may not be suitable for their

growth, encouraging production practices that require higher agrichemical inputs, and delaying

development of reduced-chemical or nonchemical

alternatives. Certain program crops, such as corn and

cotton for example, use higher amounts of nitrogen

fertilizers or pesticides than non-program crops

(169). Incentives to increase program crop acreage

to the extent possible under farm programs discourages farmers from rotating crops or integrating

non-program crops into rotation systems (60).

Alternatives to current Federal farm programs are

being debated, ranging from modifications that

maintain the general framework of price and income

supports (e.g., expanding current cross-compliance

requirements on soil erosion control to include

nutrient and pesticide management plans) to more

drastic approaches involving elimination of Federal

farm payments based on production output (i.e.,

“decoupling”). Proponents favoring the maintenance of support programs recognize the associated

problems and trade-offs but prefer the stability these

programs afford; they fear that “decoupling’ would

cause severe disruptions in production patterns and

expose producers to commodity markets that may

not be self-correcting and that are highly distorted by

the concentration that has occurred among commodity buyers.

Proponents of decoupling, on the other hand,

believe that elimination of price and income supports would allow farmers to be more responsive to

market signals and encourage them to grow a more

diversified range of crops rather than being encouraged to specialize in program commodity crops. A

third alternative would be to follow up “decoupling’ with a “recoupling” of Federal payments to

adoption of approved conservation practices. The

Federal government under this approach would then

be paying farmers to steward the nation’s agricultural resources, rather than intervening in commodity markets. Any changes in farm programs are likely

to affect farmer choice of crop, production practice,

and agrichemical management strategy, all of which

may affect the potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

Major Programs Affecting Farmers’

Decisions

Groundwater protection from agrichemical contamination is a cross-cutting issue and will be

influenced by all three types of agricultural programs-production, risk reduction, and conservation. Some of these programs may directly cause

intensified agrichemical use, or they may conflict

with other programs indirectly leading to increased

use. Policy options addressing conflicts within and

among all three types of programs may help remove

barriers to improved agrichemical management or

reduced agrichemical use.

Production Programs

Agricultural production programs are comprised

of separate commodity programs outlined in the

commodity titles of Federal farm bills authorized

every five years. Commodity programs guide national production of at least 13 different commodities, with 7 commodities commanding the greatest

portion of farm program benefits: wheat, feed grains

(corn, sorghum, oats, and barley), cotton, and rice.

Assistance is also provided to producers of sugar,

wool, mohair, honey, peanuts, tobacco, peas, dairy

products, and soybeans (15). The Secretary of

Agriculture has the authority to add to the list of
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 301

program commodities if deemed necessary to achieve

legislative goals.

Commodity production programs are intended to

help farmers, processors, and distributors obtain

prices that result in an orderly, adequate, and steady

supply of agricultural products for the nation’s

consumers (3). Commodity programs vary in price

support levels, producer requirements, and producer

participation rates, and any program changes tend to

generate different benefits, price ratios, and input

substitution possibilities for farmers (14). Commodity programs also influence the amount and locations

of cropland planted to various program crops (49).

Thus, commodity programs strongly affect farmers’

decisions related to crop choice, agrichemical use,

and farming practices and resulting potential for

agrichemical contamination of groundwater.

Commodity programs partially buffer farmers

from market price fluctuations through three main

types of programs: 1) price support; 2) direct

payment; and 3) supply management (155). The first

two of these programs account for approximately 80

percent of Federal farm program outlays (156).

Certain features of each type of program have been

criticized as encouraging the production of agrichemical-intensive crops or discouraging crop rotation.

Policy options that address these features thus

assume that the general framework of price and

income supports will be maintained as agricultural

policy.

Price Support Programs—Price supports guarantee that farmers will be able to sell their commodities

at a price, or loan rate, set by Congress. Price

supports are provided through ‘‘nonrecourse loans’

from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC) in which the farmer uses his crop as

collateral. If the commodity’s market price is lower

than the loan rate when the loan matures (usually

after 9 to 12 months), the farmer can forfeit the crop

to the CCC instead of repaying the loan in cash (15).

Thus, nonrecourse loan rates provide a price floor for

commodities when market prices drop.

Direct-Payment Income Support Programs—

Income supports are provided to farmers through

direct payments, called ‘ ‘deficiency payments,”

when commodity market prices fall below ‘‘target

price’ levels set by Congress. Deficiency payments

make up the difference between a commodity

target price and its market price or government

nonrecourse loan rate, whichever is higher. To frost

qualify for deficiency payments for a specific

program crop, a farmer must have planted that crop

on a portion of the farm for the last 5 consecutive

years. This is the farmer’s “crop acreage base” for

that commodity, which is thereafter calculated using

a 5-year rolling average of the number of acres

planted to that crop (171). A farmer’s total deficiency payment depends on which program crops

are grown, the number of acres eligible, and average

“program payment yields” per acre established by

USDA/ASCS. Annual deficiency payments per

farmer are limited legislatively to $50,000, but

certain exceptions allow some persons to receive

considerably more (155,16).

Supply Control Programs—To receive price or

income supports for any commodity, farmers must

agree to reduce their acreage in that commodity by

a percentage set by USDA as part of an acreage

reduction program (ARP). Also known as “setsides,’ ARP requirements in recent years have

ranged from 5 to 30 percent of base acreage (170).

USDA rules stipulate that acreage set-asides be

planted to soil conserving crops. Thus, acreage

eligible for deficiency payments for a specific

commodity in any given year is that crop’s base

acreage minus the required ARP, or the crop’s

“permitted acreage. ”

Commodity programs are included among the

‘‘institutional factors’ that are likely to influence

farmers’ decisions related to resource protection

(109), Choices made with regard to commodity

program may have environmental effects sufficient

to overwhelm efforts made through traditional

conservation programs (38). Production program

constraints may be especially felt by participating

farmers in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas who

could reduce groundwater contamination through

changes in cropping practices. Commodity program

issues and options relating to cropping patterns and

associated agrichemical use are discussed here.

POLICY ISSUE: Current Federal Farm Programs

Restrict Cropping Flexibility and Discourage

Crop Rotation

Federal farm programs provide price and income

supports for only a few crops and thus limit

participating farmers’ crop choices and planting

flexibility. Even among the program crops, Federal

price and income supports are greater for crops using

higher levels of agrichemical inputs (e.g., corn,
302 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

cotton, and wheat) than for crops that are less

agrichemical-intensive (e.g., oats and barley). Federal programs also discourage farmers from diversifying because deficiency payments are based on the

number of program crop acres averaged over the past

5 years. For example, farmers currently wishing to

receive Federal benefits for more than one program

crop can establish multiple bases, but these farmers’

deficiency payments will drop due to: 1) lower

‘‘acreage base’ for currently enrolled crop in the

following years; and 2) 5-year period required for

‘‘new’ crop bases to be established before any

payments can be obtained.

Consider the farmer currently growing continuous

corn and who wishes to start a 3-year crop rotation

by planting a third of the current crop base in corn,

a third in soybeans, and a third in oats. This farmer

faces the strong disincentives of a reduction of corn

base acreage eligible for deficiency payments reaching 66 percent in the fifth year of the rotation.

Further, no payments are received for oats for 5

years, and no payments for soybeans (although

soybean price supports would be available). Even if

this farmer wanted to plant total acreage to soybeans

for only 1 year and then return to continuous corn

production, a 20 percent reduction in base acreage

would be incurred for each of the following 5 years

(114). Farm programs thus encourage farmers to

plant the maximum number of base acres possible to

their current program crops in order to maintain

acreage base and deficiency payments.

Some crop flexibility is currently provided

through the 0/92 and 50/92 provisions for feed

grains, wheat, and cotton in the 1985 FSA and

subsequent amendments (126). The 50/92 program

allows farmers to receive almost all (92 percent) of

their deficiency payments for that commodity in

return for planting only 50 percent of permitted

acreage. However, Congress limited the crops that

could be grown on the remaining permitted acreage

and did not allow for alfalfa or clover, which are

soil-building legumes useful in rotations.4 Alternatively, the 0/92 program allows farmers to receive 92

percent of their deficiency payments without planting any permitted acres to the commodity crop, as

long as their entire permitted acreage is planted to

conservation uses. Although conservation uses include establishing vegetative cover by growing sod

or legume crops, farmers cannot harvest these crops

as hay or pasture forage. This harvesting prohibition

may discourage farmers from utilizing the 0/92

option because it eliminates the possibility of sale or

on-farm use of conservation crops.

Limited increases in cropping flexibility have also

been provided in recent years through USDA rules

related to conservation compliance and disaster

assistance. For certain commodities, for example,

some farmers have been allowed ‘base exchanges

to meet conservation compliance requirements,

where base acres planted to low-vegetative-cover

crops are replaced by acres planted to crops having

more vegetative cover to reduce soil erosion (170).

The Disaster Assistance Act of 1988 also provided

for base exchanges and base protection for oats,

soybeans, and sunflowers in 1988 and 1989 (43).

Furthermore, USDA in 1989 allowed up to 20

percent of a farm’s permitted acreage to be planted

to non-program crops without a payment reduction,

although this rule may not be extended after 1990.

Increased cropping flexibility can be beneficial to

farmers faced with new environmental requirements

or drought conditions. Greater cropping flexibility

could also be extended as a result of the need to

protect groundwater resources from agrichemical

contamination. However, national changes in farm

programs permitting increased cropping flexibility

across the board would not benefit all farmers

equally. Local soil, climatic, and topographic conditions constrain some farmers’ cropping options more

than others. Kansas dryland farmers, for example,

have few options to grow anything but wheat

(67)-if other farmers begin to grow it, the resulting

increase in wheat supply would depress the market

for established farmers who have specialized in that

crop. Farmers in the Southeast, on the other hand,

would probably enjoy greater benefits from cropping flexibility, because weather conditions in this

region make it possible to grow a wider range of

crops. Changes in farm program flexibility will thus

benefit some farmers more than others and some

changes may have adverse indirect impacts on

certain farmers (67). Regions with limited crop

choices may require special policy attention and

additional analysis to identify potential impacts of

program changes.

dne F~ security I.mprovem=ts Act of 1986 allowed friticale, rye, flaxseed, sweet sor@uW SUM, sesame, s@ow=, mower, and c~tor ~~

among other crops which do not have ‘‘established markets.”
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 303

The following options could increase cropping

flexibility in Federal commodity programs. These

options could be authorized as provisions affecting

commodity production nationally, or they could

provide the basis for special rulings specific for

geographic areas designated as vulnerable to groundwater contamination.

Option: Increase Cropping Flexibility in Targeted

Areas

Congress could authorize USDA to designate

special groundwater-protection area adjust ments

for base acreage formulas that would allow

farmers in these areas to use crop rotations and

less agrichemical-intensive crops as one strategy

to reduce groundwater contamination. Program

participants in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas

may be ‘‘locked’ into growing agrichemicalintensive crops, especially if they depend on price

and income supports to increase potential net returns

and reduce risk. For example, constraints may be

particularly severe for producers growing continuous corn in sandy areas, such as the central Platte

River valley in Nebraska, where extensive groundwater resources are contaminated by nitrate and

herbicides (145). Constraints resulting from base

acreage requirements of existing farm programs

could limit the effectiveness of voluntary or semiregulatory programs to reduce contamination in

hydrogeologically vulnerable areas, especially where

significant contamination reductions are needed for

groundwater to meet drinking water standards. This

option would allow commodity program participants, particularly those in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas, to implement crop rotation systems

designed to reduce agrichemical use and thus

potential for agrichemical contamination.

Option: Increase National Cropping Flexibility

Congress could increase cropping flexibility

under commodity programs on a nationwide

basis. Under this approach Congress could:

End crop-specific bases altogether and reinstate ‘‘whole-farm bases. ” A whole-farm base

program would be similar to the “Normal Crop

Acreage” (NCA) program used between 1978-81

(45). One approach would be for the USDA to assign

one base to each farm according to its cropping

history and allow any combination of the major

commodities to be grown. The farmer would then

receive price and income supports based on the

commodities grown that year. Although this approach would increase flexibility, it would not

necessarily ensure groundwater protection or less

agrichemical use in hydrogeologically sensitive

areas, especially if price and income supports for

agrichemical-intensive row crops continue to be

higher than for less agrichemical-intensive commodities. Also, alfalfa and other nitrogen-fixing

crops are not commodity program crops, and their

acreage still would not be included in support

programs.

Another approach would be to assign whole-farm

bases nationally but designate more specific cropping combinations for whole-farm bases in hydrogeologically vulneralble areas. Thus, farmers in these

areas could only receive price and income supports

for commodities grown in environmentally beneficial rotations suited to local groundwater vulnerability conditions.

Protect the base of any farmer wishing to grow

non-program crops on crop acreage base. Base

protection could bean ongoing feature of commodity programs or Congress could allow all farmers a

one-time base exchange, e.g., 10 acres of corn base

with 10 acres of base in another crop. This would

allow farmers to keep their commodity program base

acreage while being able to plant legume and small

grain crops in crop rotations, giving them the option

of using beneficial rotations if they so desire. A

disadvantage to increasing cropping flexibility in

current farm programs is that it would not ensure that

farmers choose cropping patterns that are environmentally beneficial. If flexibility is increased

through any of the above options, groundwater

protection benefits are likely only if cropping

flexibility is coupled with incentives to adopt

environmentally-beneficial cropping patterns and

removal of incentives to intensify agrichemical use.

Congress could authorize a new, national

rotation-based “commodity program. ” Congress

could create another farm bill title based on crop

rotations and environmental stewardship and covering a variety of program and non-program crops.

Like other commodity programs, this program

would have voluntary enrollment but could provide

higher relative incentives for farmers to grow

soil-building or conservation crops. Participation

would require all participants to comply with crop

rotation standards. The advantage to this approach

would be that cropping flexibility changes would be
304 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

directed toward supporting environmentally beneficial crop rotations.

One disadvantage to such a program would occur

if numerous farmers chose to institute ‘‘forage

legumes” (e.g., alfalfa, clover) in crop rotation

systems. If enough farmers should enter such a

rotation, the livestock feed market-currently the

largest market for those commodities-might not be

capable of absorbing the suddenly-increased stock,

especially without a substantial reduction in commodity price. Thus, under the options listed above,

legumes could be instituted as program crops with

all the attendant incentives for production and

increases in farm commodity program payments, or

a concomitant program to expand the market for

legume-crop products (e.g., pelletized alfalfa might

serve as a replacement for road salts) might be

instituted.

POLICY ISSUE: Current Farm Programs Encourage Intensification and Production of Agrichemical-Intensive Crops

Among the seven major commodities supported

by farm programs, the more agrichemical-intensive

commodities, such as corn and wheat, have higher

target prices than other commodities such as oats

and barley. The differences in returns afforded by

current target prices is reflected in the different

participation rates for the commodity programs. In

1988, for example, corn commodity programs enjoyed about 90 percent participation of all corn

producers while oats programs had only 30 percent

participation. Current target price differentials therefore encourage farmers to plant more acres in corn

and wheat (103). Increased acreage planted to crops

that use relatively higher amounts of fertilizers and

pesticides, particularly in continuously-cropped

fields, contribute to greater potential for agrichemical contamination of groundwater in hydrogeologically sensitive areas.

Options: Increase Incentives for Growing Less

Agrichemical-Intensive Crops

Congress could align target prices among

program commodities. Reduced price and income

supports for erosive, agrichemical-intensive row

crops such as corn would reduce incentives to grow

these crops in hydrogeologically sensitive areas.

Higher price and income supports for small grains

are likely to increase acres planted to these crops and

would encourage their use in environmentally beneficial crop rotations.

Congress could conditionally authorize haying

and pasturing of conservation crops in some

areas. Authorization of such harvest probably should

be dependent on an analysis of the impacts of

commodity programs on agrichemical use in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas. This analysis should

include an examination of the potential impacts of

allowing harvesting of conservation crops, such as

clover and legumes, planted on ARP set-asides.

Harvesting is typically prohibited for fear that it will

have adverse impacts on hay producers. However,

harvest might be permitted on hydrogeologically

vulnerable areas as an incentive to include such

crops in rotations. Conversely, repeated harvesting

of these crops can severely reduce the amount of

nitrogen returned to the soil, such that annual

harvests may have to be limited in number or

volume.

Congress could require inclusion of nitrogenfixing crops in 50/92 and 0/92 programs. Such an

approach could encourage producers to adopt crop

rotation given the potential for increasing soil

fertility through incorporating legumes in crop

rotation. Thus, alternating planting of the legume

and commodity crop could provide additional benefits in terms of reduced fertilizer and pesticide use.

Options: Remove Incentives for Intensification on

Non-Set-Aside Acres

Farmers who participate in commodity programs

typically set aside their least productive or most

marginal acres, and they may keep these same acres

out of production year after year (32). Since deficiency payments are calculated in part on base

acreage and partly on historical yield of those acres,

incentives are strong to boost production on the

acres planted to the program crop. This commonly

entails high agrichemical inputs, planting highyielding varieties, and planting in close formation.

Thus, overall production of specific commodities

has increased in some cases, despite set-aside

provisions implemented to reduce crop supplies

(153,174).

Congress could redefine set-asides or acreage

limitations to a multi-year (3-to 5-year) program.

Such an approach could encourage planting of

perennial crops that provide greater benefits in terms

of soil-building and soil erosion control. This could
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress . 305

encourage some producers to adopt crop rotation in

order to derive additional benefits from enhanced

soil characteristics. Further, the more marginal

agricultural lands would remain out of production

for a longer period of time. Evidence indicates that

crop production on marginal lands generally requires greater agrichemical inputs, thus, some benefits may also be generated by associated usereduction. However, set-asides are designed for

production control and thus this option would entail

making long-term decisions relative to commodity

production levels.

Congress could address production control

through reducing the intensity of agrichemical

use rather than land diversion. The incentives for

maximizing production on cultivated acreage remain significant, frequently encouraging overapplication of agrichemicals. Establishment of a maximum “bushel per acre” for commodity program

payments may have potential for reducing overall

chemical use. Such a calculation could be made

based on general production in a given region,

similar to the methods used for calculation of

deficiency payments. With such a limit established,

there might be little incentive to overfertilize or

apply ‘‘insurance’ pesticides. Alternatively, the

maximum yield level could be set based on a

realistic yield goa15 on afield-by-field basis and thus

take into account the site-specific aspects of agricultural production. Program flexibility, perhaps in the

form of regular reevaluations, must be incorporated

to allow revision of identified maximum levels as

technological advances allow yield increases without adverse environmental impacts.

POLICY ISSUE: Current Farm Programs May Be

Subsidizing Practices That Contribute to Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Some Federal commodity programs tend to support agrichemical-intensive practices, virtually resulting in subsidies for agrichemical contamination

of groundwater. Another significant development in

the agricultural sector is the passage of conservation

compliance provisions in the 1985 Food Security

Act (Public Law 99-198) (62). Conservation plans

for highly erodible lands (HEL) are projected to rely

on conservation tillage, residue management, and

cropping practices.

Options :Expand Cross-Compliance to lnclude Groundwater Protection

Congress could expand cross-compliance requirements to include groundwater protection by

requiring nutrient and pesticide management

plans for eligibility. Congress could prevent subsidization of groundwater contamination by expanding cross-compliance requirements for participation

in commodity programs to include documentation

that agrichemicals are being used properly and

judiciously. However, this would require substantial

time, staff, and funding for the SCS alone or in

combination with other UDSA agencies (e.g., ES,

ARS, CSRS, ASCS, ERS) to develop new plans and

integrate the new plans with extant conservation

plans developed for current cross-compliance programs.

Congress could target base and payment protection for farmers adopting environmentally

beneficial rotations. Congress could allow farmers

to receive full deficiency payments when they plant

up to one-third of their permitted acreage to nitrogenfixing or conservation crops. One disadvantage to

this option is that it rewards farmers who have not

already implemented crop rotations and penalizes

farmers whose current crop acreage bases are lower

due to established crop rotations. Program benefits

could be adjusted to compensate farmers who have

established crop rotations or conservation cropping

practices through cropping history documentation.

Congress could require environmentally beneficial rotations and management plans in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas. Congress could

authorize base protection for any farmer wishing to

grow non-program crops on crop acreage base (189),

but not protect the deficiency payment outlay for

these farmers, unless they start a transition to

approved, environmentally beneficial rotations.

Congress could prohibit any Federal farm

program benefits for commodities grown under

continuous cropping practices. Significant reductions in insecticide and herbicide use can be

achieved by going from continuous corn, for example, to growing corn in rotation with soybeans. A

prohibition on continuous cropping is unlikely to

affect large numbers of farmers: continuous cropping is not a prevalent practice among producers of

major field crops, except for some crops in certain

5Re~1~tic fields we dete~~ by avem~ production fiorn a given field over a s-year period (SW ch. 4).
306 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

regions (39). However, producers of certain crops

(e.g., rice) might need special programs (e.g., a

program akin to the 0/92 program or wetlands

protection payments similar to the Conservation

Reserve Program). Prior to authorizing this prohibition Congress could request a study to assess

potential impacts of a nationwide ban on continuous

cropping as a farming practice.

Conservation Programs

Federal farm programs contain

servation components that could

agricultural conalso be used as

tools to address the need for groundwater protection

from agrichemical contamination. Besides conservation cross-compliance provisions, two voluntary

agricultural conservation programs could be pertinent to groundwater protection: 1) conservation

cost-share and technical assistance provided on an

ongoing basis through SCS and ASCS; and 2) the

10-year Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) of the

1985 FSA. However, each of these programs would

need to be modified to reorient traditional objectives

to serve better as groundwater protection policy

tools.

Conservation cost-share programs, for example,

traditionally have focused more on facilitating

implementation of structural changes (e.g., terracing) rather than on modifying land-uses or farming

practices that would be needed to protect groundwater. Furthermore, the rationale for long-term land

retirement programs would have to be expanded

from the current primary focus on retiring erosive

marginal lands to include hydrogeologically vulnerable areas or aquifer recharge zones.

A groundwater protection approach based on

modifying conservation programs to include groundwater concerns, however, may not achieve significant groundwater quality impacts, for two reasons.

First, allocating soil conservation funding to more

severely affected ‘‘target’ areas has been difficult

and largely unsuccessful (154,68). Similar difficulties are likely to be encountered in allocating

groundwater protection assistance to hydrogeologically sensitive areas. Second, even intensified education and cost-share programs have not resulted in

significant reductions in soil erosion or water quality

degradation (47). The overall poor record of voluntary conservation programs in reducing soil erosion

rates is considered largely due to the fact that

government programs and economic pressures impose conservation disincentives that are greater than

conservation program incentives.

Conservation disincentives are built into farm

programs that have historically served production

rather than resource protection objectives. As a

result, land conservation programs have been used

more as a production control tool to reduce commodity surpluses than as a means to modify land use or

to meet national goals to reduce soil erosion and

protect water quality.

Thus, groundwater protection efforts conducted

solely within an expanded conservation program are

not likely to reduce groundwater contamination any

better than conservation programs have reduced soil

erosion. Rather, effective groundwater quality protection may not be achieved unless other features of

agricultural and economic policies are adjusted to

‘‘create a climate in which natural resources are

wisely used because people are both willing and able

to use them wisely’ (142). In the absence of broader

changes in government programs, however, conservation programs could be expanded to include

groundwater protection assistance.

Conservation Cost-Share and Technical Assistance Programs-Conservation cost-share programs

traditionally have focused more on facilitating

implementation of structural changes (e.g., terracing) than on modifying land-uses or farming practices. Cost-sharing programs also have tended to

have a narrow focus (e.g., erosion reduction, tree

planting). Furthermore, budget reduction imperatives have tended to reduce assistance levels provided under Federal cost-share programs, and many

States have implemented State and local cost-share

programs to maintain assistance levels.

State and local policies and programs greatly

influence conservation cost-share and technical

assistance programs, and will be highly instrumental

in protecting groundwater from agrichemical contamination (see ch. 5, app. 5-l). Federal funding and

direction of SCS and ASCS activities, however,

affect these agencies’ capacities to staff, train, and

coordinate programs to serve as significant groundwater protection mechanisms.

Option: Review Federal Cost-Sharing Programs for

Impacts on Agrichemical Management and WaterQuality Protection

Congress could require USDA to review extant

cost-share programs to determine their impacts
Ch. 6----Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress . 307

on agrichemical management and water-quality

protection, and their potential as incentives to

improve agrichemical management. Based on

such a review, Congress could earmark funds for

extant conservation programs such as the Agricultural Conservation Program, or for expanded integrated conservation cost-sharing, such as the ASCS

Integrated Crop Management Program. In addition,

Congress could require a review of State cost-share

programs and grant funding provided to States for

cost-share programs. This review might identify

opportunities for more cost-effective provision of

cost-share programs, and could provide assistance to

States to find alternative funding mechanisms.

Development of an expanded Federal costsharing program that integrates multiple environmental concerns (e.g., soil-erosion reduction, wetland and wildlife preservation, protection of water

quality) might provide significant benefits without

substantially increasing funding levels. A simultaneous program to expand State cost-sharing programs, via grants and assistance in identifying

funding mechanisms, while potentially requiring

increased expenditures in the short-run, might alleviate some budget concerns in the long term.

Long-Term Cropland Retirement Programs for

Conservation-Federal cropland retirement programs serve as production controls as well as means

to reduce soil erosion through long-term voluntary

contracts with farmers to retire erosive cropland.

Farmers in these programs convert cropland into

grasslands, woodlots, or wildlife-forage plantings in

return for government payments and cost-share

assistance to establish permanent vegetative cover.

Under any long-term cropland retirement program,

the total amount and distribution of lands retired

under such programs depend on a variety of factors:

●

●

●

●

●

national program missions specified in legislative or administrative language;

State- or county-level restrictions on amounts

of land to be retired;

amount of funding allocated to implement the

program;

degree of implementation by State and local

administrators; and

degree of program participation, which is

influenced by attractiveness of cost-share and

other program incentives to landowners.

The long-term cropland retirement program currently in effect is the 10-year Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) established by the 1985 Food

Security Act. To participate in the CRP, farmers

petition to put highly erodible croplands identified

by the SCS into grasses, trees, or other vegetative

cover for at least 10 years in return for annual rental

payments. Farmers follow locally approved conservation plans to convert their CRP lands, which

cannot be grazed, harvested, or used for other

commercial purposes during the 10-year contract

period (150).

POLICY ISSUE: Cropland Retirement Incentives

May Be Too Low To Achieve Adequate Participation

Farmer incentives in land retirement programs for

conservation purposes, however, must be attractive

enough to provide similar or greater benefits compared to potential returns fkom cropland. Otherwise,

farmers are less likely to enroll cropland acres. The

34 million acres enrolled in the Conservation

Reserve Program between 1986-90, for example,

fell short of the program’s original policy goal to

enroll 40 million acres. One of the factors involved

in the enrollment shortfall was stronger farm prices

relative to those of the early 1980s (94).

The impacts of long-term land retirement programs on agrichemical use depends on the types and

amounts of cropland enrolled, and the choice of

long-term vegetative cover. Agrichemical use on

CRP lands is generally much lower than on croplands, although farmers might apply agrichemicals

to establish permanent vegetative cover in the first

year of the program. Aggregate agrichemical use is

therefore expected to decrease with increased acreage enrolled in long-term land retirement programs

(150).

Federal policies related to agricultural production

and conservation also have impacts which vary by

region. Agrichemical applications due to reduced

planted crop acreage are more likely to decline in

areas of heavier fertilizer and pesticide use (69).

However, because the CRP was designed to reduce

soil erosion, its criteria for enrollment did not

include identification of lands most vulnerable to

groundwater contamination or those receiving heavy

agrichemical use.

Options: Expand the Conservation Reserve Program
308 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Congress could expand the CRP to include

hydrogeologically vulnerable areas. This approach

has been examined to some extent in certain

legislative proposals put forth in the 100th Congress

(e.g., H.R.4137 and S.2045 proposed to establish 20

million acres of groundwater recharge eligible for

CRP, however no action was taken). Inclusion of

aquifer recharge areas or highly vulnerable areas in

the CRP could generate significant benefits to

preventing groundwater contamination from agricultural practices. However, the lack of understanding of subterranean water movement may hinder

effective targeting of eligible areas.

Such an approach assumes the ability to identify

highly vulnerable areas when such information and

current targeting methods (e.g., DRASTIC) are still

contested. Further, areas currently identified as

highly vulnerable may represent high-cost farmland

and thus payments for such conservation approaches

may be prohibitive. An expansion of this program

clearly will require additional funding given the

current inability to reach target enrollment for CRP

because of lack of funds. Furthermore, expanding

acreage reduction may have adverse effects on

commodity production, commodity prices and thus

food prices as well.

Another consideration is whether or not the

10-year term contained in current CRP contracts

would be sufficient to generate benefits to groundwater. Expansion of CRP based on a short-term

contract period likely would result in a reduction of

chemical input to groundwater for a similarly short

term. This aspect is particularly important given the

variability in rate of agrichemical movement

through the soil profile and the potential for chemicals applied many years ago to continue moving.

Thus, chemical contamination of groundwater may

well continue during or beyond the contract period.

Another consideration is the effects of plow-down

and subsequent decomposition of conservation crops

potentially creating a “nitrate pulse” through the

soil profile, possibly reducing overall groundwater

protection benefits.

Congress could extend the terms of CRP

contracts in hydrogeologically vulnerable areas

beyond the 10-year limit. This would be especially

beneficial if accompanied by promotion of treeplanting with its associated nutrient-scavenging and

carbon storage benefits. However, costs associated

with tree-planting may be much higher than for sod

or legumes and, thus, may pose a disincentive for

practitioners. Still, the potential benefits in reduced

agrichemical use with respect to protection of

national (e.g., groundwater) or global (e.g., atmosphere) resources may argue for increasing payments

for those acres planted to trees.

Risk Reduction Programs

Federal farm programs also provide some measure of economic security and risk-reduction through

programs combined here under the category of

“security” programs. These include farm credit

programs, crop insurance, disaster assistance, and

marketing programs.

Farm Credit Programs—Fanners obtain credit

through two main charnels: the Farm Credit System

(FCS), and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA).

Farm credit policies and practices may in some cases

make it difficult for farmers to take actions to protect

groundwater resources. Major farm credit programs

are briefly described here, along with options to

remove obstacles to enhanced groundwater protection.

The FCS is congressionally chartered to provide

production credit and farm real-estate financing to

farmers through a national network of cooperatively

owned banks and local-lending associations (26). A

Federal Farm Credit Board approves rules and

regulations governing operations and oversight of

FCS institutions and supervises the Farm Credit

Administration (FCA), which regulates all FCS

lenders (136). The FCS administers its programs

through 12 Farm Credit Banks reorganized under the

Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Farm Credit Banks

make real estate loans and long-term loans to

Production Credit Associations (PCAs), which in

turn make short- or intermediate-term loans to

farmers. PCA loans usually have maturities coinciding with production or marketing periods.

The Farmers’ Home Administration (FmHA) is a

Federal farm credit institution authorized by the

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to

provide credit to farmers who are unable to obtain

credit from private lenders. FmHA has a number of

farm loan programs which include:

● farm ownership loans, which finance farm

purchases and improvements or additions to

farms; these loans may also be used to finance

non-farm enterprises and refinance debt;
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Final”ngs, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 309

●

●

●

farm operating loans, which are short- to

intermediate-term loans for machinery or equipment, annual operating expenses, refinancing

of debts, or creditor payments;

emergency disaster loans, which provide financial assistance to farmers sustaining substantia l

losses from a natural disaster; and

soil and water loans, which finance land and

water development, use, and conservation;

these may be used for construction and maintenance of terraces, dikes, reservoirs, ponds, and

waste disposal facilities for compliance with

pollution control laws.

FmHA makes two types of loans: 1) insured direct

loans, which are made and serviced by FmHA from

a government revolving fund; and 2) guaranteed

loans, which are made, financed, and serviced by a

private or cooperative lender, but with FmHA

guaranteeing the lender against a 90 percent loss on

the loan if the borrower defaults (63). Because

FmHA is agriculture’s “lender of last resort, ” it

holds the largest number of high-risk loans. The

1985 Food Security Act made several significant

changes in FmHA lending policy to reduce government costs from loan delinquencies, including the

curtailment of FmHA insured direct loans in favor of

guaranteed loans.

In 1988, 118,000 FmHA borrowers were delinquent and facing possible foreclosure. The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 required FmHA to modify

delinquent loans to the maximum extent possible in

order to keep borrowers on their farms and avoid

government losses (26). FmHA is required to

restructure a severely delinquent loan if the cost to

restructure is less than foreclosure action. Loan

rescheduling can include reamortization, lower interest rates and deferral of payments, and debt

reduction or ‘‘write-down, ’ which includes debt

reduction through conservation easements. An easement is a 50-year contract between a landowner and

an outside party to restrict the type and extent of

development that may take place on the property,

with the landowner retaining title. FmHA easements

may be used for conservation, recreation, and

wildlife purposes. However, FmHA has not used the

conservation easement option to its potential. A

portion of the farmers who still face foreclosure after

all other loan servicing and debt restructuring

options might be able to save their farms with an

easement (42).

POLICY ISSUE: Some Farm Credit Mechanisms

May Be Generally Under-Used and Could Provide Innovative Mechanisms To Protect Hydro -

geologically Vulnerable Areas

Given the problems associated with attempting to

protect groundwater solely through changes in

commodity or conservation programs, other mechanisms may be more appropriate to protect severely

affected areas. An alternative mechanism, for example, would be the use of farmland easements (195).

Property easements involve a transfer of certain use

rights of private property, yet allow owner retention

of title to the land; easements may be based on

conservation or other values. The earliest governmentsponsored long-term conservation easements were

established in the 1930s and 1940s to protect scenic

views and wetlands, and have been a major component of certain private-sector conservation groups

(e.g., Nature Conservancy, American Farmland

Trust). The primary benefits of using conservation

easements to restrict certain uses of farmland are: 1)

easements are less transitory than zoning ordinances

and other land-use controls, and 2) they have only a

modest impact on government revenues (largely

through tax credits).

Congress first enacted benefits for the gifts of

“less than fee” interests in land in 1964 (195).

Benefits derived from a longstanding precedent for

using tax policy ‘‘to further non-revenue national

objectives’ (87).6 The Federal Government established rewards for land donations to qualified

private-sector organizations capable of protecting

the easement in perpetuity with a tax deduction

worth the value of the property rights surrendered,

and by conferring significant estate tax benefits on

conservation easement donors and their heirs. However, tax reform diluted the incentive for easements:

the appreciated value of a donated easement is no

longer tax deductible.

Options: Authorize Alternative Mechanisms To

Protect Groundwater Resources

Congress could authorize tax deductions for

farmland easements for groundwater protection

purposes. Section 170(h) of the tax code could be

%uc policy is another potential avenue of influencing landowner, farmer, and agricultural investor decisions related to agrichemical use and

agricultural management systems. For further informatiorL see Ward, Benfield, and Kinsinger (195).
310 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

changed to complement the CRP. Such a reform

could allow persons enrolling hydrogeologically

vulnerable land in the CRP to obtain a charitable tax

deduction provided they donate a permanent agrichemical-control easement on the affected property.

Current Federal government-sponsored farmland

easements are conducted largely through restructuring FmHA loans. Section 1318 of the 1985 Food

Security Act allowed FmHA borrowers to exchange

conservation easements for partial debt forgiveness,

but FmHA has yet to take any conservation easement for such purposes (195). A recent FmHA rule

proposal would elevate conservation easements to a

“primary loan service program” and FmHA would

accept easements on wetlands, highly erodible

lands, and certain “uplands” with “environmental

significance.” If a farmer could put hydrogeologically vulnerable land into an easement and be

allowed to deduct the difference between the field’s

market value as cropland and its value under a less

chemically intensive management regime, this might

lend economic stability to rural communities as well

as assist in surplus reduction.

Congress could expand acceptability criteria

for conservation easements. Congress could implement more authority for conservation easements

to satisfy farm debts, using soil, wetland, and

groundwater vulnerability criteria for easement acceptability. State and private-sector programs also

might be encouraged to purchase development

rights or conservation easements. State and local

governments already have established programs to

purchase easements requiring the retention of farmland in agriculture. For example, the RIM (Minnesota) gives direct payments in exchange for either a

20-year or permanent development easement. Such

programs also could be reoriented to include establishment of easements on hydrogeologically vulnerable lands. Partial easements might require the

sealing of contaminated agricultural drainage wells,

changes in tillage or irrigation practices, or reduced

chemical use.

Congress could authorize grants to State and

local governments for purchase of conservation

easements. The Land and Water Conservation Fund

(the primary mechanism for funding Federal acquisition of parks, forests, refuges, and recreation areas)

also has a State grants component that provides

funding for expansion and enhancement of State and

local land preservation programs (137). This program, or an analog, could be used to provide grants

to State and local governments for purchase of

conservation easements.

Disaster Assistance—Disaster assistance provided to farmers by USDA takes the form of: 1)

direct payments, 2) emergency loans, and 3) crop

insurance. Although provisions vary among the

programs, most provide cash to disaster victims in

the event of natural disaster (see figure 6-6). The

direct payment program has replaced the Disaster

Assistance Payment Program that was phased out in

the early 1980s; its most recent use was in response

to the 1988 drought emergency (43). As of March

1989, certain aspects of the program covered 472

crops and livestock.

The emergency loan program is conducted

through FmHA and provides loans at subsidized

interest rates to producers sustaining a crop or

livestock loss as a result of natural disaster. Loans

are made in disaster areas specifically declared by

the President, Secretary of Agriculture, or the FmHA

Administrator. A minimum of 30 percent loss of the

normal annual production must be sustained by the

producer in order to be eligible for an emergency

loan. The original intent was to subsidize growers’

return to farming operations after a disaster, however, the program has been modified to extend loans

for operation expansion. Physical loss loans are also

available under this program to cover damage or

destruction of property essential to farm operations.

It is estimated that nearly 80 percent of emergency

loans are for production loss and the remainder are

for physical losses (157).

Under the crop insurance program, farmers can

purchase subsidized crop insurance for most commodities through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) (155). With the insurance, a farmer

with crop loss is guaranteed payment for a certain

amount of his production per acre, ranging from 50

to 75 percent coverage. Farmer participation in

Federal crop insurance programs has been generally

low, however, averaging at about 25 percent of all

eligible acreage in 1987. Participation rates vary

widely by crop, ranging from O to 60 percent, with

participation typically lower with low-risk crops and

in low-risk areas (155). Reasons for low participation include poor program marketing, high premium

costs, self-insurance of farmers, and farmers’ conviction that the Federal government will come to the

rescue anyway in disaster situations ( 155). However,
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 311

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 6-6-Government Costs for Agriculture Disaster Assistance Programs

Dollars in billions

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Fiscal years

Significant Federal resources are directed towards disaster assistance to agricultureal producers. Low

participation in crop insurance programs has been attributed to the availability of Federal disaster

assistance programs that provide direct cash payments for agricultural losses.

SOURCE: U.S. Congresst General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Crop Insurance Can Proti&Assistanc-a

More Effective/y TharI Other Programs, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Agnuclture, U.S. House of

Representatives, GAO-RCED-89-211, September 1989.

farmers argue that coverage is too costly and

inadequate and private insurance companies serving

as marketing agents for the FmHA add that required

paperwork is too complex (29).

The most recent crop insurance legislation, the

Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980, allows the

FCIC to employ a variety of private insurance

agencies and farm cooperatives in its attempts to

publicize and sell crop insurance. This Act was

intended to phase out and eventually replace the

Disaster Payments Provisions established in the

Agricultural Act of 1949, which provide government insurance against yield losses due to drought,

flood, hail, wind, frost, fire, excessive rain, insect

infestation, plant disease, and other ‘‘unavoidable

causes’ (2).

POLICY ISSUE: Crop Insurance and Disaster

Assistance Programs May Encourage AgrichemicalIntensive Practices in Hydrogeologically Vulnerable Areas

Prior to 1980, USDA disaster assistance was

conducted primarily through cash payments totalling nearly $436 million annually between 1974

and 1980 (157). Consequently, the direct payment

program was criticized for being costly and encouraging production of crops in unsuitable areas. Thus,

Congress expanded the scope and availability of

crop insurance in an effort to reduce the need for

disaster assistance programs. However, provision of

disaster assistance through direct payments and

emergency loans continued through the 1980s.

Experts and farmer groups attributed the low participation in crop insurance programs to the availability

of Federal disaster assistance that provides direct

cash payments to producers at no cost and thus send

the message that crop insurance is unnecessary.

From 1980-88, USDA provided nearly $17.6

billion to support all three disaster assistance programs (direct assistance $6.9 billion; emergency

loans $6.4 billion; and crop insurance $4.3 billion).

Annual increases are noted under each program

(157). Clearly, significant Federal resources are

directed towards disaster assistance to agricultural

producers and thus may offer a potential mechanism

for affecting or modifying agricultural practices.
312 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Option: Cross-Compliance in Risk-Reduction Programs

Congress could restrict crop insurance subsidies and disaster payments to those farmers who

have approved nutrient and pesticide management plans. This approach would essentially create

a cross-compliance situation, linking disaster payments with implementation of approved agrichemical management plans. Effectiveness of such an

action would depend on producers believing that

lack of compliance would in fact result in ineligibility for Federal assistance. Strong congressional

sentiment that farmers should buy crop insurance to

be eligible for other Federal programs may offer

some potential for convincing producers that their

behavior may in fact affect eligibility for Federal

assistance (29). For example, legislation was passed

in 1988 that required farmers to purchase crop

insurance in order to be eligible for drought emergency assistance payments. The Chairman of the

House Committee on Agriculture stated in response

to the 1988 drought relief measure that: “Given the

budget situation, the only thing riskier than betting

on the weather is betting on the Federal Government

to come to the rescue again. ” However, it may

appear that undue hardship or penalty is being

placed on the part of producers, particularly since

production or physical losses are incurred as the

result of natural disaster and not personal mismanagement.

Option: Liability Insurance for Groundwater Contamination

Congress could provide liability insurance for

groundwater contamination for farmers with

approved nutrient and pesticide management

plans. Liability for agrichemical contamination of

groundwater has been established by several States

(e.g., Connecticut, California). Liability insurance

for agrichemical contamination of groundwater

could be provided through various farm credit

mechanisms (FCS, FmHA, FCIC) for producers in

States where liability statutes are in place.

Marketing Orders—Marketing orders were originally authorized in the Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937 with the purpose of regulating the “handling” of agricultural commodities in

interstate and foreign commerce to ensure that

consumers receive “an adequate supply of a commodity at stable prices’ (41). They are primarily

used for fruit, nut, vegetable and milk production.

The government sanctioned farmers in such regions

to form cartels that set controls on the amount and

quality of products that may be imported to these

regions, thus enhancing local production of these

commodities.

For example, although transportation technologies now enable marketing of Wisconsin dairy

products in Southern Florida at competitive prices

with local producers, marketing orders still restrict

importation of products from outside the area (cf:

41). The two largest dairy farms in the United States

are located near the Okeechobee (Taylor CreekNubbin Slough watershed) in Florida, a resource that

is currently threatened by phosphorus inputs. These

dairies cover nearly 14,000 acres with 9,000 head

(0.642 cows per acre); the phosphorous output may

lead to hyper-eutrophication of the lake and eliminate its usefulness as a source of drinking water,

recreation, and wildlife habitat (96). Thus, it has

been suggested that such marketing orders may in

fact contribute to commodity production in unsuitable areas (41).

POLICY ISSUE: Obsolete Marketing Order Programs May Encourage Inappropriate Agricultural Production in Hydrogeologically Sensitive Areas

Obsolete marketing orders may encourage or

protect agricultural production in regions where it

otherwise might not be economically viable. Further, agricultural production of crops in regions not

suited to them commonly requires greater external

inputs, most commonly agrichemical, to create

conditions conducive to production. In some of these

areas, potential adverse impacts on surface- and

groundwater resources then may be a significant

concern.

Option: Review Marketing Orders

Congress could direct USDA to conduct a

review of marketing order programs for possible

contributions to groundwater quality degradation. Based on such a review, regions where extant

marketing orders may pose a risk to the environment

could be evaluated for alternatives to continuing the

marketing order or development of alternatives to

current production practices. Elimination of marketing orders that seem to promote production in

unsuitable regions is one option. However, this

approach offers no assurance that producers might

not simply begin producing a commodity that may
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Fid”ngs, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 313

generate equally adverse environmental impacts

(e.g., exit dairy and enter sugar production). Alternately, the programs could be revised to include an

environmental component, one requiring participating producers in sensitive areas to implement

production practices designed to reduce potential for

agrichemical contamination of surface- and groundwater.

Factors Hindering Effectiveness of Minor

Changes in Farm Programs

Some farm program modifications, such as increasing cropping flexibility under commodity programs, can remove disincentives to the adoption of

crop rotations and reduce the need for intensive

agrichemcial use. Other farm program modifications, such as expansion of cross-compliance to

include improved nutrient and pesticide management practices, would also provide incentives to

encourage more efficient and judicious agrichemical

use, However, fundamental conflicts inherent in

farm programs and general agricultural policy work

against the simultaneous achievement of production

and resource protection objectives (21). These

conflicts could impede significant progress in the

development of public and private-sector capacities

to protect resources in agriculture, and the resulting

implementation of programs and cropping systems

that integrate resource protection into agricultural

production processes.

Since the 1930s, farm program modifications

have represented the typical approach to resolving

problems within and among agricultural production

sectors, and this same approach was used in the 1985

Food Security Act in an attempt to integrate

production and soil erosion control objectives. Farm

programs face further modification with other environmental problems, including agrichemical contamination of groundwater and emerging ones such

as atmospheric pollution by agrichemicals. One

concern is that constant attempts at “fine tuning’

result in an uncoordinated set of conflicting laws and

regulations that in turn create more problems requiring yet more ‘‘ fine tuning (90). If agricultural

policies are to address agricultural resource degradation issues effectively over the long term, a more

fundamental approach to policy reform may be

needed, evaluating and addressing the following

conflicts:

●

●

•

conservation and production titles of the Farm

Bill tend to be developed separately;

legislation on agriculture and the environment

tends to be handled by separate committees;

and

congressional hearings provide the only formal

mechanism to include the public in the development of agricultural policy.

Emerging environmental issues in agriculture will

confront the same inherent conflicts.

U.S. agricultural policy has been first and foremost an agricultural production policy, shaped by

the interests of commodity producers, which has

made resource conservation a voluntary, and perhaps secondary, consideration for most farmers.

Agricultural policy’s production emphasis may have

been appropriate in the past, because it was based on

the assumption that the U.S. public expects and

demands an inexpensive, consistent food supply.

Recent Gallup polls suggest that this assumption of

public desire for a ‘‘cheap food supply” may no

longer be correct, and the U.S. public may now be

willing to support higher food prices to protect the

national resource base and support less-polluting

farming practices. If agricultural policy is to truly

include resource protection and environmental stewardship as publicly demanded objectives for U.S.

agricultural production, integration of environmental

and production objectives must involve some mechanism for deciding how the costs of resource

protection efforts will be shared among farmers,

government, business, and consumers. The process

by which agricultural legislation is developed will

thus have to be opened to wide debate.

Educating for the Future

Considering the high level of public concern

about agriculture’s environmental impacts, ensuring

that agricultural producers, researchers, and policymakers have sufficient knowledge of relationships

between agriculture and the environment to anticipate adverse environmental impacts from practices,

programs, or policies is likely to become increasingly important. Similarly, environmental scientists

and policymakers will need to have increased

knowledge of U.S. agriculture in order to integrate

agriculture and the environment in research and

policy. A firm basic education in agroecology

probably would benefit both groups.
314 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Increasing exposure to environmental sciences

could help agricultural students and professionals to

become more aware, knowledgeable, and skilled in

addressing environmental problems. However, several constraints exist to the strengthening of environmental studies components in agriculture and natural resource school (ANR) curricula. United States

educational policies give primary responsibility for

education to the States, despite continued calls for

increased Federal attention to education. The secondary role of the Federal Government in education

makes it difficult to promote widespread curricular

changes among the broad range of programs found

at different institutions.

POLICY ISSUE: Integrating Agriculture and Environment in Education

Curricular change is difficult because the professional and college reward systems tend to emphasize

research over teaching. Individual efforts to develop

course and curriculum materials take considerable

time and effort. However, scholarly efforts aimed at

course and curriculum renewal seldom are rewarded,

especially at the larger institutions (93,88). Many

faculty, particularly those in the land-grant system,

have the majority of their salary support for research,

rather than teaching. Finally, little funding in general

is available for college program modification activities; one exception is private grant tiding, such as

the Kellogg Foundation grants for agricultural

curriculum renewal at the University of Minnesota

(105) and University of Wisconsin (89).

Another means of encouraging students and

graduates to achieve specific environmental knowledge and skills is through certification programs

established by professional societies, such as the

American Registry of Certified Professionals in

Agronomy, Crops, and Soils (ARCPACs). Some

States (e.g., Indiana) have approved ARCPACs

certification programs and standards to be used in

certifying agricultural professionals (138).

Other methods of encouraging understanding of

agriculture and the environment are provided

through Federal programs to expose teachers and

students to agricultural research or to Federal agency

functions. For example the USDA Agricultural

Research Service conducts the Teachers Research

Fellowship, providing temporary employment for

secondary school science teachers in agricultural

research projects. The Research Apprenticeship

program offers the same opportunities to high school

students. Cooperative Education provides part-time

work with ARS to high school through graduate

program students during school vacations. More

broadly, the Federal Junior Fellowship Program

encourages high school students to work with a

variety of Federal agencies. These and similar

programs could be oriented toward giving future

producers, educators, researchers, and policymakers

a basis from which to consider the integration of

agriculture and the environment.

Option: Review U.S. Education System for Ability

To Provide Agricultural/Environmental Expertise

Congress could require the USDA Office of

Higher Education, jointly with the Department of

Education, to conduct an evaluation of the U.S.

education system to determine its capacity to

provide graduates who are adequately trained in

agricultural and environmental sciences to address national needs in environmental research,

pollution control, and technology development in

agriculture. Such an evaluation, however, would be

difficult to do for several reasons. First, the environmental sciences encompass a broad group of disciplines and professions, ranging from ecology to

atmospheric sciences to wastewater treatment. No

clear definitions exist for the environmental sciences

in general, nor for agricultural courses covering

environmental impacts specifically. Specific definitions and classification of training programs by

objective and content would aid in assessment

programs.

Second, organization, degree programs, and instructional requirements are determined within each

institution and vary considerably from college to

college. Currently, agricultural students in ANR

colleges are educated primarily to address problems

and concerns in agricultural science, production, and

business. Although most land-grant colleges offer

environmental studies courses as electives, few

require agricultural science students to take these

courses (105). Many agricultural science courses

incorporate material on environmental impacts, but

no standard criteria exist for the amounts and types

of environmental information to be included in these

courses.

Finally, the USDA Office of Higher Education at

present does not have the resources to conduct such

an evaluation, and the Department of Education
Ch. 6--Public Influences Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 315

conducts few programs related to environmental

education relative to other programs. Thus, Congress could request such an evaluation from a

congressional research agency, or from a special

commission established for that purpose.

THE BOTTOM LINE: QUESTIONS

FOR CONGRESS

Given the: 1) level of public controversy (based

on public interest in agricultural development and in

environmental quality), 2) levels of uncertainty

related to agrichemical contamination of groundwater (on the problem, the causes, and the potential

solutions), and 3) existence of technologies (extant

and emerging) that have strong potential to reduce

agrichemical contamination of groundwater, the

ultimate determinant of potential policy directions

depends on the answer to one question: how will

Congress choose to deal with the uncertainty and,

thus, define the problem?

What action(s) Congress opts to take to protect the

Nation’s groundwater from agrichemical contamination may depend as much on how it chooses to

approach the problem as on the state of science and

technology. For example, groundwater contamination could be viewed simply as an additional target

of environmental concern (along with surface water)

and extant conservation programs could be modularly expanded to include groundwater protection

provisions, or to increase the priority already given

to such provisions.

Groundwater contamination also could be considered an outcome of farm programs that create

disincentives for farmers to protect the environment.

Strategies for dealing with the problem could then

involve program modifications to reduce or remove

disincentives and provide incentives for conservation. However, the basic program structure would be

preserved. This approach is reflected in the 1985

Food Security Act provision related to soil erosion

and wetland preservation.

A broader approach than either of these is to view

groundwater contamination as one of many symptoms of the need to integrate environmental protection into agricultural policy as a whole. Rather than

make piecemeal efforts to address soil erosion,

surface-water quality, or groundwater quality, and

rather than focus on a few culpable programs,

Congress could review and modify the entire agricultural policy/program structure to balance a goal

of environmental protection with that of agricultural

production.

This view reflects potential for a changed Federal

view of the relationship between agriculture and the

environment. Historically, agricultural policies and

programs have placed major emphasis on increasing

production. However, in the future, protecting environmental and public health could be considered as

important as that of enhancing agricultural production. Choosing this approach would require reconsideration of national goals for agriculture and for

environment, clarification of the Federal role in

agriculture, and review of the congressional separation of agriculture and environment in committee

structure. The tone is set for increased legislative and

executive attention to agriculture’s impact on the

environment.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

Abler, D. G., and Shortle, J. S., “Cross Compliance

and Water Quality Protection, Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, vol. 44, No. 5, SeptemberOctober 1989, pp. 453-454.

Agricultural Act of 1949, ch. 792, 63 Stat. 1051,

Oct. 31, 1949.

Agricultural Act of 1970, public Law 91-524.

Aidala, J., Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, “Pesticide Issues: Reauthorization of P.L. 92-516, ” IB87192, 1988.

Aller L., Bennett, T., Uhr, J. H., Petty, R. J., and

Hackett, G., DRASTIC: A Stanalzrdized System for

Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using

Hydrogeologic Settings; EPA/600/2-87/035 (Ada,

OK: Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA/ORD, 1987). /n: Cohen, 1989.

Amsden, T., “Risk and Public Perception: Grappling with the Octopus, ” presented to the National

Research Conference on Pesticides in Terrestrial

and Aquatic Environments, Brookfield VA, May

12, 1989.

Arrney, D., “Moscow on the Mississippi,” Policy

Review, Winter 1990, pp. 24-29.

Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution

Control Administrators, “America’s Clean Water:

The States’ NonPoint-Source Assessment 1985”

(Washington, DC: ASIWPCA, 1985).

Austin, J., ‘‘A Lawyer’s View of the Environment,’

FORUM for Applied Research and Public Policy,

Spring, 1989, pp. 91-93.

Barles, R., Office of Groundwater Protection, Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication, Mar. 9, 1990.
316 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Batie, S. S., ‘‘Agriculture as the Problem: The Case

of Groundwater Contamination,” Choices, Third

quarter, 1988, pp. 4-7.

Batie, S. S., and Diebel, P. L., “Managing Agricultural Contamin ation of Ground Water: State Strategies,” (Blacksburg VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1989).

Batie, S. S., and Hedy, R. G., ‘ ‘Introduction, American Agriculture as a Strategic Resource: The Past

and the Future,’ The Future of American Agriculture as a Strategic Resource, S.S. Batie and R.G.

Healy (eds.) (Washington DC: Conservation Foundation, 1980).

Batie, S. S., and Taylor, D.B., “Alternative Agriculture: Economics and Impacts, ” presented at Institute for Altermtive Agriculture Conference on

Integrated Farming Systems, Washington DC, Feb.

28, 1989.

Becker, G, S., Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, “Fundamentals of Domestic

Farm Programs,’ 89-151 ENR, March 1989.

Becker, G. S., and Carr, B. A., Library of Congress,

Congressional Research Service, “The 1990 Farm

Bill Notebook,” 89-540 ENR, Sept. 25, 1989.

Becker, G. S., and Zinn, J. A., Library of Congess,

Congressional Research Service, “Agriculture and

the Environment,” CRS Issue Brief IB89086, May

9, 1989.

Boschwitz, R., ‘‘Changing Agriculture’s Tradition

for the Better,” Special Issue: Symposium on

Agriculture, Notre Dame Journal of Luw, Ethics, &

Public Policy, vol. 3, No.1, Fall 1987, pp. 17-28.

Bradbury, J. A., ‘‘The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk,” Science, Technology, &

Human Values, vol. 14, No. 4, Autumn 1989, pp.

380-399.

Brown, G., U.S. House of Representatives, “Remarks Before the Agri-Environmental Conference,

Aprd 20, 1988.

Browne, W. P., Private Interests, Public Policy, and

American Agriculture (Lawrence KS: University

Press of Kansas, 1988).

Bushwick, N., and Hiemstra, H., “How States Are

Saving Farmland,” Sustaining Agriculture Near

Cities, W. I_ockeretz (cd.), Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA, 1987, pp. 189-198.

Cardozo C., Pepple, M., Troiano, J, Weaver, D.,

Fabre, B., Ali, S., and Brown, S., “Sampling for

Pesticide Residues in California Well Water, 1988

Update,” Environmental Hazards Assessment Program, California Department of Food & Agriculture, Sacramento CA, Dec. 1, 1988. In: Cohen,

1989.

Carriker, R. R., and Boggess, W. G,, “Agricultural

Nonpoint Pollution: A Regulatory Dilemma,” Special Issue: U.S. Agriculture, FORUM for Applied

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

3

3

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

Research and Public Policy, vol. 3, No. 2, Summer

1988, pp. 63-70.

Chan, A. H., “The Changing View of Property

Rights in Natural Resources Management,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 48,

No. 2, Apr. 1989, pp. 193-201.

Chite, R., and Jurenas, R., Library of Congress,

Congressional Research Sexvice, “Farmers Home

Administration: Farm Credit Policies and Issues, ”

CRS Issue Brief IB87215, Sept. 26, 1988.

Clark, J. R., Coastal Ecosystem Management: A

Technical Manual for the Conservation of Coastal

Zone Resources, The Conservation Foundation

(Robert E. Kriefer Publishing Co.: Malabar, FL,

1983).

Clean Water Act (CWA), Public Law 92-500.

Cloud, D. S., ‘‘Congress Likes Crop Insurance, But

Farmers Don’t Agree,” Congressional Quarterly,

A@ 1, 1989, pp. 692-693.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA),

Public LaW 92-583.

Cohen, S.Z., “Pesticides and Nitrates in Ground

Water: An Introductory Overview,” contractor

report prepared for the OffIce of Technology

Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, August 1989).

Cook, K. A., “Effects of Commodity Programs on

Land Productivity,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Service, 1980).

Cook, K. A., “Consider the Source, Environmental

Reform of Agricultural Policy in 1990 and Beyond,’ paper presented at Symposium on Sustainable Farming Systems: Needs and Opportunities,

Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Washington

DC, Feb. 28, 1989.

Cook, K. A., “The Environmental Era of U.S.

Agriculture Policy,” Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, vol. 44, No. 5, September/October,

1989, pp. 362-366.

Cooper, D.T, and Bellman, R. V., “Reaching for

Soil Conservation’s Ultimate Goals in Indiam,”

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 44,

No. 5, September-October, 1989, pp. 392-394.

Copeland, C., and Zinn, J. A., Library of Congress,

Congressional Research Service, “Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Policy: A Federal Perspective,”

86-191 ENR, Dec. 1, 1986.

Crowder, B., and Young, C. E., U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Se~ice, Managing Farm Nutrients: Tradeoffs for Su~ace- and

Groundwater Quality, Agricultural Economic Report Number 583, January 1988.

Crutchfield, Stephen R., Agricultural Economist

and Section bader, Environmental Quality Valuation Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.
— .

Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 317

Department of Agriculture, personal communication, Mar. 8, 1990.

39. Daberkow, S., and Gill, M., U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Common Crop Rotations Among Major Field Crops,

Agricultural Resources-inputs Situation and Outlook, AR-15, August 1989, pp. 34-40.

40. Davidson, J., Dean for Research, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida, Gainesville,

FL, personal communication, February, 1990.

41. Davidson, J. H., “Environmental Analysis of the

Federal Farm Programs, ” Virginia Law Review,

vol. 8, No. 2, Spring 1989, pp. 235-270.

42. Diehl, J., and Barrett, TS., “The Conservation

Easement Handbook: Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs,

(Alexandria, VA: Land Trust Exchange, 1988.

43. Disaster Assistance Act of 1988, Public Law

100-387, Section 301.

44. Dye, L, A., “TheFederalRolei nReducing Agrichemical Contamination of Ground Water, ’ contractor

report prepared for the OffIce of Technology

Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, December, 1989).

45. E~ C., Library of Congress, Congressional Research Semice, “Normal Crop Acreage,” 89-467-

ENR, Aug. 14, 1989.

46. Energy and Environmental Study Institute, “A

Congressional Agenda to Prevent Groundwater

Contamination, Building Capacity To Meet Protection Needs” (Washington DC: Environmental and

Energy Study Institute, Oct. 1986).

47. Epp, D. J., and Shortle, J. S., “AgriculturalNonpoint

Pollution Control: Voluntary or Mandatory?” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 40, No. 1,

January-February 1985, pp. 111-114.

48. Epstein, S. S., “Corporate Crime: Can We Trust

Industry-Derived Safety Studies?” The Ecologist,

vol. 19, No, 1, 1989, pp. 23-30.

49. Erickson, M. H., and Collins, K., U.S. Departmentof

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Effectiveness of Acmge Reduction Pmgmrns,’ Agn”cuhu.ralFood Policy Review: Commodity Program Perspectives, AER 530, 1989.

50. Ervin, C. A., “Implementing the Conservation Reserve Title, ’ Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 44, No. 5, September/October 1989, pp.

367-370.

51. Experiment Station Committee on Organization and

Policy (ESCOP), Task Force on Groundwater

Quality, “Groundwater Quality and Management:

Research and Extension” (Ithaca NY: Cornell

University Agricultural Experiment Station, December 1985).

52. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy,

“Groundwater Education: A Challenge for the

Cooperative Extension System,” n.d. In: Nipp,

1989.

53. Fallat, C., “What Role Land Use Planning in the

Restructuring of American Agriculture?” Journal

of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 43, No. 6, pp.

468-471.

54. Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), PubIic

hW 97-98.

55. Federal Code of Regulations, 15 CFR 923, Coastal

Zone Management Program Development and Approval Regulations (Mar. 1, 1978).

56. Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET’), “Federal

Ground-Water Science and Technology Programs:

The Role of Science and Technology in the

Management of the Nation’s Groundwater Resources” (Washington DC: Federal Coordinating

Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology,

1989),

57. Fentres, R.D., ‘‘Nonpoint-Source Pollution, Groundwater, and the 1987 Water Quality Act: Section 208

Revisited?” Environmental Luw, vol. 19, pp. 807-

839.

58. Ferret, R.L. and Ward, R. M., “Agricultural Land

Use Plaming and Groundwater Quality,” Growth

and Change, vol. 14, Jan. 1983, pp. 32-39.

59. Fleetwood, S. C., “Guidelines for Groundwater

Protection Legislation-An Industry Perspective,”

Proceedz”ngscfAgricuhuralIrnpacts on Groundwater—

A Conference, Des Moines IA, Mar. 21-23, 1988

(Dublin, OH: National Water Well Association,

1988), pp. 43-58

60. Fleming, M. H., ‘‘Agricultural Chemicals in Ground

Water: Preventing Contamination by Removing

Barriers Against bw-Input Farm Management,”

American Journal ofAlternativeAgricu!ture, vol. 2,

No. 3, 1988, pp. 124-130.

61. Food Marketing Institute, “One Agency Should

Address Food Safety,” News Release (Washington

DC: Food Marketing Institute, Feb. 22, 1989).

62. Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA; “Farm Bill”),

Public Law 99-198, Title XII,

63. Fraas, P. L., “Federal Assistance Programs for

Farmers: An Outline for Lawyers,” Agricultural

Law Journal, Fall 1981, pp. 405475.

64. Freudenburg, W. R., “Perceived Risk, Real Risk:

Social Science and the Art of Probabilistic Risk

Assessment,” Science, vol. 242, Oct. 7, 1988, pp.

44-49.

65. Freyfogle, E.T, “Context and Accommodation in

Modern Property Law,’ Stanford Law Review, vol.

41, July 1989, pp. 1529-56.

66. Galbraith, J. K., Designing Complex Organizations

(Reading, MA: Addison-Vlesley Publishing Co.

and The European Institute i’or Advanced Studies in

Management, 1973). In: Nipp, 1989.
318 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

Gall, E., Chief, Natural Resources Branch, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, personal communication, Feb. 16, 1990.

Gardner, B. D., “Government and Conservation: A

Case of Good Intentions But Misplaced Incentives, ’ Government and Conservation: What

Should Be the Role of Government? Public Policy

Education Program Proceedings, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, February 1985.

Gianessi, L. P., ‘‘The Potential for Alternative Agriculture,” paper presented at the 1989 State Affairs

Conference of the National Agricultural Chemicals

Association, Washington, DC, Nov. 14, 1989.

Gillespie, G.W. Jr., and Buttel, F.H., “Understanding Farm Operator Opposition to Government

Regulation of Agricultural Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals: The Role of Social Class, Objective

Interests and Ideology,” American Journal of

Alternative Agriculture, vol. 4, No. 1, 1989, pp.

12-21. In: Padgitt, 1989.

Grant, L., Foresight and National Decisions: The

Horseman and the Bureaucrat (New York NY:

University Press of America, 1988).

Green, B., and Carlin, T, “Where Farmin g Redly

Counts: A Surprising Tally of Communities Where

Farms Still Dominate,” Choices, vol. 1, No. 1,

1986, pp. 30-32.

Ground Water Monitor, “States Call on Congress

To Provide Groundwater R&D, Coordination,”

vol. 5, No. 17, Aug. 15, 1989, p. 163.

Ground Water Monitor, “States Seek Alternative

Funding Sources for NonPoint-Source Pollution

fiOgEUIIS,” ~C. 19, 1989, p. 251.

Hauck, R. D., “GroundwaterLegislation Abounds,’

Successful Farming, vol. 88, No. 3, 1990, p. 20.

Hauck, R.D. Senior Scientist, National Fertilizer

and 13vironmental Research Center, Tennessee

Valley Authority, personal communication, March

1990.

Heritage Foundation, The, “How To Wean the

American Farmer From Washington,’ Backgrounder, No. 657, June 22, 1988.

Hirsch, R. M., Alley, W., and Wilbee, W. A., “Concepts for a National Water-Quality Assessment

Program,” USGS Circular 1021 (Washington DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).

Hoban, TJ. and Cook, M. G., “Policy Directions:

Challenge of Conservation,” Special Issue: U.S.

Agriculture FORUM for Applied Research and

Public Policy, vol. 3, No. 2, Summer 1988, pp.

100-102.

Hoffer, R., Chief Hydrogeologist, Office of Groundwater Protection, EPA, Washington DC, personal

communication, July 25, 1989. In: Cohen, 1989.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

Hoiberg, E.O., and Bultena, G. L., “Farm Operator

Attitudes Toward Government Involvement in Agriculture, ’ Journal of Rural Sociology, vol. 46, No.

3, 1981, pp. 381-390. In: Padgitt, 1989.

Holden, P., ‘‘Pesticides and Groundwater Quality,’

a report for the Board on Agriculture, National

Research Council (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986). In: Cohen, 1989.

Holstine, I-eland L., and bwman, Susan M.,

‘‘Setting Agricultural Pollution Control Priorities,”

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 40,

No. 1, January/Februmy 1985, pp. 6547.

Hunter, D. B., “An Ecological Perspective on Property: A Call for Judicial Protection of the Public’s

Interest in Environmentally Critical Resources,”

Harvard Environmental Luw Review, vol. 12, No.

3, 1988, Pj). 311-383.

Hutchins, P.J., “Misdirected Fears of Health Risks

Deter the U.S. From Addressing Real Threats”

(interview with Elizabeth Whelan, Executive Directorof the American Council on Science and Health),

Chemical Times & Trenak, January 1989, pp. 23-25.

Interstate Conference on Water Policy, StateFederal Coordination Work Group, “Toward National Water Policy Coordination: The Challenge of

Improving Intergovernmental Relations,” ICWP

Concept Paper (Washington DC: Interstate Conference on Water Policy, February 1990).

Internal Revenue Code, Public Law 99-514, Sec.

170(h), Qualified Conservation Contribution.

Johnston, T. J., and Brandenburg, R. K., “Obstacles

Faced in Achieving Curricular Revitalization,”

2005 Conference, University of WisconsinMadison, 1987.

Keeney, D., Director, Aldo hopold Center for

Sustainable Agriculture, University of Iowa, Ames,

IA, personal communication, Mar. 20, 1990.

Kleckner, D. R., ‘‘More Economics, Less Politics,’

Special Issue: U.S. AgricuMureFORUA4 forApjdied

Research and Public Policy, vol. 3, No. 2, Summer

1988, pp. 28-30.

Kneze~ B,, and Black, J.R., “Computer-Based

Decision Support Systems for Farmers: Applications for Groundwater Protection,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, June 1989).

Kriz, M. E., ‘Ahead of the Feds,’ National Journal,

Dcx. 19, 1989, pp. 2989-93.

Kunkel, H. O., ‘‘Disciplinary Integration in Agricultural Research, ’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Senice, June

1989).

Lund Letter, “Conservation Outlook for 1990,”

vol. 9, No. 1, Jan. 1, 1990.
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 319

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

Lasley, P. “Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll:

Opinions About Farm Policy,” Cooperative Extension Service Pm-1095 (Ames IA: Iowa State

University, 1983). Zn: Padgitt, 1989.

Little, C. E., ‘‘Rural Clean Water: The Okeechobee

Story, ” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,

vol. 43, No. 5, September/October 1988, pp. 386-

390.

Logan, Terry J., “Agricultural Best Management

Practices: Implications for Groundwater Protection,’ contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, December, 1988).

~pez, N., Ovem~iew of U.S. Geological Surve>’

Water-Resources Information Programs (Reston

VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data

Coordination, 1989), pp. 87-91.

Los Angeles Times, “Malathion Foes Begin to

Swarm,” Jan. 27, 1990, pp. Al, A30.

Losey, A., Director, Pesticide Management Division, Washington State Department of Agriculture,

Olympia WA, personal communication, 1989. Zn:

Cohen, 1989.

Maas, R. P., Dressing, S. A., Spooner, J., Smolen,

M. D., and Humenik, F. J., “Best Management

Practices for Agricultural NonPoint-Source Control

of Pesticides, IV, ” Department of Biological and

Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State

University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1984.

Marshall, E., ‘‘EPA Drafts New Research Agenda, ’

Science, vol. 244, June 16, 1989, p. 1253.

Martinez, D.. “Surplus Stocks Decline Sharply, ”

Furmline, vol. 9, No. 4, June 198’S.

McDowell, 1{., Kramer, R. A., and Price, J. M., “An

Alternative Structure for Food and Agricultural

Policy, ’ In: Batie, S. S., and Marchall, J.P. (eds.), A

Proposed Nei{ Stru(tlire for Food and Agricultural

Polic]!, Information Series 89-1 (Blacksburg, VA:

Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State [University, July

1989).

Merritt, R.Il., ‘‘Integrating Agricultural and Environmental Studies in Colleges of Agriculture and

Natural Resources, ’ contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield,

VA: Nati(mal Technical Information Service, September 1989).

Mussman, H., “Testimony on H.R. 27?4: Th e

National Groundwater Research Act of 1989, ”

before the House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology -Subcomtnittee on Natural Resources,

Agriculture Research, and Environment. and the

House Committee on Agriculture-S ubcommitt ce on

Department Operations, Research, and Foreign

Agriculture, Oct. 3, 1989. In: Nipp, 1989.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

Napier, Ted L., ‘‘Farmer Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices: bssons for Groundwater Protection, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment (Spingfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, January 1989).

National Association of Conservation Districts,

‘ ‘Proposed Strategy for Protecting Surface and

Ground Water From Agricultural Activities,’ Washington DC, June 1989.

National Fertilizer Development Center, Tennessee

Valley Authority, “Historical Fact Sheet’ (Muscle

Shoals, AL: Tennessee Valley Authority, March

1989).

National Fertilizer Development Center, Tennessee

Valley Authority, “Environmental Initiative: National Fertilizer Development Center” (Muscle

Shoals, AL: Tennessee Valley Authority, November 1989).

National Governor’s Association, ‘‘Agriculture and

Water Quality: An Introduction to Issues Facing

Governor s,’ Report of Workshop Proceedings,

Capital Resources Policy Studies, Center for Policy

Research, Washington DC, Apr. 4-5, 1989.

National Research Council (NRC), Board on Agriculture, Alternati}’e Agriculture (Washington DC:

National Academy Press, 1989).

National Research Council, Zm’esting in Research:

A Proposal To Strengthen the Agricultliral, Food,

and Environment System (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1989).

Natural Resource Defense Council, “Alternative

Agriculture in the 1990 Farm Bill, ” Testimony of

the Natur,al Resources Defense Council representatives J. Curtis, J.R. Ward, T.E. Kuhnle before the

Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Feb. 9, 1990.

Nelson, A. C., “How Regional Planning Influences

Rural Land Values,” Sustaining Agriculture Near

Cities, W. hckeretz (cd.) (Ankeny, IA: Soil and

Water Conservation Society, 1987), pp. 263-276.

Nicholson, M.l “Criminal Provisions in Federal

Environmental Statutes: A Compilation, ” Congressional Research Service, 89652 A, Oct. 5, 1989.

Nielsen, E. G., and be, L. K., U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “The

Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination by Agricultural Chemicals,” Agricultural Fxormmics Reporl 576, October 1987.

Nipp, T. L., Testimony before the Senate Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry-Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, Oct. 24, 1989. In:

Nipp, 1990,

Nipp, T. L., “Federal Agencies and the Pursuit of

(3roundwater Protection, ” contractor repml prepared for the Office of Techrmlogy Assessment
320 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, February, 1990).

Nipp, ‘llL., and Ragone, S., “Matrix Management:

A Manageable Approach to Unmanageable Problems,” unpublished, 1990.

North Carolina Extension Service, ‘Water and Soil

fro-g ~ the 80s: T=hnic~ RePofi,” No*

Carolina Agriculture Extension Service, North Carolina State University in cooperation with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Extension Semice, March

1986.

Nowak, P.J., “bcal Agricultural Information and

Assistance Networks Relative to Groundwater Protection,’ contractor report prepared for the Oflice of

Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, April 1989).

Nowak, P.J., and Schnepf, M., “Implementation of

the Conservation Provisions in the 1985 Farm Bill:

A Sumey of County-Level U.S. Department of

Agriculture Agency Personnel,” Journal of Soil

and Water Conservation vol. 42,1987, pp. 285-290.

In: Nowalq 1989.

OiYutt, S. “FY 1990 Federal Interagency Water

Quality Initiative,” paper presented at the Edith and

Dana Bennett Agricultural Roundtable of the Farm

Foundation, Phoenix, AR, Jan. 6, 1989.

Oleszek, W.J., “Integration and Fragmentation:

Key Themes of Congressional Change,” The Annals, American Academy of Political and Social

Science Special Volume on “Implementing Governmental Change, ” C.E. Gilbert (cd.), vol. 466,

March 1983, pp. 193-205.

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-203.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Agricultural and Environmental Policies:

Opportunities for Integration FF1OO (Paris: 1989).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, National Accounts 1975-1987, Volume 2

(paris: 1989).

Padgitt, S., ‘Agriculture and Groundwater Issues in

Big Spring Basin and Winneshiek County, Iowa:

Survey of Farm and Non-farm Households on

Perceptions, Attitudes, and Farrnin g Practices,”

Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, Iowa, 1987.

Padgitt, S., “Farmers’ Views on Groundwater

Quality: Concerns, Practices, and Preferences,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, February 1989).

Pizor, P.J., “Affordable Housing and Agricultural

Preservation: An Inevitable Tension?” Sustaining

Agriculture Near Cities, W. Lockeretz (cd.) (Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society,

1987), pp. 103-118.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

Rabe, B. G., “Fragmentation and Integration in

State Environmental Management” (Washington,

DC: Conservation Foundation, 1986).

Ragone, S.E., vice-president, U.S. Geological Survey, Research OHice, Water Resources Division,

personal communication, Mar. 30, 1990.

Ragone, S. E., Burkart, M.R., Thurman, E. M., and

Perry, C. A., “Herbicides in Ground and Surface

Water in the Mid-Continental United States: A

Researchl%n,” AgricuhuralChem’cals and Groundwater Protection: Resources for State and Local

Management, Conference Proceedings, St. Paul

MN, Oct. 24-25, 1988 @Javarre, MN: Freshwater

Foundation, 1989). In: Nipp, 1990.

Rapp, D., How the U.S. Got Into Agriculture and

Why It Can’t Get Out (Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988).

Rawson, Jean, Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, ‘‘The Farm Credit System—

Formation, Capitalization, and Structure,” ENR

85-997, Oct. 10, 1985.

Reed, R. B., “Shaping a New Fund for America’s

Heritage, ” Conservation Foutition Letter, No, 4,

1988.

Richards, G. E., and MacCubbin, J.M., ‘ARCPACS:

A Decade of Progress,” Journal of Agronomic

Education, vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1989. pp. 21-26.

Rogers, E,, Di@sion of Innovations (New Yor~

NY: The Free Press, 1983).

Runge, C. F., Munson, R.D., Letterman, E., and

Creason, J., Agricultural Competitiveness, Farm

Fertilizer and Chemical Use, and Environmental

Quality: A Descriptive Analysis, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy, University of

Minnesota, Jan. 25, 1990.

Safe “ Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Public Law

99-339.

Sampson, R. N., “Government and Conservation:

Structuring an Improved Public Role,” Government and Conservation: What Should Be the Role of

Government? Public Policy Education Program

Proceedings, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN,

February 1985.

Sawicki, David, and Judd, Lynne B., “NonpointSource Water Pollution Abatement and the Feasibility of Voluntary Programs, ’ Environmental Management, vol. 7, No. 5, 1983.

Smith, V., Testimony on behalf of the Environmental Policy Institute before the House Committee

on Agriculture-Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture, Oct. 27,

1987.

Spalding, R.E., Junk, G.A., and Richard, J. J.,

“Pesticides in Ground Water Beneath Irrigated

Farmland in Nebraska, August 1978,” Pesticide
Ch. 6-Public Influences on Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater:Findings, Issues, & Options for Congress ● 321

Monitoring Journal, vol. 14, No. 2,1980, pp. 70-73.

In: Cohen, 1989.

146. Spooner, J., Brichford, S. L., and Maas, R. P.,

“National Water Quality Evaluation Project 1987

Annual Report: Status of Agricultural NonpointSource Projects,’ North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, North Carolina, 1988.

147. Stone, C., Should Trees Have Standing? (Los Altos,

CA: William Kaufmam, Inc., 1974).

148. Stout, B. A., and Nehring, R. F., “Agncultuml Energy: 1988 and the Future, ’ Phi Kappa Phi Journal,

Summer 1988, pp. 32-36.

149. Sussman, F. G., “Environmental Federalism: Allocating Responsibilities for Environmental Protection,” Congressional Budget Office Staff Working

Paper, Sept. 1988.

150. Taylor, H. H., U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, ‘‘Use of Agricultural

Inputs and the Conservation Reseme program,”

Agricultural Resources--Inputs Situation and Outlook Report, AR-1 1, July 1988, pp. 33-40.

151. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Quality Department, “Tennessee Valley Authority Fact Sheets”

(Washington DC: Tennessee Valley Authority,

January 1988). In: Nipp, 1989.

152. Tiemann, M. E., and Lee, M. R., Library of Congress,

Congressional Research Service, ‘A Department of

Environmental Protection?” 89-587 ENR, Oct. 25,

1989.

153. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, The

Outlook for Farm Commodity Program Spending,

Fiscal Years 1989-1994, May 1989.

154. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Programs Miss Full

Potetil in the FightAgainst Soil Eroswn, GAP/RCED

84-48, Nov. 28, 1983. ~<

155. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Farm

Programs: An Overview of Price and Income

Support and Storage Programs, GAO-RCED-88-

84BR, Feb. 29, 1988.

156. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Farm

Programs: Price and income Support Programs for

Fiscal Years 1987-89, GAO-RCED-88-144FS, April

1988.

157. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Crop Insurance Can Provide Assistance More Electively Than Other Programs,

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, GAO/RCED-89-21 1,

September 1989.

158. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Interim Report on Ways

to Enhance Management, GAO/RCED-90-19, October 1989.

159. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Alternative Agriculture-Federal Incentives and Farmers’ Opinions GAO/PEMD-90-12, February 1990.

160. U.S. Congress, Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, “Congressional Foresight: History, Recent Experiences, and Implementation Strategies,” December 1982.

161. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

United States Food and Agricultural Research

System, OTA-F-155 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1981).

162, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer

Policies for the 1990s-+! Special Report of OTA’s

Assessment on Emerging Agricultural Technologies: Issues for the 1990s, OTA-F448 (Washington

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March

1990).

163. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report andRecommendations on Organic Farming, prepared by

USDA Study Team on Organic Farming (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July

1980).

164. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “A Time to

Choose: Summary Report on the Structure of

Agriculture,” 1981.

165. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Water Quality

Program Plan to Support the President’s Water

Quality Initiative,” July 1989.

166. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Research

Plan for Water Quality,” jointly prepared by

Agricultural Research Sexvice, Cooperative State

Research Service, and State Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1989.

167. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricuhural Research Service, “ARS Strategic Groundwater Plan,”

vol. 1: Pesticides, February 1988.

168. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Semice, “ARS Strategic Groundwater Plan, ”

vol. 2: Nitrate, March 1988.

169. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, ASCS Handbook: Feed Grain, Rice, Cotton and Wheat Programs, 81, 5-PA SCOAP, Dec. 19, 1988.

170. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Agricultural

Resources Outlook Report, 10, 1988.

171. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conse~ation Service, Agricultural

Out/ook, Table 22, January-February 1989.

172. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Economic Indicators of the Farm

Sector: National Financial Summary,” ECIFS 6-2,

Washington DC, 1987.

173. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ‘Apple Prices Depressed Following

Alar Scare,” Agricultural Outlook, AO-153, June

1989, pp. 16-18.
322 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

187.

188.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ‘‘Conservation and Water Quality,”

Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and

Conservation Situation and Outlook Report, AR16, September 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service,

‘‘Our Endangered Water Supply—Cooperative Extension’s Challenge,” April 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Information, “USDA Establishes Water Quality Coordination Group, ’ USDA News Release 1434-89, Nov.

1, 1989.

U.S. Depatment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, ‘‘Principles of Ground Water for Resource

Management Systems: Field-bvel Training Manual,” SCS South National Technical Center, Fort

Worth, TX, August 1987.

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Foreign Trade Highlights

1988, hdy 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Groundwater Protection Strategy, ’ 1984. In: Nipp, 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National

Nonpoint-Source Policy Task Force Report,” Dec.

12, 1984.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Nonpoint

Source Guidance,” December 1987.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs,’ EPA

Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Region 3, Annapolis, MD, January 1988,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: EPA’s Proposed

Pesticide Strategy, ” 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “1991

Congressional Budget Submission, ” January 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Statement

of Groundwater Principals, February 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “State/

Federal Relationships Options Paper, ” February

1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticides & Toxic Substances, “Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater: Proposed Pesticides Strategy,” 1987.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Rules, Subcommittee on the Legislative Process,

189<

190.

191

192.

193.

194.

195.

196.

197.

198,

“Guidelines for the Establishment of Select Committees” (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1983).

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Agriculture, HR 873 Slatte~, Congressional Record, p H181,

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Interagency Task Force on Groundwater, ‘‘A Description of Major Federal Scientific and Technical

Groundwater Programs: Fiscal Year, 1987,” 1988.

U.S. Water Resources Council, The Nation’s Water

Resources, 1975-2000, vol. 1 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), In: Nipp,

1989.

University of California Water Quality Task Force,

“Preserving and Enhancing California’s Drinking

Water: A Research Assessment,” Office of the

President, Water Resources Center Report No, 70,

March 1988.

Vol~ B. on assignment to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Cooperative States Research Service,

personal communication, Oct. 1989. In: Nipp,

1989.

Walston, R. E., “The Public Trust Doctrine in the

Water Rights Context,” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 29, No. 2, Spring 1989, pp. 585-592.

Ward, J. R., Benfield, F. K., and Kinsinger, A. E.,

Reaping the Revenue Code: Why We Need Sensible

Tm Reform for Sustainable Agriculture (Washington DC: Natural Resources Defense Council, 1989).

Wood, M.C. “Regulating Discharges Into Groundwater: The Crucial Link in Pollution Control Under

the Clean Water Act,” Harvard Environmental

Luw Review, vol. 12, 1988, pp. 569-626.

Zinn, J., and Tiemam, M., Library of Congress,

Congressional Research Service, “Groundwater

Quality: Current FederaJ Programs and Recent

Congressional Activities, ” 89-195 ENR, Mar. 1,

1989.

Zuelsdorff, N., Director Groundwater and Regulatory Services Section, Wisconsin Department of

Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Madison WI, personal communication, July 1989. /n:

Cohen, 1989.
Appendixes
Major Federal Programs

Water

Appendix A

and Activities Related to

Quality and Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1985 Food Security Act Provisions

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides annual

rental payments to land owners and operators who

voluntarily retire highly erodible and other environmentally critical lands from production for 10 years. It also

provides technical assistance and cost-sharing payments

of up to 50 percent of the cost of establishing a

soil-conserving cover on retired land. Rental payments to

any person may not exceed $50,000 per year. County

enrollment is limited to no more than 25 percent of

cropland, unless USDA grants a special waiver, To date,

approximately 30 million acres of cropland have been

enrolled.

Conservation Compliance requires that farmers who

produce agricultural commodities on highly erodible

cropland have approved conservation plans by Jan. 1,

1990, and finish implementing them by Jan. 1, 1995, or

lose eligibility for USDA program benefits.

Sodbuster provisions require that farmers who convert

highly erodible land to agricultural commodity production do so under an approved conservation system, or

forfeit eligibility for USDA program benefits,

Swampbuster provisions bar farmers who convert

wetlands to agricultural commodity production from

eligibility for USDA program benefits, unless USDA

determines that conversion would have only a minimal

effect on wetland hydrology and biology.

Continuing Assistance Programs

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) provides

financial assistance through the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service (ASCS) to farmers for implementing approved soil and water conservation and

pollution abatement practices. Cost-sharing payments to

a given farmer may not exceed $3,500 per year on 1-year

agreements, and may not average over $3,500 per year on

multi-year agreements, Except for Water Quality Special

Projects, conservation priorities are set by States and

counties based on local soil and water quality problems.

Program initiated in 1936. ASCS also administers the

Integrated Crop Management (ICM) program, a pilot

ACP project to improve agrichemical management

through cost-share assistance for crop advisory and soil

testing services. Program initiated in 1990.

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) provides

technical assistance by the Soil Conservation Service

(SCS) through Conservation Districts to farmers for

planning and implementing soil and water conservation

and water quality improvement practices. Program initiated in 1936.

Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) provides

technical and financial assistance in Great Plains States to

farmers and ranchers who implement total conservation

treatment of their entire operation. Cost-sharing assistance is limited to $35,000 per farmer contract. Program

initiated in 1957.

Small Watershed Program provides Federal technical

and financial help to local organizations for flood

prevention, watershed protection, and water management.

Program initiated in 1954.

Resource Conservation and Development Program

assists multicounty areas to enhance conservation, water

quality, wildlife habitat and recreation, and rural development. Program initiated in 1962.

Emergency Conservation Program provides financial

assistance to farmers in rehabilitating cropland damaged

by natural disasters. Program initiated in 1978.

Rural Clean Water Program is an experimental program implemented in 21 selected projects. It provides

cost-sharing and technical assistance to farmers voluntarily implementing best management practices to improve

water quality. Cost-sharing is limited to $50,000 per farm.

Program initiated in 1980; ends in 1995.

Forestry Incentives Program provides cost-sharing of

up to 65 percent for tree planning and timber stand

improvement for private forest lands of 1,000 acres or

less.

Water Bank Program provides annual payments for

preserving wetlands in important migratory waterfowl

nesting, breeding, or feeding areas. program initiated in

1970.

Extension Service provides information and recommendations on soil and water quality practices to land owners

and operators, in cooperation with SCS and Conservation

Districts.

Farmers Home Administration provides loans to farmers and associations of farmers for soil and water

conservation, pollution abatement, and building or improving water systems that serve several farms. It may

acquire 50-year conservation easements to help farmers

reduce loan payments.

–325–
326 ● Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

National Agriculture Library collects and distributes

information on all aspects of U.S. agriculture, and has

received special funding to develop a new information

program on agriculture and water quality.

Research Programs

Agricultural Research Service conducts research on

new and alternative crops and agricultural technology to

reduce agriculture’s adverse impacts on soil and water.

Cooperative State Research Service coordinates conservation and water quality research conducted by State

Agricultural Experiment Stations and land-grant universities. This agency allocates and administers funds appropriated for special and competitive grants for water

quality research.

Economic Research Service estimates economic impacts of existing and alternative policies, programs, and

technology for preserving and improving soil and water

quality. With National Agricultural Statistics Service,

collects data on farm chemical use, agricultural practices,

and costs and returns.

Forest Service conducts research on environmental and

economic impacts of alternative forest management

policies, programs, and practices.

Environmental Protection Agency

FIFRA Pesticide Programs

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) gives EPA responsibilities for registering

new pesticides and for reviewing and re-registering

existing pesticides to ensure that, when used according to

label directions, they will not present unreasonable risks

to human health or the environment. Under FIFRA

provisions, EPA may restrict or cancel use of any

pesticide determined to be a potential hazard to human

health or the environment.

National Survey of Pesticides in

Drinking Water Wells

The National Survey is underway to determine the

presence and concentration of 127 commonly used

agricultural chemicals in 1,350 statistically selected wells

in all States. Water samples were analyzed and questionnaires filled out by well owners, operators, and local area

experts on well construction and locale, and cropping and

pesticide use patterns. EPA expects to issue a draft report

on the survey in early 1991.

Safe Drinking Water Act Programs

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to

publish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for any

contaminants, including pesticides, which may have

adverse health effects in public water systems (those

serving over 25 persons or with 15 connections). Standards established by EPA under the SDWA are also being

used as guidelines to assess contamination of ground

water in private wells. The EPA also sets nonregulatory

health advisory levels on contaminants for which MCLs

have not been established.

The SDWA also established a Wellhead Protection

Program to protect wells and wellfields that contribute

. . drinking water to public supply systems. Each State must

prepare and submit to EPA a Wellhead Protection

program delineating the recharge areas around public

water, identifying potential sources of groundwater contamination within these areas, and addressing identified

potential sources to protect the public water supply.

Although funds have been appropriated for the WHP

Program, the EPA Administrator testified to the Senate

that only 30 States have submitted proposed programs for

review and approval by EPA.

1987 Water Quality Act Nonpoint Programs

Section 319 of the Act requires States and Territories

to file assessment reports with EPA identifying navigable

waters where water quality standards cannot be attained

or maintained without reducing nonpoint source pollution. States must also file management programs with

EPA identifying steps which will be taken to reduce

nonpoint pollution in those waters identified in the State

assessment reports. The Act authorizes up to $400 million

total in Federal funding for implementing the programs.

To date, 43 States and Territories have submitted

nonpoint-source pollution assessments to EPA, and 36

have submitted final management programs.

1987 Water Quality Act Clean Lakes Program

Section 314 of the Act requires States to submit

assessment reports on the status and trends of lake water

quality, including the nature and extent of pollution

loading from point and nonpoint sources. Also, methods

to control pollution and to protect/restore the quality of

lakes impaired or threatened by pollution must be

described.

Financial assistance is given to States to prepare

assessment reports and to implement watershed improvements, as well as to conduct in-lake restoration activities.

Several USDA small watershed projects (PL-566) have

been coordinated with Clean Lakes projects.

1987 Water Quality Act National Estuary

Program

Section 320 of the Act provides for identification of

nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution,

preparation of conservation and management plans, and

Federal grants to prepare the plans. Twelve major

estuaries have planning underway.
Appendix A--Major Federal Programs and Activities Related to Water Quality and Agriculture . 327

Near Coastal Waters Strategy

Through its Near Coastal Waters Strategy, EPA is

integrating its water quality programs to target priority

programs and prevent pollution in near coastal waters.

This includes the implementation of nonpoint source

management programs in coastal counties and will, in

several cases, encompass accelerated implementation of

agricultural conservation programs.

Regional Water Quality Programs

The EPA and other Federal agencies are cooperating on

several regional programs to reduce nonpoint source

pollution, including the Chesapeake Bay Program, the

Colorado River Salinity Control program, the Great

Lakes Program, the Gulf’ of Mexico Program, and the

Land and Water 201 Program in the Tennessee Valley

Region.

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey is engaged in a broad array

of information collection, information management, and

research projects pertinent to groundwater management

and protection.

Coordination and Dissemination of Federal

Information on Groundwater

The USGS releases a comprehensive report on water

resources annually: the National Water Summary, This

report includes comprehensive documentation on water

resource quantity and quality for each State, and includes

case studies of nonpoint source contamination. It also

summarizes studies on managing and coordinating Federal and State water protection efforts. USGS also

maintains a computerized National Water Storage and

Retrieval System (WATSTORE) and a computer-based

National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX).

National Water Quality Assessment Program

Since 1986 the NAWQA program has conducted

assessments of national and regional status of groundwater resources and monitors trends in factors that can affect

groundwater quality. Agrichemical nonpoint source contamination problems are under study in seven pilot

projects.

Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis Program

The RASA program was established in 1978 to gather

data on the quantity of water resources available in the

nation’s aquifers. RASA’s objectives for each aquifer

system study are to determine the availability and

chemical quality of stored water and discharge-recharge

characteristics, and to develop computer simulation

models that may assist in understanding the groundwater

flow regime and changes brought about by human

activities. Twenty-eight aquifer systems have been identified for study; fourteen of which have been completed.

Federal-State Cooperative Program

USGS supports local efforts to collect data on ground

and surface waters through cost-sharing arrangements

with State and local governments. For example, USGS

has provided support for mapping State aquifers, for

monitoring pesticide contamination problems, and has

assisted in developing wellhead protection programs.

Toxic Substances Hydrology Program

Under the TSHP, USGS conducts research on transport

and fate of groundwater contaminants to develops information on means to improve waste disposal practices and

mitigate contamination problems.

State Water Resources Research Institutes

Under this program USGS provides grants to 54 State

and Territory Water Resources Institutes for research,

information dissemination, and for training students in

water resources fields. Approximately 35 percent of the

Institutes’ work is related to groundwater protection.

Reauthorization of the Institutes has been hindered by

their incorporation in broad and controversial groundwater protection bills.

Mid-Continent Initiative

USGS also is working in cooperation with the USDA’s

Midwest Initiative on a “Mid-Continent Initiative, ” a

5-to 10-year research program characterizing the environmental fate of the widely-used agricultural herbicide

atrazine. The area under study, roughly bounded by the

Upper Missouri and Ohio River Basins, was chosen

largely because of the coincidence of hydrologic boundaries with a region of intensive agrichemical-use cropland.

National Fertilizer & Environmental

Research Center (TVA)

NFERC adopted a new mission along with a new name

in 1990 (originally it was titled the National Fertilizer

Development Center). Over its nearly 60 year history, the

Center has served as a national laboratory for fertilizer

research and demonstration. As many as 75 percent of

fertilizer formulations and manufacturing processes used

today are based on technology originating at the Center.

The new mission expands NFERC’s national role in

agriculturally related environmental issues.

Fertilizer and other Agricultural Chemicals

Research, development, and commercialization of

improved fertilizer technologies and agronomic research

on nutrient use efficiency will continue to be a core effort

for NFERC. However, a new emphasis has been placed on

environmental protection in development and manage-
328 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

ment. For example, research on fertilizer interrelationships with other agricultural chemicals is planned.

Renewable Fuel and Chemical Technologies

Biotechnology and bioconversion technology research

is planned for production of ethanol and other chemicals

from cellulose and agricultural waste materials.

Environmental/Waste Management

Initial efforts will be aimed at helping fertilizer dealers

meet environmental regulations. Research, development,

and demonstration will focus on degradation of pesticides

and other contaminants, recycling and reuse of agricultural and other wastes, and related technologies. For

example, NFERC is exploring the use of constructed

wetlands to treat chemical wastes from fertilizer dealerships.

Education and Demonstration

NFERC is closely allied with the fertilizer manufacturing industry and dealers through its National Field

Program, and with agricultural universities and other

organizations through its Test-Demonstration Program.

The programs are supervised by area directors distributed

throughout the continental States, who work with cooperating dealers and distributors in planning fertilizer introduction, providing information on use, and supplying

technical assistance (e.g., computer software to help

dealers offer least-cost formulations and match fertilizer

treatments with soil test recommendations). NFERC

personnel also conduct Improved Management Practices

for Dealers and Site Remediation projects for small

fertilizer dealerships across the country. In addition,

NFERC personnel participate in State fertilizer education

programs, and conduct regional and national seminars

and demonstrations.

Selected State Programs

States increasingly are enacting innovative and sometimes stringent environmental laws. These are ‘having an

indirect impact on Federal policy as States put pressure on

the Federal Government to take similar action or as

industry goes to Congress in search of uniform Federal

laws to replace the patchwork of conflicting State

requirements.” 1

Ground Water Quality Protection Programs

Twenty-two States have developed comprehensive

programs to protect or improve groundwater quality.

Most include one or more common program elements: 1)

classification, assessment, and mapping of groundwater

sources; 2) groundwater quality standards, 3) groundwater quality monitoring; 4) control of farming practices;

5) control of land uses; 6) economic incentives; and 7)

education programs. Specific examples include:

●

●

●

Iowa’s Ground Water Protection uses pesticide

registration fees and fertilizer taxes to finance

sustainable agriculture research and demonstration

activities.

Massachusetts Wellhead Protection Program established land use control and restricts pesticide use in

critical recharge areas around wells; and

Wisconsin’s Risk Assessment Program based on

numerical groundwater standards.

Best Management Practices (USDA/ERS)

Thirty-six States provide financial or regulatory incentives for installing and maintaining best management

practices (BMPs) to promote soil conservation and

protect surface water quality.

Financial incentives include: cost-sharing programs

(26 States); income or property tax credits or

deductions (7 States), no- or low-interest loans (5

States); and purchasing conservation easements or

development rights in agricultural lands (3 States).

Approved plans or permits for activities that could

cause soil erosion or pollution discharges into

waterways, or compliance with established permissible soil-loss limits are required in 17 States. Ten

States give farmers cost-sharing assistance specifically to help them meet the requirements.

Innovative State Financing Mechanisms

States will face competing demands for funding of

groundwater, drinking water, and surface water programs

in the coming decade, potentially requiring many to

develop alternative funding mechanisms. Some States

already have created innovative financing mechanisms,

including: 1) user and impact development fees; 2)

dedicated tax revenue; 3) State revolving loan funds; and

4) special water quality districts and utilities.

●

●

●

Iowa’s Groundwater Protection Fund, established

under the 1987 Groundwater Protection Act, is

capitalized by user and producer fees on pesticides,

fertilizers, and other products contributing to nonpoint source pollution.

The Minnesota Environmental Trust Fund is capitalized with one-half of the proceeds from the State

lottery. The fund is expected to reach $100 to $200

million by the end of 1993.

A Washington State sales tax on cigarettes at $0.08

per pack finances water pollution control programs.

Half of the funds are designated for wastewater

treatment; 20 percent for groundwater protection;

and 10 percent each for nonpoint source pollution,

lake management, and discretionary purposes.

IM.E. fiz, “~ead of the Feds, ” National Journal, Dec. 19, 1989, pp 2989-2993.
Appendix B

List of Acronyms

ACP

ACS

ARS

ASCS

BMP

CES

CMA

CRIS

CRP

CSRS

DOA

DOC

EPA

ERS

ES

FmHA

GAO

GIS

ICM

IPM

—Agricultural Conservation Program

—Agricultural Cooperative Service, USDA

—Alternative Financing Mechanisms

—Agricultural Research Service, USDA

—Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, USDA

—Best Management Practice

--Cooperative Extension Service

--Crop Management Association

-Current Research Information System

-Conservation Reserve Program

-Cooperative State Research Service, USDA

—Department of Agriculture

—U.S. Department of Commerce

—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

—Economic Research Service, USDA

—Extension Service, USDA

—Farmers Home Administration

--General Accounting Office

-Geographic Information System

—Integrated Crop Management

—Integrated Pest Management

LISA

NFERC

NOAA

OMB

OTA

RASA

RCD

RMS

RUP

SAES

SCS

SWCD

TIG

TVA

USDA

USGS

—Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture program

—National Fertilizer & Environmental Research Center, TVA

—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, DOC

-Office of Management and Budget

---Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress

—Regional Agroecosystem Experiment Station

—Regional Aquifer System Analysis

—Resource Conservation District

—Resource Management System

—Restricted Use Pesticide

-State Agricultural Experiment Station

-Soil Conservation Service, USDA

-Soil and Water Conservation District

—Technical Integration Group

—Tennessee Valley Authority

—U.S. Department of Agriculture

—U.S. Geological Survey

-329-
Appendix C1

Commissioned Papers

Overviews

Primer on Hydrogeology

Susan J. Wintsch

Clay Minerals Society

Bloomington, IN

Introductory Overview

Stuart Z. Cohen

Biospherics, Inc.

Beltsville, MD

Strategies To Reduce Pesticide and Nutrient

Contamination of Groundwater

Farmstead Assessments: A Means To Manage Farm

Sources of Groundwater Contamination of

Groundwater

Gary Jackson

Bruce Webendorfer

Susan A. Jones

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Improving Pesticide Management Practices

Franklin Hall

Ohio State University

Wooster, OH

Integrated Pest Management: Potential for Reducing

Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Frank G. Zalom

Michael Stimman

Janet Smilanick

University of California Statewide IPM Project

Davis, CA

Legumes as a Nitrogen Source: Implications for

Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater

Gary Heichel

University of Illinois

Urbana, IL

Improving Livestock and Poultry Management

Practices To Reduce Nutrient Contamination of

Groundwater

John M. Sweeten

Texas A&M University

Lubbock, TX

Sludge, Slurry, and Compost: Management of Land

Application

James A. Moore

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR

Irrigation/Chemigation: Implications for

Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

E. Dale Threadgill

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

Agrichemical Application Technology: Potentials

To Reduce Groundwater Contamination

Maurice Gebhart

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research

Service

Columbia, MO

Farmer Decisionmaking and Technical

Assistance To Reduce Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater

Farmers’ Views on Groundwater Quality: Concerns,

Practices, and Policy Preferences

Steven Padgitt

Iowa State University

Ames, IA

Farmer Adoption of Conservation Practices: Lessons

for Groundwater Protection

Ted Napier

Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

Local Agricultural Information and Assistance

Networks Relative to Ground Water Protection

Peter J. Nowak

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Agricultural Best Management Practices:

Implications for Groundwater Protection

Terry J. Logan

Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

Low-Input/Sustainable Agriculture Research and

Education: A Review of Selected Private

Organizations’ Activities

Ron Kroese

Mary Turck

Land Stewardship Project

Marine, MN

Holistic Resource Management as a Groundwater

Protection Strategy in Agriculture

Cliff Montagne

Brian W. Sindelar

Ronald R.H. Kroos

James W. Bauder

Patrick C. Jobes

1 M1mofi~he or ~qm ~oples of ~o~sslon~ papers may be av~lable from the Us. Dep~rnent of co~erce, National Tecticd hlfOrmatlOfl

Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161. In ordering, the paper author, title, i~sessment title, and Office of Technology Assessment should be specified.

–330-
Appendix Commissioned Papers ● 331

James R. Sims

Montana State University

Bozeman, MN

Computer-Based Decision Support Systems for

Farmers: Applications for Groundwater Protection

Roy Black

Bernard Knezek

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI

The Role of Retail Fertilizer Dealers in Reducing

Groundwater Contamination: A Focus on

Educational Needs

Ronald J. Williams

James M. Ranson

Tennessee Valley Authority/National Fertilizer &

Environmental Research Center

Muscle Shoals, AL

Extension Education for Agrichemical Dealers

Keith Kelling

Keith Wedberg

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Public Influences on Agrichemical

Contamination of Groundwater

Agriculture/Environment organization, Coordination,

and Systems

Terry J. Nipp

National Association of State Universities and Land

Grant Colleges

Washington, DC

The Federal Role in Reducing Agrichemical

Contamination of Ground Water

Laura A. Dye

Private Consultant

Washington, DC

Disciplinary Integration in Agricultural Research

Harry Kunkel

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

Systems Approaches in Agricultural Research:

Applications for Groundwater Protection

A. Dale Whittaker

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

Integrating Agriculture and Environment in

Education

Richard Merritt

University of California-Davis

Davis, CA

Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability to Agricultural

Uses on a National Scale in a Geographic Information

System

Margaret Maizel

Kelly Chan

National Center for Resource Innovations

Washington, DC
Index
Index

Agrichemicals, defined, 3, 26-27

rationale for use of, 3, 81, 100, 102, 171, 191, 193, 253

use statistics and trends (See Agrichemical use data)

Agrichemical applicators, 171-188

agricultural service firms, 176, 180-182, 231

certification and training, 17, 174, 178, 182-188,205

commercial (See also certification and training), 171-172, 173

data collection and management, 186-187

general use, 171-172, 173, 174

policy options, 228-230

private (See also Agrichemical applicators, certification and

training), 171, 172, 174-176

restricted use (See Agrichemical applicators: commercial;

certification and training)

testing, 17, 183

Agrichemical dealerships (See also Technical assistance, agrichemical dealerships and supply cooperatives), 12, 176,

179-180,205,230-231

as point sources of contamination, 6, 32, 132

Agrichemical leaching

chemical properties affecting, 43, 60, 103

mobility, 44, 60, 62, 131

persistence, 49,60,62

photodegradability, 48

natural factors affecting, 43, 63, 64, 81, 103, 108, 138, 139,

140

bedrock/unconsolidated sediments, 53-56,65-66,67

biological characteristics, 50-53

climate, 49

depth to water table, 48-49

soil characteristics, 49-51, 140

topography, 47-48

vegetation, 48

human factors affecting (See also Hydrologic cycle, human

influence on), 43

irrigation, 59

land use practices, 31-32

preferred pathways, 57

abandoned wells and drill holes, 58, 82, 136

agricultural drainage wells, 58-59

animal burrows and root cavities, 51,52,57-58

bedrock joints and fractures, 53-54

karst systems, 54-55,64,82

Agrichemical transport

by air, 31,44

by water (See Agrichemical leaching)

Agrichemical use data (See also Agrichemical applicators), 83,

101

collection and management, 68, 69, 227

need for, 5, 63, 69, 174, 227, 266

recordkeeping, 19, 194, 224-225, 227

Agrichemical use reduction (See also: ATTRA; Best Management Practices; Nutrients/Pesticides, application, formulation; Pest Control, nonchemical controls, integrated

pest management; Cultivar Improvements; Agricultural

research extension and education, to enhance farmer

decisionmaking), 8-9, 11, 84, 103, 106-107

Agrichemical waste (See also Farmstead Assessment Program),

14, 18,229

disposal practices, 134

mixing and loading areas, 131, 133

policy approaches to reduce, 20,264-266

storage, 132

through mismanagement (See also Pesticides/Fertilizers,

application), 17, 20, 81

transfer systems, 133-134

Agricultural policies (See also Groundwater protection, voluntary, cross-compliance, regulatory; Agrichemical waste,

policy approaches to reduce)

environmental protection and, 20, 253-254, 255, 258-266,

282-283,313-315

goal setting, 262-264,266, 282,315

Agricultural programs (See also Groundwater protection, voluntary, cross-compliance)

commodity programs, 300-306, 313

conservation programs (Conservation Reserve Program), 274,

294,306-308,309-310

criticisms of, 299-300, 313

cropland retirement programs (See Agricultural programs,

conservation programs)

disaster assistance (See Agricultural programs, risk reduction

programs)

goals of, 299

redirecting, 19-20, 299-315

risk-reduction programs, 308-312

Agricultural research education and extension

adaptive, 84, 154-155

biotechnology, 124, 126,259,261-262

coordination of, 155-157, 297-298

criticisms of, 19, 218-222

Federal, 144-145,262, 274

interdisciplinary research, need for, 221-223, 259

Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA), 151, 153

prioritizing, 153-154

private sector, 145, 146

State Agricultural Research Stations, 145, 152, 153, 154

to enhance farmer decisionrnaking, 193-194, 210, 215,

217-226,235

to enhance policy and technology development, 18-19, 143,

144, 149-150

to enhance knowledge of agroecosytems (See Agroecosystems, understanding of)

Agricultural service firms (See Agrichemical applicators)

Agroecosystems, 147

agroecoregion, 154,288

complexity/variability of, 5, 81, 96, 254, 255

defined, 81

simulation modeling, 72

understanding of, 17-18, 150-153, 313-315

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), 206

Aquifer

defined, 43,55-56

Ogallala, 43,46, 138

regional aquifer system analysis (RASA), 68

Best Management Practices (BMPs), 10,85,90, 107, 145-147,

155,218,234, 275,279, 292

Chemigation (See Pesticides, application technology)

Computer-Aided Decision Support Systems, 225-226

-335-
336 . Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater

Crop Management Associations (CMA), 209,212-213

Cropping flexibility (See Agricultural programs, commodity)

Cropping patterns, 119-124

conservation plantings, 122-124

continuous, 120

intercropping, 122

rotation, 119, 120-122

Cross media pollution, 261

difficulty in addressing, 69-70, 146-147,281

understanding of, 149

Cultivar improvements, 124

herbicide resistance, 125

nitrogen self-sufficiency, 125-126

nitrogen-use efficiency, 126

pest resistance, 124-125

stress tolerance, 124

Data needs for groundwater protection, 18-19,63-74

extant data bases, 63, 65, 66, 68-69, 73

Current Research and Information System, 297-298

soil survey information, 65-66

Geographic Information Systems, 18,72-74,294

need for integration, rationalization, coordination, 69-72, 74

need to digitize, 18, 70-71, 73

Farm resource management (See also Best Management Practices; Crop Management Associations; Fertilizers, nutrient management; Pesticides, management; Resource

Management Systems)

crop (See also Agricultural programs, commodity), 118-126,212

conservation planting, 122-124, 274

cropping patterns, 9, 119-122

cultivar improvements, 9, 124-126

Integrated Crop Management, 85, 148-149,204

integrated farm management, 6, 9-10, 85, 147-149, 214, 215,

223,224

property rights and, 259

soil (See also Technical assistance, Soil Conservation Service), 126-128, 212

water (See Irrigation)

Farmer decisionmaking (See also Farmer-to-farmer networks;

Technical Assistance), 10-14

concern about groundwater quality problems, 11, 194-195, 1%

economic analyses of alternatives/need for, 85, 191, 212,

227-228

enhancing to protect natural resources (See Agricultural

research, education, and extension, to enhance farmer

decisionmaking; Groundwater protection, voluntary approaches)

factors influencing, 10, 177-178, 189-197

information (See also Technical assistance)

needs, 11, 191, 192-193

sources, 11-13, 197,200

policy options to support improved decisionmaking, 226-235

risk perception, 191, 194

risk reduction (See Agricultural programs, risk reduction)

technology adoption, 10, 218-220

research on, 189-191

Farmer-to-farmer networks, 11-12,209-212,220,226, 234

Farmstead Assessment Program, 7, 147

Fertilizers

application, 6, 11, 265

precision, 82, 100

technologies, 8, 86,99-100

timing, 8, 83, 98-99

rates, 8, 82, 95-98

groundwater contamination by nitrate, 3,27,60-61,97

essential plant nutrients (See also nitrogen cycle), 50, 51,86

availability to crops (See also nitrogen cycle), 50, 51, 53,

86, 95-%

avenues of loss (See also Agrichemical leaching), 51,85,86

nitrogen cycle, 87-88, 89

nitrogen sources and formulations, 88-95

commercial nitrogen fertilizer, 86, 88-92, 192

legumes, 8,86,98, 120-122, 192

manure (See also Livestock waste), 8,86,92-93, 135, 138,

192

sludge and wastewater, 51, 85,93-95

nutrient management, 81, 85-87, 90, 171, 192, 204, 205

Financial assistance (See also Agricultural programs), 13-14,

213-214,275

Groundwater

definition, 27,43

contamination, 3, 6, 28,43

extent of contamination (See Water quality monitoring;

Fertilizers, groundwater contamination by nitrate;

Pesticides, in groundwater)

sources

agricultural

nonpoint, 3, 4, 23, 27, 31, 171, 183, 258

point, 4,31,32,82, 132, 171, 183,258

natural, 60

non-agricultural, 26, 27, 31

impacts of contamination

agricultural, 32, 34

ecological, 24, 32, 34-35, 104-105

health, 32-34

liability, 259-261

public perceptions (See also Farmer decisionmaking,

concern about groundwater problems), 3,5,23,255-257

mediation, 35-36, 261

protection (See also Agricultural research, education, and

extension, to enhance farmer decisionmaking; Water

quality protection, agency roles)

costs, 298-299

cross compliance programs, 278, 279-280, 281, 305-306,

313

obstacles, 254, 255, 257-258

rationale for, 5, 36, 63, 254, 261

regulatory approaches, 255, 260, 276, 277, 278, 280-281,

292

voluntary approaches, 222, 255, 278, 281, 294-295

quality standards (See also Water quality monitoring), 33,35,

36

Hydrologic cycle, 56-57,63

defined, 6,43

human influence on, 57-60

surface/groundwater relationships, 34, 43-47, 56-57, 59-60,

258

Integrated Crop Management (ICM), 13,85, 148-149,209

Irrigation (See also Pesticides, application, chemigation), 9

scheduling, 81, 130-131
Index ● 337

tailwater, 130

technologies, 128-131

uniformity of distribution, 129

wastewater, used for, 95

Livestock waste (See also Fertilizers, nitrogen sources and

formulations, manure), 7, 85, 134-141

livestock waste collection and storage, 92, 137-141

management practices and effects on groundwater quality, 92,

131, 137-141, 142, 143

manure production and distribution, 92, 93, 136-137

Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA), 10, 151, 153,258

Maximum Economic Yield (MEY), 146

Pest management, 100-118

Integrated Pest Management (IPM), 9,85, 102, 115-118

defined, 115

development and use of, 116-117

constraints to IPM use, 117-118

effect on pesticide use, 116

grower adoption of, 116

nonchemical controls, 6, 8-9, 11, 84-85, 102, 103, 113-115, 171

biological controls, 114-115,212

genetic controls, 114

mechanical controls, 100, 114

cultural controls, 7, 9, 100, 113-114

pest scouting, 17, 101, 102

pest prediction models, 113

pesticide resistance (See Pesticides, pest resistance)

pesticides (See Pesticides)

Pesticides

application, 6, 11,82,83, 265

chemigation, 10, 112-113

precision, 8,82, 83, 103, 108-109

rates, 82, 108-109

technology, 109-113

timing, 7, 8, 82, 83, 113

biopesticides, 101, 103

definitions, 100

effects on non-target organisms (See Groundwater, ecological

impacts of contamination)

efficacy, 6, 11, 82, 103

formulation, 8, 107-108

general use (See Agrichemical applicators)

in groundwater, 3, 23, 28-31

labeling, 17, 27, 132, 173, 183, 197

management, 107, 171, 204, 205

pest resistance, 103-104

restricted use (See Agrichemical applicators)

secondary pest outbreaks, 105

use data (See Agrichemical use data)

Point-source contamination of groundwater

reducing potential for (See also Farmstead Assessment

Program), 11,82, 107, 111, 112, 183, 192, 193,255

Resource Management Systems (RMS), 148, 149

Technical assistance (See also Farmer-to-fanner networks;

Farmer decisionmaking, enhancing to protect natural

resources), 197-217

agrichemical dealerships and agrichemical-supply cooperatives,

207-208

agricultural advisory firms, 12-13, 209

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS),

13,200,204,209,231-232

Cooperative Extension Service (CES), 13,204-205,208,210,

216-217,232,278

coordination to enhance, 14-15, 17-18, 214, 216, 217, 232

county governments and local committees, 207

crop consultants, 13

farm size and, 198-199

farmer access to, 197

Soil Conservation Districts, 13,206-207,214-215

Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 10, 13, 200, 201-204,

216-217,224,232,274, 278

State Agricultural Experiment Stations, 201, 204

State Conservation Agencies, 205

State Departments of Agriculture (DOAs), 13,205

State Water Agencies, 204,205-206

Technology adoption (See Farmer Decisionmaking)

Technology development and transfer (See also Agricultural

research, education, and extension, to enhance policy

and technology development), 144

Tillage (See also Farm resource management, soil), 81,99,212

conventional, 81

reduced or no-till, 81, 105-106, 265

Waste management, effects on groundwater contamination

agrichemical (See Agrichemical waste)

livestock (See Livestock waste, management practices)

silage, 132, 141-143

Water Quality Initiative, 259-260,272,273,292

Water quality legislation, 254,260, 268-269

Clean Water Act (See Water Quality Act of 1987)

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 24, 35,

173, 184, 186, 188,270,271

Food Security Act, 203-204, 207, 258, 266, 274, 279, 305,

313,315

legislative authority and flexibility, 285-288

Proposition 65,260

Resources Conservation Act of 1977, 273

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 134

Safe Drinking Water Act, 33, 35, 271, 277

Water Quality Act of 1987 (Clean Water Act), 24,259,261,

272,277,292

Water quality monitoring, 3,66,68,232-233,258

detection limits, 28

EPA National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water, 30,271

interpretations, 28-30

need for, 63

USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program, 68,270

Water quality protection, organizational roles (See also Water

quality legislation, legislative authority and flexibility)

changes in roles, 277-278

confusion over roles, 283-285

Congress, 268-269,282-283,315

coordination, 273, 288-298

diversity of approaches (See Groundwater protection, voluntary, regulatory, cross compliance)

Federal agencies, 269-272

leadership, 284-285

State and local, 275-277