This guide is based on interviews with farmers, project directors, and state water quality specialists from across the country. We asked people to tell us which water quality programs they considered most successful, and then we talked to people who knew those programs well. We asked them what made these projects successful and what advice they would give to others developing programs to address NPS pollution at the local level.
We consider the creators of these programs to be wise. They not only have technical expertise, but they also have interpersonal skills needed to bring people together around an issue, creativity to develop new types of programs, and, along the way, helped people have hope.
This report was developed for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture by the University of Minnesota.
Lessons learned from successful programs
Tips for people designing educational programs
Descriptions of successful programs
Appendix 1: Educational efforts being conducted in the basin
Appendix 2: Precautions for all governments
The purpose of this report is to share what we learned about successful water quality programs, so this information might improve educational programs in the basin. This report:
Many people worked on this study. Mary Anne Casey, a consultant, was the study director. Amy Rager and Gary Wyatt, Extension Educators with the Minnesota Extension Service, conducted the survey and assisted with the report writing. Amy, Gary, and two other Extension Educators, Cindy Arnevik, and Dave Pfarr, assisted with the focus groups.
There is a strong we/they feeling. For farmers, "they" are at times city residents, at times environmentalists, at times government agencies, and occasionally other farmers who blatantly pollute. Some farmers feel scapegoated for the acts of city residents, accused by environmentalists, fearful of government intervention, and resentful of the acts of a few farmers who give all a bad name. In the words of an organization staff member:
There is a large level of fear and distrust and I don't think true learning can take place in that type of context. There needs to be an establishment of trust and an allaying of fear before anything meaningful can happen. And that is a big job.
We sent a survey to 206 local agencies and organizations across the basin asking, "what type of educational efforts are taking place in your organization?" Seventy-two people responded, telling us about what their organizations are doing. They are addressing a variety of topics, aimed at different audiences, using diverse methods. Lists of the topics, audiences, and methods are included in the appendix.
There is a lack of coordination. There is so much emphasis being placed on the river. At one turn you will have PCA doing something, the next week Extension is out doing something. The following week the local Water Planning people or the Soil and Water District may be doing something. I think people sense that all we are doing is going to meetings. There are opportunities to piggyback on each others' efforts rather than everyone doing their own thing. (Agency person)
We wanted to find out what makes educational programs which address agricultural nonpoint source pollution successful. We called experts from around the country who either studied or ran successful projects. This is what we learned from them.
Successful projects involve local people from the very beginning
Over and over we heard the importance of involving local people in meaningful ways from the very beginning. This develops a sense of ownership and commitment for the project. Local people helped identify the problem, develop a strategy of action, and were involved in planning and implementation. Educators became facilitators of the process and encouraged local people to be involved and take on roles of educators -- talking about what they had learned through their own experiences. Some people called this using a participatory process, another called it having a grassroots focus, others called it organizing, another called it "putting into practice the principles of adult education." A recent Government Accounting Office study of successful watershed projects found the same thing: successful projects involve local people in meaningful ways from the beginning of the project. GAO Report 95-218, "Information on and Characteristics of Selected Watershed Projects." June 1995.
Successful projects aren't just education programs
Most projects are using a combination of 1) education, 2) economic incentives, 3) development of new technologies, and 4) attention to social and psychological needs to address NPS pollution. These projects try to lower barriers while increasing the incentives for change. Although most projects work to get voluntary participation, a few have developed regulations. For example, after 20 years of using education, technology, and economic incentives and seeing little change, the North Central Platte Project in Nebraska went a step further and developed regulations which farmers must abide by.
Successful projects are collaborative
Although there is a lead organization in each of the projects we studied, each said they would not be as successful if they didn't play well with others. When working with others they could tap into more information networks, reach more people through expanded contacts, gain expertise, and limit duplication. However, the key benefit of collaboration was the creation of an environment of mutual trust and respect, which in turn made it easier for farmers to trust and respect the work of the collaborators. Of course collaboration is tough to do. It takes time and energy and often means letting go of old turf issues. But it seems essential to developing successful projects. Each of these projects appears to have at least one person with strong interpersonal skills who could build collaborative bridges.
Successful projects are implemented locally
These successful projects were implemented by local people who were trusted and respected. Most projects concentrated on a geographic area with which local residents could relate. And most of the projects focused on a resource residents cared about. Not only are successful projects implemented locally, most of the successful projects we looked at were designed at the local level by local people with input from other levels.
Successful projects have the resources to address the issue
Successful projects have adequate resources. Resources include technical expertise, financial resources, strengths and assets of local people, and interpersonal and process skills.
In successful projects, farmers internalize the problem
Farmers have to believe there is a problem, believe their practices contribute to the problem, believe there is something they can do to address the problem, and want to do something about it. Several experts said if farmers haven't internalized the problem, not much will happen.
Essentially producers have to believe it is going to work. Eighty-five percent of farmers are strong supporters of environmental objectives and really want to do what is best but you have to convince them that it will work. For example, if you want to reduce nitrogen applications, they have to be convinced that the tests are working, they have to understand what is behind those recommendations, and have confidence in them. No black box. That is first and foremost. (Nebraska agency person)
Successful projects operate out of respect
Most people believe they act respectfully. Yet, project directors emphasized the importance of treating all stakeholders respectfully. This involves including stakeholders in decision making, listening to and hearing various perspectives, and tapping into the strengths people have and inviting them to contribute. One person said this requires "listening five times more than you talk." There is no finger pointing or backbiting.
Successful projects have educational components that are multifaceted, and learner based
Successful programs use a variety of educational methods such as: neighborhood meetings, farmer research groups, newsletters, demonstrations, one-on-one meetings, group meetings, study circles, canoe trips, study tours to different parts of the country, and leadership tours to state capitals and Washington D.C. The methods build upon and complement one another. People have a lot of different ways to become aware and get involved. The educational efforts are learner based. Learners help determine what will be addressed and how it will be addressed. Educators assume that farmers have much to contribute to the educational process if given a chance.
Successful projects monitor progress to see how they are doing
It is important to be able to tell farmers, funders, and yourself how well the project is progressing. People want to see and celebrate change. It keeps people interested. People know something is happening.
Invite people A personal, face-to-face invitation is the most powerful method you can use to get people involved. The invitation should come from someone the invitee respects. Farmers will often participate in educational programs if someone they respect suggests the program (for example their vet, lender, crop consultant, or another farmer). Use your network to help you invite people to participate.
Listen five times more than you talk Once you invite people in, listen. Most people think they listen. Yet, many send clear signals that they aren't listening. Businesses are skilled at listening and most government agencies and nonprofits could learn from them. Businesses learned long ago that the way to be successful is to purposefully listen to people and then create products based on the customers' viewpoint.
What should you listen for? Find out how different people view a situation. Find out how they feel about it. Find out what strengths they have which they might be willing to share. Find out what barriers keep people from participating, adopting, caring, leading. Find out what kind of incentives or benefits people would need to see to change. Find out what is wrong with the current system. Find out how to improve it.
How can you listen? It is as simple as creating an open environment, having a few good questions, asking them, and then paying attention. Don't correct. Don't defend. Don't explain. Don't interrupt. Ask them to tell you more. Ask for examples. Ask them what they mean.
You can use formal or informal processes to listen. Some people use formal processes like focus groups or structured individual interviews. Others use informal processes like asking each person they interact with throughout a day a few questions. Consider inviting two or three people to lunch and asking a few questions.
My advice to local educators? Have great big ears and little tiny mouths. (Project director)
Then use the information to change things. Some organizations say they want to use focus groups so people feel heard. But then the organization dismisses what was said. They pay no attention to what people shared. This is a violation of trust and respect. If you decide not to use the information gathered, let people know why.
Give power away Keeping control makes things more predictable, but seldom are the outcomes as impressive as when we give control away.
Involve others in decision making. Invite people to help decide what the problem is and how to address it.
Take on the role of co-learner or co-facilitator. For example, involve farmers as co-researchers -- helping to decide what research is to be done, conducting the research, discussing the outcomes, and sharing the results with others.
Give people access to resources. Some projects provide grants to groups of farmers to do their own research or to contract with others to get the information they need. This creates fiscal challenges but builds ownership and commitment.
Involve others in the evaluation. Let people make decisions about what is working well and what doesn't work. Involve them in making recommendations about how to improve the program. Have them present findings to the county board.
Examples of involving people The Kansas Rural Center conducted focus groups with farmers throughout the state. The information was used to design the Heartland Project. Focus groups will be held at several points in the project to monitor how it is going and what might be done to improve it.
The Heartland Project also spread resources throughout the region. Farmer groups submitted proposal for local projects. Twelve groups received grants between $1,000 and $30,000 dollars to conduct sustainable agriculture projects.
Resources
Building trust of farmers Farmers trust other farmers. In each of the successful projects we studied, farmers either instigated the project, or were key players in decision making and implementation. Farmer leadership is genuine and visible in these projects.
Building trust among stakeholders One of the ways to develop respect and get beyond stereotypes is to get to know individuals. Listening, treating people as equals, being open, seeking understanding and input are all ways to build trust. (From Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate)
Building trust among agencies Over and over we heard of the need to develop trusting, respectful relationships among agencies. For example, an agency person said:
One of the things we need to get beyond is one agency throwing rocks at another agency. We hear this all the time. Such and such is bad-mouthing the DNR for enforcing the feedlot regulations. Well, darn-it, that is our job. We didn't go looking for that job. When some of these things come to an impasse, well, then the enforcement arm comes down. And then we get people out there, some our sister agencies, saying "that blankety-blank DNR shouldn't have done that." Well, then help us to not have to do it. If someone doesn't know why the watershed district does this or why SCS does that, rather than taking an opportunity to take a pot-shot just say, "I don't know but I'm sure they probably had a good reason. I'll have someone from that agency contact you to explain it." Too often we take pot-shots rather than show we are working together to address the issues. (Agency staff)
Examples of creating trust
Developing trust among agencies In 1984, the governor of Utah issued an executive order outlining a state groundwater policy and requiring the coordination of agencies and interested parties in policy formation and implementation. To develop deeper levels of trust agency staff started doing very simple things:
Developing trust among stakeholders Ohio State Extension agents helped farmers in the Darby Creek area come together to respond to perceived threats from environmental interests. After two meetings, farmers decided to meet with environmentalists to discuss Darby Creek and different stakeholders' interests in the creek. As a result of these meetings, farmers and environmentalists canoed the river together to learn from one another. A farmer and an environmentalist shared each canoe. At certain locations along the trip, DNR, EPA, and Ohio State specialists showed the richness of the ecology along the creek. The canoers got to know each other as individuals and developed a sense of common ground and respect. Within a short time, farmers combined forces with The Nature Conservancy and Ohio State University to develop a project to help make a good place even better.
Farmers developing trust In New York, farmers fearful of proposed regulations joined forces with state agency staff to develop a proposal to get 85 percent of the farmers in the New York City's watershed to participate in whole farm planning. Farmers used "kitchen meetings" in their homes to inform other farmers and encourage them to participate. The small, informal meetings fostered trust and openness.
We often think of collaboration as needing to happen among government agencies. But studies have shown that some of the most successful community efforts evolve out of innovative and nontraditional alliances. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) found that successful community projects start by discovering what assets are available within the community. (A key here is that they start by looking at the strengths of the community, not the needs or deficiencies.) Then they combine, mobilize, and catalyze those assets to address the problem and, as a result, create more self-reliant and powerful communities. They outline potential partners for addressing community issues:
Individuals who have:
Examples of collaboration
The Kansas Rural Center, a small nonprofit organization committed to rural development, invited interested farm families and Kansas State University faculty together to think about how more sustainable farming practices might be promoted. The Rural Center knew how to collaborate with farmers. But, historically Kansas Rural Center and KSU have viewed sustainable agriculture differently. Yet, rather than dismissing Kansas State as a potential partner, Kansas Rural Center staff got to know individuals within the university with whom they could work and developed collaborations with them. These collaborations have resulted in greater institutional commitments, more collaboration, more legitimacy for the issue, and greater attention to sustainable agriculture across the state.
Operation Future, a group of farmers from Ohio supported by Ohio State Extension, and The Nature Conservancy joined forces to keep the Darby Creek a superior natural resource. Each group had assets which can be used to address the goal. Although farmers were initially fearful of environmentalists, they learned that environmentalists believed farmers were largely responsible for the rich biological diversity in the creek. They also believed that other types of development would be more detrimental to the environment. Farmers and environmentalists found they had common ground: they were both interested in keeping Darby Creek a great natural resource.
The New York City Watershed Project created a nonprofit to implement the project. The nonprofit is governed by farmers and agribusiness people. A small permanent staff coordinates the project and buys staff time from local agencies to implement the project and support the decisions of the farmers. Over 20 local agencies collaborate on the project. Staff from different agencies work together in six person whole farm planning teams which work with farmers in the watershed.
Resources
Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets, by John Kretzmann and John McKnight. This guide summarizes lessons learned from hundreds of successful community building initiatives across the United States. One of the lessons learned was that successful projects start by looking at a community's strengths and gifts (assets) rather than their deficits (needs). $15 per copy. Available from:
Social marketers try to create social change by paying attention to what makes things tough to do. Social marketers take processes used in marketing products and use them to increase the acceptance of ideas or causes. Most importantly, they ask people what keeps them from changing and what it would take for them to change and then use that information to build programs that work.
Social marketing tells us education alone isn't as effective as taking a multi-pronged approach. Kotler (1982) describes several approaches to social change:
Some educators believe the social and psychological barriers to change are the least visible but most important.
Examples of using more than education in NPS pollution projects
All the projects use education as the central method for changing behavior. Here are some examples of other approaches used:
Resources
Planning teams
A group of experts with different specializations meets with a farmer or farm family to develop an integrated plan for the farm. Members of the family share their goals and participate as members of the team. The team meets periodically with the family to assist with implementation of the plan, update the plan, and troubleshoot problems.
Study circles
A study circle is made up of 5 to 20 people who agree to get together several times to learn about an issue through dialogue. The Study Circle Resource Center has some valuable materials to help people lead a study circle or to train others to lead study circles.
Neighborhood learning groups
Neighborhood learning groups are longer-term than study circles. Groups may agree to meet for a year or more to study marketing, conduct their own on-farm research, or just share what they are learning from their operations. An educator may help the group get organized and provide support and encouragement through follow-up, but the members are responsible for deciding what and how they want to learn. These groups often have a social dimension.
Participatory on-farm research
In the past, on-farm research has been conducted almost completely by researchers. Now, researchers and farmers are taking on roles as co-researchers. Farmers are involved in making decisions about what type of research is to be conducted, conducting the research, analyzing the results, and sharing findings.
Tours, trips, excursions
Seeing new things is a great way to learn. Consider assisting a group in exploring new places and meeting new people as a way of getting a different perspective on a topic.
Festivals, celebrations
What about making learning fun? Too often learning seems like something we should do or something someone else thinks we should do rather than something we want to do. Using festivals or celebrations as a way of learning has been very successful. County fairs provide opportunities for learning. Chautauqaus, assemblies that lasted for several days for educational and recreational purposes, were popular in the past and might provide ideas for new education efforts.
To make big changes, ideas need to be reinforced. One meeting won't do it. Use different approaches that reinforce your message.
Examples
The Nebraska Groundwater Foundation holds a water quality festival for children each year. Materials are sent to teachers to help kids prepare for the festival. Kids are bused from all over the state. All the exhibits, games, cartoon characters, computer programs, and presentations are designed to help kids learn about protecting groundwater. The festival gets huge amounts of publicity which in turn expands the education to adults.
Similar to neighborhood learning groups, AERO, a nonprofit group in Montana which supports sustainable agriculture, has Farm Improvement Clubs. The Heartland Project also supports small groups of farmers working together. A key for success in these groups is that farmers focus on their own self-interest and that the people involved can "start fires and keep them going." The groups work best if they are built around mutual self-interests.
Operation Future uses annual meetings with engaging speakers like Baxter Black or Orion Samuelson to raise interest and awareness. They host regional and national tours. Some tours focus on production, some on politics. They also have very local tours, in canoes, down the Darby Creek.
Resources
Russell Robinson (1994) outlines some of the psychological struggles of people involved in learning and change. He suggests:
In the spirit of emotional intelligence, experts we interviewed advised:
Resources
First, get your partners to help. Involve farmers and agency people in deciding what data needs to be collected, in collecting it, in deciding the "so what?" of the data, and in reporting your findings. The research or evaluation should:
Ask them what would make the information credible. What needs to be included? Where does it need to be done? When? By whom? Are numbers credible? Stories? Who is a credible spokesperson? What sources of information do your audiences see as credible (newspaper, TV, neighbors, university faculty, local agency staff, farm magazines, crop consultants)?
Take time to reflect and see how things are going. It can be fairly simple. Some people end every project meeting by asking "how are we doing?" Or you may want to take opportunities to get feedback or ideas by meeting for coffee with a couple people and asking for input. Evaluation doesn't have to be complicated and formal.
Make evaluation and reporting doable. Don't make this so complicated that it gets overwhelming.
Report progress all along the way. People want to see that things are happening. Simple e-mail messages, phone calls, or post cards can keep key people up-to-date and prime interest. Ask participants to help keep people informed.
Share results with farmers, agency staff, and community members. People want to know that progress is being made. Use whatever avenues people find most useful and credible.
Examples
Good research and evaluation data is one of the shortcomings of a number of the projects we studied. Operation Future didn't conduct baseline measures until they had made significant progress. They wish they would have paid more attention to this. The Nebraska project has been measuring water quality for 20 years. They found that it was crucial that farmers understand the way measurements are taken and find the process credible. The New York project is just now developing an evaluation strategy, which will meld with their communication strategy. The Heartland Network has linked with the Kansas Center for Rural Initiatives to develop a participatory evaluation.
Resources
Big Darby Creek flows through six west-central counties in Ohio. Unlike other areas we examined where the goal was to reverse damage, the Big Darby began receiving attention because it has been so well preserved. It has been designated a "State Scenic River" by the ODNR and a "Last Great Place" by The Nature Conservancy. Although production agriculture, the predominant land use in the watershed, has helped to preserve the stream, nonpoint source pollution now threatens the its health.
Operation: Future
Farmers were uncomfortable with the attention the creek was receiving. Rumors of outside forces telling farmers how they were supposed to farm were prevalent. Farmers resisted the environmental movement which they perceived as a threat to their values of independence and free enterprise. Extension agents and farmers, responding to this situation, developed an educational initiative called Operation Future. This program was designed for farmers to examine forces of change and chart their own plan for the future.
Although Operation Future started out as an educational program, it evolved into a grassroots nonprofit organization. It is now a organization of farmers working to balance economic and environmental issues in the watershed.
Program:
In 1991, Extension agents invited a group of highly respected farmers with leadership ability to participate in Operation Future. These farmers met as a task force to learn together about nonfarmer expectations related to the Big Darby Creek and to develop a response. The farmers wanted to do something before they were regulated to do something, yet they were unclear about what they should do. After two meetings, officers were elected and meetings with environmental groups were held.
Canoe Trips. One of the early experiences of the group was a canoe trip on the creek. Farmers and stream advocates were paired for learning from each other about the watershed. The Ohio EPA conducted an electro-fishing presentation to demonstrate the variety of fish species. DNR shared their expertise in riparian corridors and macroinvertebrate sampling. An Ohio State University specialist discussed the bivalve population and its significance.
The canoers developed a sense of common ground. Conservationists described the richness of the creek, which was due in part to the stewardship of farmers. A new sense of pride and ownership of the biological diversity found in the creek began to emerge from the farming community. Farmers began to see their role as making a great place even better. The canoe trip was so successful it has been repeated for hundreds of individuals.
Strategic Planning. A task force spent one day developing a strategic plan. They adopted a mission to link economic and environmental soundness to improve the quality of life in the agricultural community of Darby Creek. Farmers outlined four work areas: organizational development, environmental education, farm profitability, and public relations and policy.
Organizational Development. In 1993, Operation Future became a nonprofit and received a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The grant had been written in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy and Ohio State University. An elected board of 18 farmers governs the association. Membership has grown to 100 farmers who operate 30% of the farmland in the watershed. Board members are holding small discussions with farmers in their areas to increase membership.
Public Policy Efforts. An important role that OFA members serve is to represent farmers' views on environmental issues. Examples of their efforts include two tours to Washington DC to better understand the political interests shaping the Clean Water Act and the 1995 Farm Bill. Other tours have focused on watershed management programs along the Mississippi and the Chesapeake Bay.
Education. OFA supports many educational programs for youth and nonfarmers. They also host education programs for farmers on environmental topics and profitability. Two "Farms of the Future" field days have been conducted with great success. Annual meetings with Orion Samuelson and Baxter Black have also drawn much attention.
Results:
Although Operation Future has constructed an effective bridge between agricultural and environmental communities, there are disagreements as to the success of OFA. One Ohio State researcher thinks it is a project which is talking to the choir, and has documented few practices changes in the watershed. OFA admits it hasn't paid enough attention to quantifying its achievements but says one example of its success is the decrease in sediment entering the stream by 35,000 ton per year since 1992 due to increased crop residue left on the surface. No doubt something is happening here. This project has been featured in Farm Journal, Progressive Farmer, and The Nature Conservancy. It has also been a case study for the U.S. Government Accounting Office, U.S. Department of Interior, and the University of Michigan.
Sections of this summary are taken from:
This five county area in upstate New York is mainly agricultural, with a high percentage of dairy farms. It is also a large source of water for 9 million users in New York City. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may insist on developing a filtration system for the water used by New York City residents if this project is not successful in keeping levels of pathogens within certain limits.
How the Program Got Started:
In the early 1990's, a handful of farmers got copies of regulations being proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The farmers were concerned that if these regulations were implemented, they would be put out of business. They sat down with administrators from a few agencies like the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Department of Agriculture and Markets and developed the proposal for this program. They submitted the proposal to the City of New York, which agreed the program could work. The City committed 35.2 million dollars to the program over five years beginning in 1994.
The Watershed Agricultural Council:
The Watershed Ag Council is a nonprofit organization created to run the watershed program. All 23 Council members are farmers and agribusiness leaders. In addition, eleven ex-officio members represent agencies which provide guidance and particular expertise. The full Council meets twice a month. Most of the program staff are employees of other agencies that the Council has contracted with for services.
The Program:
Ten farm families participated in Phase I of the program. Each farmer, with a team of planners, developed and implemented a whole farm plan. These farms were used as living laboratories to see what worked. These farm families also agreed to sponsor "Kitchen Meetings." They invited friends, neighbors, and relatives to their homes to hear about the program. Staff members met with each group, explained the program, and answered questions to both inform people and to entice farmers to volunteer for Phase II of the program. These meetings were incredibly successful, in part because of the small size of the groups and the pleasant social atmosphere.
While Phase I was a concentrated effort with a few farmers, the challenge of Phase II is to expand the program to 85% of the 500 farmers in the watershed. Once a farmer volunteers to participate, a team of planners, including the farmer, develops a whole farm plan. The farm family shares their farm and life goals with the planning team and the team suggests technologies and management practices that fit those goals. If the team suggests something that the farmer can't live with, it is the team's responsibility to come up with another alternative. Nothing gets included in the plan without the farmer's approval.
Each farm plan is submitted to the Watershed Ag Council. The full Council reviews each plan and votes on whether the plan should be accepted for implementation. If the plan is accepted, it is fully funded by the program. No whole farm plan is ever considered "done" but rather is seen as evolving over time. The planning teams will follow-up with farmers to provide additional assistance and to refine plans.
Win-Win Situation:
This is a win-win program. Farmers benefit from the technical and financial whole farm planning assistance. The City of New York saves billions of dollars. Estimates for the cost of building the proposed filtration system range from 6 to 8 billion dollars with annual upkeep of 300 to 400 million dollars. In contrast, the Watershed Agricultural Council program costs the City about 7 million dollars per year.
Information From:
Interview with Jean Leal of the Watershed Agricultural Council.
Since the mid-1950s groundwater nitrate concentrations have been on the increase in the Central Platte Natural Resources District. Some of the increase is attributed to intense development of irrigation coupled with relatively high rates of nitrogen fertilizer applications for irrigated corn production. In addition, the finely-textured soils of the 1.2 million acres of District are conducive to nitrate leaching. High nitrate concentrations have forced half the communities in the District to find different sources of drinking water.
How the Program Got Started:
Natural Resource Districts (NRDs), created by the Nebraska Legislature, began operating in 1972. The Districts are responsible for conserving and developing the state's natural resources and have the authority to levy a local property tax to fund programs. Districts have elected Board of Directors comprised of local residents.
Between 1972 and 1987 the Central Platte NRD identified the source of the nitrates in the groundwater (between 75 and 85 percent could be directly attributed to commercial nitrogen fertilizers), conducted hundreds of demonstrations of best management practices, and held hundreds of educational meetings. Although farmers adopted best management practices when involved in demonstrations, they frequently went back to their old practices after the programs were over.
NRD staff met with farmers, crop consultants, fertilizer industry representatives and others to determine how best to address the problem of nitrates in the groundwater. These meetings resulted in the conclusion that regulation was necessary, but that the regulations should be educational in nature. The NRD held meetings and hearings to get public input and in 1987 the Board of Directors of the Central Platte NRD adopted a comprehensive Groundwater Management Plan.
We started working on the problem in 1973. We spent 20 years showing we had a problem and it was getting worse. It was an agriculturally related problem and it would take farmers to make a difference. We didn't get the problem under control until we had regulation. I am normally anti-regulation but in this case it boiled down to the fact that before we were going to get all the farmers involved in best management practices they were going to have to be regulated to do it. (quote from project director)
The Groundwater Management Plan
Educational efforts such as demonstrations and field days continued under the new plan. In addition, cost share was made available for many of the tools needed by farmers to establish best management practices such as fertilizer calibration meters, irrigation well hour meters, and vertical dam manifolds. To supplement the education and cost share, which were voluntary, the NRD adopted rules and regulations to assure that certain minimum changes would occur. Requirements of farmers differ based on the average level of nitrogen in the groundwater in the area in which they farm. All farmers must attend training in nitrogen fertilizer management. Corn and sorghum farmers in high nitrate areas can not apply nitrogen in the fall, must use a split application of commercial fertilizers in the spring, and must submit an annual report for each field. The form is designed to be used as a worksheet to develop a management plan. The form asks for:
Results:
Reports after the first crop year (1988) showed the first recorded decline in average PPM in the NRD's high nitrate area since first measured in 1960. The PPM continued to decline until 1994 when adverse weather conditions prevented many farmers from following the program.
Based on Information from:
Interesting Features:
The Heartland Network is a network of farmers in 12 communities across Kansas. These farmers are linked by mutual interests in sustainable agriculture, not by geography.
How the Network Got Started:
The Kansas Rural Center (KRC) is a nonprofit organization that is concerned about issues dealing with quality of life in rural Kansas. It promotes grassroots support for public policies that encourage family farming and stewardship of soil and water. KRC has worked for many years to support farmers interested in sustainable agriculture. For many years KRC looked to Kansas State University for backing in research and education. Yet, Kansas State administrators did not see sustainable agriculture as priority. KRC staff and farmers began working with individual faculty members who were interested in sustainable agriculture. This small, dedicated group of people worked together, developed a collaborative relationship, and tried to find resources to support their efforts. This team received a major grant from the Kellogg Foundation in 1993. The grant not only provided resources to expand their work, it also provided legitimacy to their efforts.
After receiving funding, the original team (farmers, and KRC and KSU staff) traveled around Kansas inviting communities of farmers to participate in the program. They held focus groups with farmers throughout Kansas to get feedback on their ideas and to generate interest in the program. They targeted innovative farmers, believing these people are the real change makers in rural communities. Through the focus groups, project staff were able to refine the program to better meet the interests of farmers and to get early involvement from farmers. The program evolved over the first year as farmers had a chance to mold the program. Groups of farmers were invited to submit proposals which would help them learn more about sustainable agriculture. Funds could be used to support salary, expertise, training, communication, travel, or technical support. The groups developed their own goals, work plans, and budgets. Twelve community proposals were funded. Grants ranged from $1000 to $30,000.
The Program:
The program includes on-farm research and demonstrations, leadership development, and community development. Each of the 12 groups meets regularly to address their particular interests. Four to 12 farmers participate in each group. Most of the groups are engaged in on-farm research and demonstrations. Some groups have organized tours to other states to investigate other farming methods. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the community groups is the support the farmers receive from one another, which is needed when moving away from tradition. As one farmer said, "We feel like we are out there by ourselves. All our neighbors look at us like we are crazy." One of the farmers in each group is paid to coordinate the group and make sure progress continues. KRC staff provide programmatic support to the coordinators.
In addition to the work that goes on at the local level, the 12 groups are networked so they can learn from each other. They get together at least twice each year. They update one another on group progress, share research results, and participate in leadership development activities or other learning opportunities. For example, the farmers wanted to learn more about Holistic Resource Management, so training was offered to the Network. The Network also helped organize a joint symposium between KRC and KSU on sustainable agriculture.
The efforts of these groups is also supporting community development. One group is collectively marketing organic grains. This farmer cooperative is investigating ways to recycle an abandoned elevator to clean their own grain. Another group is marketing through an independent farmer-owned mill that provides the main source of employment in the community. Another group is exploring a grass fed beef market. Yet another is marketing produce through a local health food store. Sales of the locally grown, fresh produce have been good, which is in turn good for the farmers, the store owners, and the consumers.
Success Feeds Success:
Although this project has only been in existence two years, it has been recognized for its approach. KRC recently received funds from the Environment Protection Agency Section 319 nonpoint source program. Money will be used to fund 32 on-farm demonstrations of practices that reduce the risk of agricultural pollution.
Information from:
We sent a survey to 206 local agencies and organizations across the basin which deal with the Minnesota River, asking "what type of educational efforts are taking place in your organization?" Seventy-two people responded, telling us about what their organizations are doing. They are addressing a variety of topics, aimed at different audiences, using diverse methods.
Topics these agencies and organizations are addressing include:
These organizations are trying to reach a variety of audiences including:
Educational organizers are using a variety of methods to reach their audiences, some of them very creative:
Kretzmann and McKnight's "Precautions for All Governments" are included here because they support many of the lessons learned from successful projects.
Because governments are usually large, complex and formal, it is often difficult for them to deal effectively with small, simple and informal local asset development groups. Often government efforts to support are dominating, distorting or demeaning. These are a few principles that can help government officials avoid this overbearing propensity.
"Public servant" is the best definition of a government worker or program. A servant supports and does not control. A servant never suggests that the employer "participate" in the servant's work. The servant "supports" the employer's work.
Be clear about the limits of government. If government replaces the work of citizens and their associations, it will not have created a good society. Instead, the evidence is clear that it will have created a dependent society. And because it will not be able to fulfill all its claims, local problems will grow worse. There can never be enough schools to create effective young people. There can never be enough clinics to create health. Secure, wise, just and healthy communities are created by citizens and associations and their enterprises, supported by governments making useful investments in local assets.
Leave the credit to local citizens and their associations and enterprises. Too often, governments that have been a part of a local development effort take most of the public credit for the activity, overshadowing the efforts of local citizens and their community. The mayor cuts the ribbon. The governor announces the grant. Those who do the work go unrecognized.
Don't replace local associations and institutions with new systems, institutions, centers or agencies. One of the most significant causes of weakened local citizen initiatives, associational work and institutional capacity has been the introduction of new government sponsored structures and organizations. As new organizations appear in the neighborhood with impressive buildings or offices, lots of money, and well paid outside professionals, they unintentionally but necessarily replace some of the power, authority and legitimacy of local groups. Therefore, government representatives can ask, "What do you community folks think we should do to support you?," rather than, "We have this new program that we're bringing into your community."