What are the research priorities?

How doable are recommended practices?

What kind of educational programs might be useful?

Advice/Questions

Purpose of the Report

This report is built around quotes -- the words of people in the basin. The quotes, in part, illustrate the perspectives, hope, frustration, and fear of people we talked with.

Groups

Location	Group	Number of Participants
Faribault County	Producers	7
	Agency staff	8
Le Sueur County	Producers	8
	Agency staff	10
Cottonwood/Watonwan	Producers	11
	Agency staff	10
Yellow Medicine/Chippewa	Producers	5
	Agency staff	13
Waseca Research Station	Researchers	11
Lamberton Research Station	Consultants	9

When inviting farmers, we looked for a range of ages, different sizes and types of operations, and men and women.

We invited local staff from the Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Extension Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Minnesota Pollution Control to the local agency group discussions. Local water planners and educators from nonprofit groups also participated.

Researchers were primarily from the Morris, Lamberton, and Waseca Experiment Stations. Two faculty from the State University System and one person from the US Geological Service also participated.

Private agricultural consultants from across the basin participated in the Lamberton session.

The project director of a highly successful water quality program in Nebraska recently said that you can't expect results in any agricultural NPS effort until farmers and agribusiness people believe there is a problem, believe they have something to do with it, and believe they can do something about it while remaining profitable. In addition, he said, it can't be seen as solving someone else's problem someplace else. Farmers must feel the problem hits close to home.

These conditions don't seem to exist widely across the Minnesota River Basin.

Farmers and agribusiness professionals question if there really is a problem. Others wonder what the problem is, knowing research has been done, but unsure of what it says. Some are aware of research findings, but don't find them credible. Others question how much agriculture has to do with whatever the problem is. Others believe there is a problem but believe it emanates from a different part of the basin. Others believe there is a problem which agriculture contributes to, and are taking action to reduce their impact on the river. Many believe agriculture will shoulder unfair responsibility for the Minnesota River.

Farmers feel blamed. They feel defensive. They worry about additional costs and regulations. They worry that regulations will be drafted by people with little understanding of the differing conditions farmers face across the basin resulting in blanket requirements with no flexibility.

There is widespread disbelief. People wonder...

Some farmers and agricultural consultants don't believe there is a problem. They say Minnesota means cloudy water, which suggests the river has always had high levels of sediment. Furthermore, they say, soils in the basin have naturally high levels of phosphorus, the other often cited pollutant in the river. Many said they would like to see an historical comparison of contaminants in the river. What was the river like 20, 40, or 100 years ago? Has it really gotten worse?

Do they know what was in the river back in the 30s and 40s? I would like to see comparisons to what was in it back then. (Producer, Faribault)

It may be cleaner than it was 20 years ago. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

I believe some of the research out of Iowa shows some of the levels from before are the same as they are now. (Producer, Faribault)

We have very little information on water quality. We have nothing to compare it to. We don't have water sampling from say, twenty years ago, or thirty years ago. We are just beginning with that now, so we don't really know which direction we have gone. We can say it is getting more polluted, but do we know for sure? We have nothing to compare it to. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

What started this whole process? [the series of focus groups] Was there a problem some place? Was someone downstream screaming? Because, all of a sudden, it's like, let's talk about this. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

A hundred years ago the Minnesota River was not a pristine, clean river. It was dirty back then. Nature exchanges organic matter. (Crop consultant)

What do studies show? Are they credible?

Some people wonder what is already known about the problem. They know studies have been completed, but aren't aware of the results. In some cases, people question the credibility of the tests.

I think we have to prove to ourselves where it is really coming from. If they say it is coming from here, let's get some proof. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Are the tests that used to be done anywhere near as accurate or sensitive as they are now? Are we seeing a bunch of stuff that they just didn't catch before so it looks terrible now? How sophisticated was their testing? They probably didn't have parts per million. (Producer, Faribault)

I really need to know what the problem supposedly is. (Producer, Faribault)

I had a DNR person tell me the other day, and I don't believe this, that this area had a lot of flooding before man ever inhabited it. I thought man had been blamed for almost all the flooding that took place with drainage and tillage and whatever. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

I wonder what gauge they use when they talk about pollution. They can't go back a hundred years and say this is the kind of pollution that occurred naturally. When they talk about pollution I question what would happen naturally. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Get me some unbiased scientist and get me a gallon of water and tell me everything that is in it. Then we can proceed. (Crop consultant)

How much of the problem is caused by nature?

Some people don't believe agriculture contributes much to the problem. They believe natural streambank erosion and flooding account for most of the sediment. They wonder how much wildlife and waterfowl contribute to nitrogen and phosphorus levels.

It goes through Mankato so fast. How much impact has that had on the purity of the water versus nonpoint source pollution? (Producer, Faribault)

Get a baseline on streambank erosion. This past August a friend and I took our daughters on a father/daughter canoe trip on the Chippewa... There were some banks 40 to 50 feet above us sliding into the river from the floods. There are no farm fields near there. It is just taking another cut out of the hillside as it winds through. So I wonder if a lot of it isn't natural siltation. We are getting blamed for siltation that we are not really putting there. I think there should be some way to find out what the silt load is in a stretch of tributary in a farming versus a nonfarming area. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

All the creeks and rivers are in the same condition [showing streambank erosion]. I can show it to you where 75% of the land is in CRP, so it is not necessarily farming practices. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Every time a river goes out of its banks, it erodes tremendous amounts of topsoil, chemicals, whatever, and takes it down into the river. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

You talk about pollution, what about all these geese in Lac Qui Parle? There has to be a lot of waste in the lake or river up there. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa) [Most groups questioned how much geese contribute to nonpoint source pollution]

There is a lot of finger pointing, especially at livestock set-ups. I've watched water run-off from quarter sections of CRP which is supposed to be environmentally sound. That water will run a lot browner than water running off my farm with livestock. There is a lot of decaying grass and wildlife out there. What is the nutrient count coming off the environmentally sound ground versus where you have livestock? (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

No one complains about the 200 to 300 deer that live along Elm Creek. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

We reviewed our water plan last week and one of the big discussions was, do we need to be fencing livestock out of the rivers and lakes. Then we got into the discussion of what is worse? Having cattle walk through or having 10,000 ducks on a lake. So if there was some way to look at animal impact, wildlife and domesticated, pro and con. (Agency staff, Faribault)

Is agriculture being unfairly blamed?

Some believe agriculture contributes to the problem, but also believe that it is being unfairly targeted as the main culprit. They wonder how much agriculture contributes to the problem compared to households, municipalities, and industry.

They have already taken lots of tests and we all hear it on the news. They are always talking about the nitrates and that it is always coming from agricultural land. Well, I beg to differ with them. I know they are using nitrates in the home. There are nitrates on the lawns of city dwellers and they always want to blame it all on the poor farmer. (Producer, Faribault)

Where is it coming from? If we find out some business in Mankato is dumping gallons of something in the river, the rest is academic. That is an oversimplification, but maybe it is not coming from agricultural land if you look a little deeper. (Producer, Faribault)

Dakota County SCS did a study on nitrogen applied to city lawns versus in the country. [There should be] a publication of that for the general public to make them aware of how much damage they do and not always point at agriculture. (Producer, Le Sueur)

I saw that there is more ground in lawns and grass in Minnesota than in cornfields, when you consider golf courses and everything. (Producer, Le Sueur)

You talk about pollution. Is it polluted because of chemicals or bank erosion? That word pollution is pretty loose. Then, how much of this is caused by the rural area, the farmers? How much is caused by metropolitan areas that the river runs by or through. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

What about the recreation side? Boats. Jet Skis. How do they pollute? (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

All this presupposes that pollutants are from agriculture and are severe enough to cause economic hardship to someone or long term ecological damage to something. What is the level of nitrate in the water? What is the level of sediment in the water? I'm not sure it is agriculture's responsibility. (Crop consultant)

I know we do some [contribute to pollution]. You can't help it. But I don't think farmers should take all the blame. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

How much are the cities along the river contributing to the problem with sewage effluent? (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

I don't want to point fingers but sometimes I wonder if our city cousins realize what the chemical is that they are putting on their lawns and gardens. We have to have permits to apply chemicals. In town you get a hard rain and it goes down the storm sewers and it is in a stream. I don't want to point fingers, but is the pollution rural or metro? To me, this is quite serious. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

The farmers are getting blamed for a lot of this. In town there is so much tar and I don't know of any place where water runs off quicker than tar. In our own defense, maybe there needs to be some research done on that. We are not the only ones to blame. Maybe some of the people in town who are always pointing at us need to have a little blame themselves. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Why should agriculture be the whipping boy? (Crop consultant)

It is someone else's problem

Some people believe there is a problem, but that the problem is in some other part of the basin, usually closer to the river.

Sediment is a problem that people down river are having a problem with and I am not so sure I want to be blamed for that too. (Producer, Faribault)

When water leaves the cities it has to meet specs, and of course it doesn't. For them to be able to live with it, something going in has to be better than it was. So, of course, if they are catching hell. Then you back up from there and we have to clean our end up. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

I think the pollution in Louisiana is a heck of a lot worse than it is here in Minnesota. It isn't just our responsibility to clean this sucker up. It should be everybody's on the river. (Crop consultant)

Rural residents, not just farmers, need to know what their city cousins in Savage and Shakoppee are doing to address the MN River, as well as people living in Easton. There is a lot of perception out there that the people in Faribault and Blue Earth County are protecting the river so people up there can keep on building houses and shopping malls and keep dumping more in their storm sewers without adding treatment. (Agency staff, Faribault County)

Agency staff need answers to these same questions

Most agency staff seem to believe there is a problem with the Minnesota River and that agriculture contributes to it. However, they raise many of the same questions farmers and consultants raise. Agency staff are asked these questions, particularly about relative contributions of pollution from different land uses, and aren't equipped to answer. The research they do have seems to lack credibility with people.

There has been a lot of research but somewhere along the line that is what is hindering people from doing things. They want an answer and all they are getting is gut feelings. There is no definitive answer on the research. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

There is an anti-science sentiment within the community. There is a saying that academics learn by studies and people like us learn by stories. A market research group just did a study in Redwood Falls and again and again farmers said they were "sick and tired of all these book learned, young technicians telling us how to farm. And we don't believe what we are being told by the agencies." One guy said it is commonly known that the DNR shoots the geese the day before hunting season to let them know the hunting season has started. There is all that stuff out there. And those are the stories that live in coffee shops. Any amount of research you have, that is usually dull and boring, the common people aren't going to look at. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Most Important Research

Each group was asked to generate a list of research which they thought should be done in the basin to address agricultural NPS pollution. We also shared a list of potential research projects which had been developed by University of Minnesota and MDA staff. After some discussion of all the research ideas, we asked each person to tell what research was most important to be conducted.

Major research questions are:

• Is there really a problem? (Is the river more polluted than in the past?)
• If so, what are the pollutants? What impact do they have? (So what if pollutants are in the river?)
• Where are pollutants coming from? (nature? agriculture? households? industry? municipalities?)
• If pollutants are coming from agricultural land, more research is needed in economically feasible and environmentally sound:

tillage practices,

fertilizer and manure management and application,

ways to slow water,

alternative land uses (beside corn and beans),

riparian management, and

septic systems.

Here are priorities by group:

Farmers: Although farmers challenged the assumption that agriculture is responsible for much of the nonpoint source pollution in the basin, many seem to feel that additional research on how to limit their contributions to NPS pollution is important. Farmers want to know the costs and benefits of recommended practices, so any research conducted should include this dimension. They said more research on conservation tillage, fertilizer and manure management, and slowing drainage would be helpful.

Agency staff: About half the agency people think research related to identifying the problem, finding the source of the problem, and describing the consequences or "so what" of the problem is most important. The other half want research on economically feasible and environmental sound solutions including alternative land uses, effective riparian management, nitrogen and phosphorus management including manure management, and septic systems.

Crop consultants: Crop consultants believe it is crucial to identify the problem and where it is coming from. They believe agriculture is being blamed unjustly.

Researchers: Researchers believe it is most important to study the relative contributions of sediment from uplands, riparian areas, streambanks, and streambeds.

When talking about research, people also gave the following advice:

Understand the social and cultural aspects of the issue

Agency staff and researchers believe it is important to understand the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of the problem as well as the technical and economic facets of the problem and solutions.

The problem is complex. There are economic aspects, social aspects, as well as production aspects. I think some research is needed to integrate some of these issues. Whatever we come up with in terms of BMPs has to make sense from an economic standpoint, a social standpoint, and a production standpoint. (Researcher)

Conduct research in an integrated way

All groups said research should be conducted in an integrated way. Too often researchers look at an isolated practice and don't look at how that practice relates to the overall system.

We need some research on interrelationships. If you change tillage practices, what impact does that have on herbicides, weed growth, fertility. We don't always know how those things are going to interrelate. (Crop consultant)

Don't reinvent the wheel

Many people suggest "find out what research has already been done and share that with people." A few people think too much emphasis is put on research and not enough on doing something.

I think we have to do our homework better. We have a lot of information. Talking to people on campus, there has been a lot of monitoring along the tributaries for a long period of time. A lot of that information hasn't been brought to bear on this issue. (Researcher)

How Doable are these Practices?

These are the percentages of people who rated each practice a one or two, which we categorized together as "not doable"

Financial considerations are one of the things that are holding back a lot of things that would be environmentally good. I always say we are probably as good environmental people as we can afford to be. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

But others said it takes more than money. Tradition, peer pressure, lack of alternatives, rental agreements, soils, time, additional management needed, and further complication of the farming system all make practices tough to do. Farmers, agency staff, researchers, and crop consultants had very similar perceptions about why these practices are tough to do. Therefore, only quotes from farmers and agency staff are included here.

Over half the people rated these five practices as not doable. They are discussed below:

Eliminate surface tile inlets

Ridge-till or strip (in-row) tillage

Alternative crops in rotation (legumes, small grains, etc. in rotation or strip crops)

Restored or constructed wetlands

Contour planting or farming, including low slopes

Eliminating surface tile inlets is the practice which seems least doable to all groups: farmers, agency staff, researchers, and crop consultants. Eliminating surface tile inlets means losing crops and, in turn, money. Agency staff said many landowners have been putting in tile inlets for decades and aren't likely to pull them out without a good alternative.

Producer quotes

If you are going to eliminate surface tile inlets you might as well construct wetlands. Those inlets are there for a reason -- to get rid of surface water so we can grow a crop. We put inlets in every year because we find spots that are drowned out. (Producer, Le Sueur)

If we took those tile intakes out, by the time that surface water drained down, our crop would be gone. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

It is either go with that open tile inlet or go without a crop. So it is closely tied with economics. (Producer, Faribault)

We need them to get rid of the water. (Producer, Faribault)

There are no alternatives right now. If I didn't have my intakes I would have lost half my crop in 92-93. Give me an alternative to get rid of the water before the crop is dead and I will do it but right now the surface tile inlet is the way to go. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Agency quotes

You have to remember that they started putting clay tile in around the beginning of the century. We have three generations of people who have grown up with tile in the ground. You are not going to change those people's beliefs in one or two years. It is ingrained. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

When you get to drainage, there is a big economic factor. We just finished doing our cash rental survey and there is a 10 to 15 dollar an acre advantage for rental rates on land that is well drained for average land and 25 to 30 dollars on good well drained land. So whether you are the person renting it out or the person renting it, there is a very strong economic tie. (Agency person, Faribault)

Who is going to pay the farmer for that land? He is not going to be able to farm it if you take away the tile intakes and there are no alternatives to that. He is generating income and paying taxes on that property. And you are going to come along and say "you have to put a buffer strip around it or you have to eliminate it?" It is going to take money for him to do that. He would have to have some forgiveness on taxes and possibly a rental payment or program similar to CRP. (Agency person, Faribault)

A lot of [surface tile inlets] have been installed in the last five years and they are very dear to the farmers. Recent memories have caused them to put them in -- storm events, flooding. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

If we had better alternatives it might be possible but at this point we don't have enough knowledge of what they could do instead. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

Ridge till

About two-thirds of the people in the focus groups said ridge-till was not doable. They cited costs of changing equipment, difficulty in managing the system, wet/cold soils, no apparent benefit for doing it, problems with cropping rotations and manure application, a high learning curve, and lack of cultural acceptance as reasons why ridge tilling is tough to do.

Producer quotes

You can't build the ridges one year and tear them down the next. I grow peas for Green Giant. How would you do it? (Producer, Le Sueur)

How would you do it on rented land? You never know. (Producer, Le Sueur)

I don't think it pays off that much economically. It isn't that advantageous, is it? (Producer, Le Sueur)

It is an investment. You have to invest in different equipment. (Producer, Le Sueur)

It is muddy. It is too wet. Too cold. The more trash you have on top the longer it takes to warm up. (Producer, Faribault)

They say Minnesota River Basin. Well, how many different soil types and slopes are included in this? You can't make a general statement. If you are spreading a lot of manure on top of the ground and not working any manure in, you are going to have problems. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Soil types make a big difference. And livestock versus non-livestock. It is hard to get that manure spreader to fit in the ridges. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Agency quotes

Any type of farming depends on the soil, the capability of the land owner, and the financial situation they are in. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

We have ridge till equipment and believe it or not, we have abandoned it. It is expensive to operate. It requires a large investment in chemical and pesticide application, it is impossible for us to use unless it is in a strict row crop rotation and we don't want to go row-crop, row-crop, corn and soybeans. We need more alternatives. For us, I don't see it as doable. We have to recognize that conventional farming methods can be soil conserving. There are many, many different kinds of farming that can be considered conservation farming methods. Ridge till is too much investment, too much chemical required to make it work. We had one technician who was determined to make it work and we had some of the best crops you could ask for. We made the neighbors look silly. When we lost that technician our ridge till went down the toilet and I can't get the others to spend the time and effort to learn it. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

We have ridge tillers who do quite well, who do it without heavy chemicals. The reason they do it is to eliminate the reliance on chemicals. So it can work, and it does work. But I recently asked a ridge tiller why more people haven't adopted it. His answer was money. They are making too much money with sugarbeets and there is no reason to change. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Crop rotations make it less doable. You can't go with small grains or they have to have a very tall stem. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

It is culturally unacceptable by the majority of people in my county. They just won't give it a try. It fails too frequently to promote it. (Agency person, Faribault)

As a ridge tiller, I am not too sure it fails too frequently. It takes a high level of management and the learning curve is extremely steep and if you happen to hit one of those failures or a bad year in that learning curve a lot of people are quick to give it up. It also has some problems in a continuous corn situation. (Agency person, Faribault)

Economics. Some will argue that in the long run you will save money by switching to reduced tillage equipment but it doesn't happen that way. You have the high tech equipment but you keep the low tech equipment and continue to pay for it. (Agency person, Faribault)

Not all landscapes lend themselves to ridge tilling because of the shape of the land. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

Alternative crops in rotation

All groups said the main drawback to alternative crops is that none are as profitable as corn, soybeans, or sugarbeets. Farmers can raise them, but there are no good markets, and because few farms have livestock, few have uses for these crops within their own operations. Some people say government programs work against alternative crops. Crop consultants and researchers also said farmers are comfortable growing corn and beans. Alternative crops seem riskier. At least one person questioned whether some alternative crops are as environmentally friendly as corn and beans.

Producer quotes

Really, if you don't have livestock...We need the oats and the alfalfa, so we have to rotate the crops to take care of the livestock. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Government programs restrict what can be done. Last year was a set-aside, the next year will be none. You have to plan a couple years in advance to do things like that. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

It would be doable if you had something that would net us per acre what corn and soybeans can do. It is strictly economics. (Producer, Faribault)

Even legumes aren't that great a crop in this area. Just too wet. Can't depend on consistently high yields. (Producer, Faribault)

There is no market for them. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Farmers are no different than anyone else. They don't want to change if they don't have to. If we can make money growing corn and soybeans, we are going to continue to do that. When we can't we'll change because the situation makes it necessary. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Agency quotes

They don't need hay anymore. All the dairy is gone. And the small grains, oats and stuff, is worthless. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

The farm program works against it, you have to keep your corn base up. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Can't make any money on alternative crops right now. If you could, they would plant them. (Agency person, Faribault)

You have to look at it from the ag economy. What is most profitable for producers? He has to make a profit at the end of the year. If you haven't got livestock you aren't going to raise alfalfa or small grains. There is no market for alfalfa or small grains. Corn and soybeans seem to be the money makers. That is what is driving a lot. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

I am not sure a small grain is any more environmentally friendly than a corn or soybean crop. If I take an oat crop off in August it exposes that ground to more erosion than if I had left it in corn. We rotate canning crops in this area, but a lot of that is tilled right after it is harvested in mid-June, early July. I'm not sure having another crop is always the answer. (Agency person, Faribault)

Restore or construct wetlands

Some farmers said it doesn't make sense to restore or reconstruct wetlands. They drained the land so they could produce a crop. They pay taxes on the land and want to use it to make a living.

Producer quotes

Economics. We would starve to death without our wetlands to farm. You take our wetlands away and all our acres would probably drop in half in Le Sueur County. (Producer, Le Sueur)

We invested the money in drying it out. It would be foolish to take it out. (Producer, Le Sueur)

Retired people who are renting out their land would have an attack if we said "no, we are not going to pay rent on two-thirds of your land because it is low." It is not going to happen. (Producer, Le Sueur)

Why would you want to put it back into wetlands? (Producer, Faribault)

Whose pocket does it come out of? If you are still paying taxes it has to cash flow. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Agency staff also cited financial considerations as one of the main reasons landowners find restoring wetlands tough. Agency staff also said restoring wetlands represents a fundamental shift in thinking; for years farmers have tried to get rid of water, now they are being asked to store water. Several agency people, researchers, and crop consultants said even if farmers want to restore or construct wetlands it is difficult because it impacts neighbors. Some people believe farmers are willing to do it if money is available to do it.

Agency quotes

They were trying to get rid of those things [wetlands] so they wouldn't have to farm around them. Now you want them to put them back? (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

There is a lot of resistance. They have worked hard over the years to get rid of water and now we are asking them to pond water again. That is a shift in thinking. That can be tough for people to do. They worked all their lives to get rid of water and now why the hell should they turn around and pond it. They spent thousands of dollars to get rid of it. Water is the enemy. There is a mindset that water creates problems. They are in the business of producing crops. Part of that is managing water. In this area that means getting rid of excess water. (Agency staff, Le Sueur)

If it is well tiled, they are not going to smash those tiles. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

People are willing to do it. You just have to have the money there. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

In this county roughly 55% of the ground owned is not farmed by the owner. It is tenant farmed. We have a significant amount of land where the structure decisions, the wetland decisions, are in someone else's hands. If I am a widow and I have 72 acres to rent, I am not going to be thrilled if you come out and want me to put four of those acres in wetlands. At $125 per acre that is $500 out of my pocket that I am living on. We have other people making decisions for producers as well. (Agency person, Faribault)

We have talked a lot with land owners about what the barriers are. Even if you have a willing land owner, the neighbors will stop the project. Especially if it is on a legal ditch system. My analysis of it so far, is not that it is a matter of money, it is not a matter of technology. It is a matter of social perception and the ditch and drainage laws that really are against the person who wants to restore. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Contour planting or farming, including low slopes

Farmers believe contour planting takes too much time, requires different equipment, is frustrating because the rows don't work out, and isn't needed on low slopes.

Producer quotes

A lot of people in the southeast district do a lot of contour farming. They have learned how to do it well but when you're talking about large flat ground with a lot of tiling, to get it into contour stripping they are going to say "go jump in the river." (Producer, Le Sueur)

On some ground I have I think I would be turning myself in circles. I thought about doing contour on a 25 acre tract and you don't go very far before you have to turn around. I would never get done with that field in a day. (Producer, Faribault)

Our machinery doesn't lend itself to a lot of point rows either. It is time consuming. It takes extra inputs. (Producer, Faribault)

We have ways to manage our residue that are a lot better than contour planting. (Producer, Faribault)

It would sure add time and restrict farm size. (Producer, Le Sueur)

Especially when you are considering lower and lower slopes. No sense driving in circles at that point. (Producer, Faribault)

We do a lot of contouring but it is frustrating to make things come out. You always end up with waste. You plant one year and everything comes out and the next year you have one or two rows that it doesn't work to cultivate. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

It's not necessary with flat or flatter ground. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Agency quotes

This series of comments from the Cottonwood/Watonwan agency group sums up the reasons shared by agency staff, crop consultants, and researchers.

It isn't conducive to bigger equipment.

It creates a lot of point rows and that doesn't work.

It runs counter to the philosophy of the straight line stuff.

If there is another point there it is another weed patch.

It is expensive to the farmer, lost production.

It is just like terraces. You can sell terraces on 12 rows but they have to be straight with the world.

Educational Programs to Address NPS Pollution

People answered by talking about who might be educated, frustrations with getting information to people, frustrations with getting people to care, what educational processes might work, and topics for education.

Who might be involved in education

Some farmers seemed a bit offended by the question of what educational programs might be useful and asked in return "who do you think needs educating?" In response we asked them who they thought might need education on NPS pollution. Some people said people in cities should be educated, others said it would be helpful to educate kids. Some said the media should be better informed.

Farmers, researchers, and agency staff said it would be helpful if cooperatives and consultants had information on agricultural NPS research and practices which they could pass onto farmers. Many farmers said they rely on dealers and consultants for advice. (An interesting note is that the consultants we talked with don't believe agricultural practices contribute much to problems in the Minnesota River.) Many agency people believe creating partnerships with suppliers is important to addressing NPS pollution.

I don't go to a lot of these educational functions because of time and as farmers we are so bombarded with information we just don't want to know any more. But I rely on key people as far as seed, equipment, and other things. These people are probably attending those functions. I rely on a certain group of people in lieu of me chasing all over. As a farmer, I could go to a meeting every day. I just don't enjoy it. And a lot of it is redundant. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Show the coops the benefits of the research. Economic benefits. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

You've got to make sure the local elevators are hit because that is where a number of farmers get their information. If the people at the local elevator have a handle on this it would streamline the process. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

We need to partner with for-profit businesses which work with farmers. The farmers in our counties have a lot more contact with the crop consultant or agronomist than they do with us. If we can work with the people who are working with farmers, include some key farm leaders. Then when they are at the coffee shop, maybe the conversation goes in that direction. I think we need to rethink how we get the message out there. (Agency person, Faribault)

We have to get information to crop consultants, but I also think we need to listen to them. Most of these people have as much training and professional background as any of us sitting here, so it is not only giving information but it is listening about the practices and research needed. We could pick one of these 13 practices and decide that will be our goal and all move forward. But if the agronomist over here says "that is a bunch of BS, that is never going to work in Easton, Minnesota," there won't be many farmers adopting it. Especially if that person is highly respected. It is key that they are part of a partnership and I think there is good potential for that. (Agency person, Faribault)

One group we haven't addressed is the supplier, the dealer. We talked about nitrogen and phosphorus management and manure as being a problem. Well, manure is just another source of nutrients. If we have manure we have to draw back on commercial fertilizer. Fertilization is a matter of working with dealers and MDA has a responsibility to work with dealers. (Researcher)

Farmers also said it would be helpful to get results of research to them, but they said this is difficult to do.

Frustrations with getting information and education to people

Farmers said they have so much to read, so many meetings to go to, and so much to worry about that it is tough to get their attention. They are overwhelmed with information. Agency staff are frustrated by this and wonder how to get information to farmers.

There is too much information coming out so you don't know what to read and what not to. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

I have been a participant in I don't know how many plots. This summer we went to a lot of effort to organize a tour. The seven people who showed up were all involved because it was on their land. Then we had all the educators. Two people showed up because they were interested. It was very well broadcast and announced. We even had free lunch. But people didn't come. I don't know what you do. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Even when farmers are aware, they are aware of this plus 6000 other things that they are being bombarded with. It gets to the point that "OK, I am aware of it but what are the two or three things that determine whether I am in business tomorrow or not." And sometimes it is "I know the river is important. I know not polluting it is important. But I am up to my neck in alligators. Let's focus on how I am going to make my payment tomorrow." (Agency person, Faribault)

This is something Extension struggles with all the time. Every person has four meetings each night that they could go to and it gets harder and harder to get people to come to a meeting, no matter how vital. The whole education thing is such a struggle. How do you get it to people? Our lives are so busy, it gets to where the only thing I need is to stay home one night to spend time with my family. (Agency person, Faribault)

A lot of the information is already there, but how do you get it to farmers or anybody. A lot of farmer aren't aware of some things and too much of what they are aware of is misinformation, coffee shop information. (Agency person, Faribault)

Frustrations with getting people to care

Besides the problem of getting information to busy people, agency staff wonder about how to get people to care about the river, particularly people who don't live close to any river. If people don't care, practices won't change.

How do you convince people that we all have a role in preventing NPS pollution -- to acknowledge that we pollute in our day to day activities. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

It is a constant tussle to keep the farm community from pointing fingers at the lake residents and vice versa. The lake residents say "Oh, it is all those hog farmers." There is plenty of need for people to do things differently. Combined they will make a difference. How do we get the public to understand their role and how we have gotten to where we are and that it will take time to reverse that trend if we want clean water. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

How are you going to sell people on a clean Minnesota River when they don't live near the river? Why should I care? (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

As an educator, I would like to know what successful educational programs are out there that work to convince someone who is 25 miles from the river that his production practices influence the MN River, the Blue Earth River, whatever. That he should care about it. How do we get people to adopt practices long term? (Agency person, Faribault)

Educational methods that might work

People shared their ideas about types of educational strategies that might work. There was no general consensus about what should be done. A number of people said if you want to get farmers' attention, talk about the economic implications of research and practices. A number of people talked about the need for cooperation. Here are a few of the things people suggested:

I think we need to talk about consequences. What are the ramifications of continuing on the path we are on, practices we have. There is an economic cost to that. There are a lot of different costs involved with the way we have been doing business. Do we really understand that? What are the costs of changing it? What are the long term benefits? Where is the incentive to do things differently? (Agency person, Le Sueur)

What do you mean by education? I think a lot of what may pass as education would be just data. I think you need community organizing around small watersheds utilizing individuals within that watershed as spokespeople. If your ultimate objective is to improve water quality in the Minnesota River, most of the people living in Three Mile Creek don't care about it. They don't even care about the Redwood River. Maybe they care a little about Three Mile Creek but what they might care about is that little stream that runs along the back 40. That is how we try to approach it. Very localized. Utilizing peers around whole farm planning. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

You have to show it increases cash flow. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Topics for education

Most people said education about the research and practices which had been discussed earlier in the focus group would be helpful:

• Is there really a problem?
• What are the pollutants? What impact do they have?
• Where are the pollutants coming from?
• If pollutants are coming from agricultural land, what are economically feasible and environmentally sound ways to address NPS pollution?

Researchers felt strongly that the Minnesota Extension Service is no longer able to adequately serve the educational needs of farmers, due to budget cuts and changes in priorities. They called for a beefing up of MES to better address agricultural NPS pollution problems.

Advice

Coordinate efforts

Agency staff and researchers are frustrated with the lack of coordination of efforts and the difficulty in knowing who is doing what. They admit not knowing what research has already been done or what results show. This lack of coordination leads to pitting one organization against another. Local people don't know who to believe because they get conflicting information. This limits the effectiveness of all efforts. Researchers seemed particularly frustrated with the lack of coordination and turf battles.

We are sitting here with five or six different agencies. And there are 30 of them that aren't here that are working on the Minnesota River. It seems to me that the very first thing that needs to be done is a clearinghouse so we know who is working on what. This is just unreal. Everyone wants to get on the bandwagon. There is not a public or private agency that it not doing it. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Nobody knows who is doing what. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

I think our problem is the use of the pronoun "we." Frankly, we've got people out there saying, "I don't trust PCA and the USGS, so we are going to work with MNRAT." We end up diametrically opposed, at least perceptionally, from people saying, "I don't trust this group but I trust this group." We lose the "we." We need to integrate more so the "we" has a broader context and we are all aware of what each other is doing... There have been immense errors on all sides, myself included. We haven't included the team that we should. (Researcher)

I am a relative newcomer to Minnesota. I am overwhelmed with the amount of confusion there is with all the different agencies. I can't keep it straight. I am constantly confused. There are all sorts of groups that are out there and I don't know the objectives of most of these groups. From an educational standpoint, I can't keep track of it. I don't know where I fit in from a research standpoint, an education standpoint. It is difficult to figure out what kind of information is already out there. As a researcher, I feel hobbled because I don't know and I don't have time to dig to figure all this out. I would like to see a summary of some of the different groups out there, how they interact, and what kinds of information they have. (Researcher)

You don't have to be new [to Minnesota] to be overwhelmed by all the garbage that goes on. Who has done what, who is biased, who to believe. I think farmers are just about ready to throw their hands in the air on these issues. (Researcher)

There is a lot of disagreement and speculation about where the primary source of sediment is from citizens up to the agency level. This disagreement is leading to problems at the local level. I've had people say they are reluctant to go out and push really, really hard with landowners to reduce erosion when landowners have a strong perception that the majority of sediment is being scoured from the banks. This is an issue that keeps coming back and back. (Researcher)

If we spend millions and millions of dollars on nonpoint source research, do you think PCA will believe what Ag does? Do you think Ag will believe what PCA does? We can spend all the money in the world and keep us going with agency welfare, but until we give a united front as researchers, quit fighting each other, sit down and argue with each other, get is solved and work together, integrate and educate. If we don't integrate first, everyone is going to tell a different story and we will end up with a tax revolution. (Researcher)

All the turf battles and wars need to be fought, a truce declared, and responsibilities divided up so that the public knows what arm is going to do what. Then proceed in an integrated way to bring information and education to the farmer. In reality, the various turf battles are fought with ignorance of what the other one really knows. (Researcher)

My advice is that all the agencies that have a stake in this learn how to play together and not beat each other up on this thing. Forget the turf protection stuff and just get after the real job at hand. I think MDA is pretty good at playing well with others. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

Recognize the positive

Farmers believe most farmers are good stewards of the land and a few bad apples give the rest a bad reputation. Farmers know it is not in their own best interest to let their topsoil wash or blow away, to over fertilize, or to let chemicals wash away. Agency staff believe those farmers who are using good practices should be recognized and rewarded.

Most farmers are looking out for the betterment of the soil and themselves, not letting it run down the river. (Producer, Le Sueur)

It is important for MDA to recognize that the farmers are probably one of the most astute environmental groups out there. They are really concerned about how they are affecting the environment. For economics, they are not going to put on too much fertilizer or chemicals. (Crop consultant)

We need an "at-a-boy" or girl. Somebody might be doing something right but we never hear about that. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

[MDA should] recognize the steps that have been made in improving water quality in the MN River in the past. Identify the economic benefits that were realized from that improvement. Recognize land owners who are doing things right. Provide recognition and rewards. Do not reward the wrong doers. Don't hold out financial incentives to those who refuse to correct a problem unless money is given. Let's reward people who are doing a good job. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

I think farmers want to be recognized for doing something right and the River Friendly Farmer program is aimed at doing that. I think farmers would be a lot more receptive to pleas to do more if they were first recognized for the things they are already doing well. Once you begin to see signs on the landscape that this farmer is a river friendly farmer, he is doing something right, then I am hoping others will be more receptive to the idea that there is a relationship between farming and water quality. There will be less denial and more receptiveness once you acknowledge the positive that is going on. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

See some of the positive things we are doing. Don't just pick up on the negatives. There is land that is abused and a lot of that is because of bigness. But the majority of people take care of their land. Maybe they have to look at the individuals and not write a law that everyone has to live with. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

It would be nice if they came to the area and wrote down the good things instead of always hammering on 100% of us for what half a percent are doing. (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

Who will pay? What will it cost?

People are concerned about how much it will cost to address (or ignore) NPS pollution and wonder who is going to pay for solutions. Some people feel farmers will pay more than their share of the cost.

My experience as a farmer has been that when it comes to paying, especially in Blue Earth County, farmers have paid more than their fair share already. (Producer, Faribault)

We all read the Mankato paper and hear the Mankato news. It is always about the farmers are polluting this or that. And we all know who pays. If there is a big clean-up, we won't pay it all, but we will pay more than our share. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it is going to be. (Producer, Faribault)

Who is going to pay for solutions? Who is going to be responsible for that? The farmer right now is fairly heavily strapped financially. Any extra burdens could put a lot of them out of business. I think that is a ramification. (Crop consultant)

At what cost? Are the taxpayers willing to pay? Or do they tax corn and bean production or do they tax whatever? It takes money to put these BMPs on the land, somebody pays for it. I haven't heard any side of the DFL or Republicans raising their hands saying they are willing to raise taxes for water quality purposes. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

MDA should look at all the costs of conventional agricultural production. The economic costs and the environmental costs of the current way of doing things including water quality problems downstream which taxpayers will eventually have to foot the bill for. It seems we are on a non-sustainable roller coaster here. (Agency person, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

I am wondering who will bear the cost on [restoring wetlands]. If that is a way to slow down some of our water movement into the river, maybe that will change the whole hydrology. Whose cost is that? Is it the individual who happens to own that land or is it the people on Lake Pepin or everyone who uses the Mississippi? (Agency person, Faribault)

Consider the costs and consequences of your actions, what you demand. (Consultants)

Be flexible and don't mandate

We never asked about regulations or mandates but farmers and agency staff advised against them. Farmers worry that inflexible regulations will be developed by people who don't understand the diversity and complexity of farming. They advise against creating regulations or approaches which appear to be forced upon farmers.

No one wants to be a polluter. As long as we don't have regulations shoved down our throats it is a lot more palatable to sit down and talk about it in a group like this. But is you were wearing a badge and saying "here is what you are going to do," that doesn't go down very well. I detected a bit of resentment from everyone who talked here tonight. (Producer, Faribault)

The trouble with the mandate is that someone who doesn't know anything about what is going on is the one who makes the rules. That is where the problems come from. You can take 1000 farmers and each one will have a different situation but the guy in the capital doesn't know that. He says "you all have to do it." (Producer, Cottonwood/Watonwan)

You have to impress on people the need for it and it has to be in the spirit of cooperation. It can't be what is being done now, a sledge hammer and a 2 X 4 approach. If you can sell them on the need for it and they can afford to do it, you will get it done. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Realize that each farmer is different. Some decisions have to be made back here rather than being told all the time how we have to do things. It doesn't always work. We farm a variety of different land and what works on one farm doesn't work on the next. There isn't one solution. There have to be a variety of solutions for us. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

We need a spirit of cooperation. We need incentives to do a good job. And most of all we need the cooperation of farmers. So far we seem to be using a club on them as we did with the farm program. You tow the line or you don't get paid. I think we have come to the end of where that will be effective. We will need to get the voluntary cooperation of these people. You can't get that by turning them off. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

We have way too many government regulations now. When you put regulations on producers we need to be flexible and justifiable so they can understand it. And I think there has to be economic incentives to producers to get them to do anything. (Agency person, Faribault)

Continue to listen

People appreciated the chance to say what they think in an open, non-judgmental environment. They commended MDA for listening to people and recommended that they their efforts to be in touch with people at the local level. However, they suggest that MDA staff conduct the discussions, rather than having information filtered through another person.

Thank you for having meetings like this where they are going out into what I call the "real world" and listening to people who are farming and consulting. I would thank them for that. Then I would encourage them to do it more often and to have themselves come out and listen -- not rely on what is passed back. I think there is tremendous wisdom out in the country. (Consultant)

My advice is to get in the car and get out into the country and talk to a number of farmers all over the watershed. Get a close look at the people on the land and how they feel. How they think. What they are doing. Get out rather than trying to figure it out from St. Paul. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Get out and work with farmers... You can move a lot faster and be more efficient if you get the farmer involved. Get out and work with leaders in the community. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

Get to know your constituency... I think they are starting to do that with meetings like this. They are more receptive to people bringing forth ideas. They are communicating better with other agencies and local units of government. So I would say continue that. (Agency person, Le Sueur)

Let decisions be made and implemented locally

Farmers and agency staff believe efforts to address NPS pollution will be more successful if local people make decisions and implement programs.

Let some decisions be made locally because they will use common sense. Our local watershed can make better recommendations than from Chicago, like the Army Corps of Engineers. Our local watershed is better qualified to tell us what we need. (Producer, Yellow Medicine/Chippewa)

Use some common sense. They get into things that aren't feasible. Sometimes it doesn't take a brilliant IQ to know that some things aren't going to work. It might work somewhere else. People in their own locality will have an idea of whether it will work. (Producer, Le Sueur)

We need to utilize the local governments that are there. Look at the local level. We have NRCS, SWCD, Extension, water planners, Feedlots, Septics, Solid Waste. All those people are available at the local level.... We need to get the county people doing what they need to be doing and all moving in the same direction. Not having this left wing out there that's opposite and contrary to everyone else. (Agency person, Cottonwood/Watonwan)