Agriculture
Runoff and erosion from agricultural crop and livestock production is the major source of water pollution in Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has estimated that nonpoint sources (primarily agriculture) account for as much as 86 percent of water pollution in the state.
Key sources and avenues of agricultural pollution to lakes, rivers and streams include:
- Surface runoff from land-applied manure and livestock confinements;
- Erosion runoff from cultivated lands; and
- Agricultural drainage tile (perforated pipes that drain wet spors in fields and intercept water below cropland, transporting it to ditches, streams, rivers and lakes.
The runoff from agricultural areas contributes to multiple water quality impairments in Minnesota (such as sediment and nutrient impairments) as well as the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Feedlots
Feedlots are facilities where livestock, such as pigs or cattle, are confined and fed to bring them up to market weight. Improperly operated feedlots and their manure disposal sites—manure is typically spread on crops as fertilizer—can result in heavily contaminated lakes or rivers that are unhealthy for humans and animals.
Large feedlots, with 1,000 animal units or more are called Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and they produce enormous amounts of manure which must be disposed of properly. Minnesota has approximately 1200 of these large feedlot operations. The CAFOs in the state produce more manure by weight than 30,000,000 people. These operations are defined by law as point sources and were required under Minnesota rules to obtain a Clean Water Act pollution discharge permit to operate until the 2011 legislature removed the this permitting requirement.
Federal law requiring Clean Water Act permits for CAFOs has been in flux for years. EPA published a rule in 2003 defining the circumstances under which CAFOs would have to seek a permit. Several groups challenged the rule, and the subsequent court decision required EPA to amend the rule. EPA published the new rule in 2008, which was also challenged and vacated in part by a March 2011 court decision. The most recent decision removed the requirement for CAFOs that “propose” to discharge to obtain a permit. Instead, only CAFOs that actually discharge need a permit.
MCEA submitted comments on a proposed EPA rule to collect information about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). EPA does not track most CAFOs, but settled a lawsuit with environmental groups by agreeing to create a national CAFO database. The settlement required EPA to collect 14 information items or explain why it was collecting less. In the proposed reporting rule, EPA backed off and suggested that it would only collect 5 of the 14 items in the settlement agreement -- cutting out information about manure storage and land application, key components to determine potential water quality problems. EPA also suggested that it would only collect information from as-yet-undefined locations. MCEA called for EPA to honor its commitment in the settlement agreement and to create the national database with all of the information items to protect water quality.
Smaller feedlots are called Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and are not required to obtain an operating permit, but are subject to state rules governing proper manure storage and disposal. Minnesota has roughly 25,000 AFOs. Of these, thousands are “open lots” where livestock—mostly dairy and beef cattle—are corralled outdoors, frequently on the banks of a river, stream, or lake, where their manure is at risk of causing pollution. Minnesota’s rules generally prohibit such manure runoff, but gave these smaller open lots ten years to fully comply with the runoff containment requirement. The eligible smaller open feedlots (those under 300 animal units) were allowed to sign an “open lot agreement” which extended the compliance date to October 2010.
MPCA and the Board of Water and Soil Resources signed a memorandum of understanding to waive enforcement action against the open lots for owners who had signed open lot agreements but who were still waiting for public financial assistance after the October 2010 deadline. Even though the agreement changed the effect of the feedlot rules, it did not go through the rulemaking process. The memorandum of agreement contains no final date by which the open lots must comply with the rules.
More information:Minnesota Feedlot Rules
CAFO General Permit
2009 CAFO information for Minnesota (XLS)
Cropland Runoff
Runoff from agricultural land is a major source of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides in Minnesota’s waters. For example, according to a 2004 study, cropland and pasture runoff is the largest single source of phosphorus to Minnesota’s waters.
The federal Farm Bill has a major impact on the landscape in Minnesota, and as a result, serves as a major driver of both cropland runoff and conservation practices to stem runoff. By providing incentives for certain crops and conservation practices, the farm bill can change how Minnesota looks and what goes into the state’s waters. From 1995 through 2010, the state received $15.2 billion in subsidies, ranking 4th in the nation, with much of the money subsidizing corn. The Farm Bill includes several types of subsidies that support agriculture, including direct payments, countercyclical payments, loan deficiency payments, disaster payments, and insurance subsidies. For more detailed analysis, read Environmental Working Group’s Farm Subsidy Primer and search for recipients in EWG’s database.
One of the ways that the Farm Bill seeks to reduce runoff from cropland is through a requirement called Conservation Compliance. To be eligible for direct payments from the farm bill, a landowner must meet conservation requirements for highly erodible land (HEL). HEL is defined as land that will erode at a rate eight times higher than it is naturally replenished. Federal regulations provide that farming on HEL can render the landowner ineligible for all USDA programs.
As shown in the chart below, Minnesota waters suffer the most unsustainable crop erosion of all states bordering the Mississippi River, but a limited amount of this erosion in Minnesota comes from HEL. Instead, the runoff comes from flatter crop acres that lack conservation measures. To reduce Minnesota’s erosion will require changes in the farm bill to require conservation on more than just HEL.
(Source: “Trouble Downstream: Upgrading Conservation Compliance, Environmental Working Group. Data calculated from USDA’s National Resources Inventory, 2003 by Environmental Working Group.)
The conservation title of the Farm Bill provides the backbone of funding for installing new conservation measures on the land. The conservation programs include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which provides cost-share for best management practices; the Conservation Reserve Program, which provides cash incentives for converting cropped land to high-quality natural landscapes; the Conservation Stewardship Program, which supports existing and new conservation activities; Conservation Innovations Grants, which promote new types of management practices; and a number of other programs to protect wetlands, grasslands, and wildlife. Together, these conservation measures can reduce erosion and pollutants entering the nation’s waters.
One practice that contributes greatly to water pollution is farming the land adjacent to lakes, rivers and streams. Minnesota has a shoreland rule that requires maintenance of a permanent 50-foot vegetative (non-cultivated) filter strip or buffer along public waterways. Counties are responsible for enforcing that filter strip, but few in the state have done so.
MCEA has undertaken a project to map land uses in shoreland areas in several key watersheds. One result of this effort is identification of parcels in which the 50-foot buffer zone is being cultivated in violation of the rule. MCEA’s agricultural encroachment mapping will help local governments enforce their shoreland ordinances and will clean up local streams and lakes. To date, MCEA has mapped Blue Earth County and four major watersheds that are part of the Mississippi River Basin Health Watersheds Initiative. The Healthy Watersheds Initiative is a US Department of Agriculture program to provide $320 million to implemented targeted water quality practices in selected watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin over four years.