Executive Summary

Addressing Nonpoint Source Agricultural Pollution

in the Minnesota River Basin:

Findings from Focus Groups

University of Minnesota staff conducted 10 focus groups with people across the Minnesota River Basin to find out what type of agricultural research, practices, and educational programs might be helpful in addressing agricultural nonpoint pollution. The groups were conducted for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Ninety-two people participated in the discussions. We held:

4 producer groups involving 31 farmers,
4 agency staff groups with 41 local staff,
1 group with 9 crop consultants, and
1 group with 11 researchers.
We found greater challenges than we expected.

Lack of awareness and great disbelief

We found lack of awareness and disbelief at several stages. First, Extension Educators who recruited farmers to participate were surprised that many farmers weren't aware of the issue of nonpoint source pollution around the Minnesota River. Second, although we expected to talk about solving agricultural nonpoint source pollution, farmers weren't ready to talk about solutions. They had questions about the problem, like:

Many farmers don't believe there is a problem with the river. Many question if the river is any different than it was 50 or 100 years ago. They say scientists may be finding pollution because measuring devices are more sophisticated and can isolate smaller increments of pollution. They also say American Indians named the river Minnesota, which means "cloudy river," ages ago, which means it has always been "polluted."
Farmers wondered what types of pollutants are in the river. Others wanted to know the impact of having things like sediment or phosphorus in the river.
Farmers see themselves as good stewards of the land and don't believe their practices contribute to the problem. Many people wonder how much of the problem comes from nature, municipalities, industry, or households as compared to farming. Many farmers feel they are being unfairly blamed.
Based on these farmer discussions, agencies have not made a believable case for the connection between agricultural practices and the quality of the Minnesota River. Farmers either don't know about or don't believe research which suggests those links.

Crop consultants raised the same types of questions and were very vocal about believing farmers are being unfairly blamed. Crop consultants also question whether there are strong links between farming practices and the quality of the Minnesota River.

Although agency staff are fully aware of the issue, they also raise the same questions as potential research topics. They feel ill-equipped to answer these questions which are continually raised. Many agency people feel these questions must be answered in credible ways for real progress to be made.

Researchers believe there is a problem and believe it is crucial to determine the source.

Research

We asked people to tell us what research should be conducted on agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Here are their priorities.

First, determine:

Secondly, if agriculture is part of the problem, then do research on economically feasible and environmentally sound:

Also, more work needs to be done to make septic systems environmentally sound in different soil types and economically feasible for rural residents.

People also gave the following advice:

Challenge to the research community: To design and conduct research which is relevant and credible to farmers and industry professionals.

Barriers to change

We gave people a list of 13 practices which can reduce agriculture's impact on the Minnesota River and asked them how doable the practices are and what makes the practices tough to do. Over half the people said these five practices are not doable:

People said costs, additional management needed, tradition, lack of better alternatives, peer pressure, rental agreements, soils, and time make these and other practices tough to do. A few farmers said their current systems work for them and they have no reason to change.

Over half the people said these practices are doable:

Farmers, crop consultants, researchers, and agency groups gave very similar rating to these practices. However, agency staff, researchers, and crop consultants were more likely to mention cultural or social barriers to adoption than were farmers.

Challenge: To make practices easier to do and give farmers reasons to change practices -- where farmers and the environment both benefit.

Education

When we asked "what kind of educational programs might be useful in addressing nonpoint source pollution," we expected farmers and crop consultants to talk about topics they were interested in. Instead, a number of people said city residents, kids, or the media should be educated. When we asked how we might get information to farmers, they said they had too much to read and too many meetings to go to already. They said if a topic isn't of personal interest or doesn't help with the bottom line, it doesn't get much attention. A number of

farmers suggested getting information to industry professionals because many, many farmers rely on people at the elevator or crop consultants for advice. (The crop consultants we talked with don't believe there is a strong connection between farming practices and the quality of the Minnesota River, and believe farmers are being unfairly blamed.)

Challenge to educators: To find creative ways to get information or educational programs to farmers and consultants who are very busy and who see the quality of the Minnesota River as a low priority.

Other challenges to MDA

People in the groups offered the following challenges:

Agency staff and researchers are frustrated with the lack of coordination of effort and turf battles. This has made it difficult for agency staff to know what research has been done by whom and what educational efforts are underway.
People are concerned about what it will cost to address or ignore NPS pollution and wonder who will pay for it. Some people feel farmers will pay more than their fair share.
People from all groups said it is important to recognize that most farmers are good stewards of the land. Taking a positive approach may be more productive than "always hammering on 100 percent of us for what half a percent are doing."

This study was completed by the following University of Minnesota faculty and staff: Mary Anne Casey, Gary Wyatt, Amy Rager, Dave Pfarr, Cindy Arnevik, Jim Anderson, Les Everett, and Lowell Busman.

February, 1996