Urban and farm runoff fuel green algae blooms in Lake Erie that are visible in satellite images. Photo: NOAA CoastWatch
By Jeff Gillies
jeffgillies@gmail.com
Great Lakes Echo
Sept. 17, 2009
The Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay both field noxious summer algae blooms fueled by dirt and nutrients from farm fields. The six northeastern states that drain into the Chesapeake Bay have a patchwork plan to curb it.
It doesn’t work and never will, says a recent report by the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit lobbyist and research group.
The report claims runoff prevention programs fail because they’re voluntary — farmers that don’t want to participate don’t have to.
Similar criticism might also be relevant for erosion protection in the Great Lakes where states also have largely voluntary control method.
That’s a problem around Lake Erie, too, said Jim Carter, district administrator with the Wood County Soil and Water Conservation District.
“I’d love to say we have 100 percent of our rivers and streams protected,” Carter said. “But we don’t.”
Wood County sits along the Maumee River in northwestern Ohio. The Maumee is one of Lake Erie’s biggest sources of agricultural runoff, which can carry pesticides, sediment and nutrients from fertilizers into nearby rivers and streams.
Sediment buries habitat; pesticides contaminate mud and wildlife; nutrients fuel potentially toxic algae blooms that foul beaches and choke wildlife.
Decomposing algae also sucks oxygen out of the water, so big blooms leave behind “dead zones” where fish and other wildlife can’t breathe.
While not everyone has jumped on the runoff-busting bandwagon, many farmers are doing good work, Carter said. Some cut back on plowing and leave crop leftovers on fields. The extra plant parts blanket the soil and keep it from washing away.
Farmers can also grow trees and other plants between fields and waterways to intercept runoff and create wildlife habitat.
That’s good for the environment and good for farmers who want to keep soil and nutrients where they belong. The trade-off: Land set aside to stem runoff isn’t producing crops, Carter said. So state and federal programs compensate farmers who voluntarily convert cropland to buffer strips.
Wisconsin has those voluntary programs too. But since January 2008, the state requires farmers to develop and follow a nutrient management plan. The plans ban farming too close to streams and water wells and limit how much fertilizer — the source of algae bloom-fueling nutrients — a farmer can use.
Among the Great Lakes states, Wisconsin’s farm runoff law is fairly progressive, said Sara Walling, a water quality specialist with Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
But the law still has problems. Of the 9 million acres of cropland in Wisconsin, only 1.5 million are covered by a plan to stem nutrient runoff, Walling said.
How can the nutrients on all those acres go unmanaged if every farm has to have a plan to manage them?
The state can’t afford to police them all, Walling said. So it focuses on regulating a few types of farms, like those with over 1,000 cows or those that have already had big runoff problems or had triggered fish kills.
Wisconsin also has a pool of money to help some farmers set up and phase in management plans. The state can enforce runoff plans at farms that use those funds. But that pool is drying up, so fewer farmers can get state money and fall under state enforcement rules.
But while state incentives shrink, the number of acres under runoff plans still grows, Walling said. Many farmers are taking a conservationist bent and managing nutrients on their own dime. Others assume it’s only a matter of time until the state’s runoff enforcement authority will actually cover every farm statewide, she said.
The Chesapeake report said those who don’t jump on board the voluntary programs are often the biggest contributors to agricultural runoff. But Carter said sources of runoff in Wood County are tough to ferret out, which makes pointing fingers at the biggest contributors impossible.