Farmers VS Contractors

Today I received this comment:

"It blows me away that all you do is look at contractors when by far and away the biggest polluter of our streams are farmers, not the big one but the small ones. They are the sacred cow and nobody cares."

I heard almost the same comment when I was talking with a contractor a few days ago.  So I thought I would reprint a discussion thread from last spring on the Save our Stream blog.

Sumary of the discussion below

"Why get upset about pollution from contractors or urban dwellers, when farmers are really contributing more nutrients to our lakes?" 

While this is true, I don't think it's a productive argument, because it's divisive.  It's a form of blaming others.  It invites others to do the same.  Urban dwellers earn the right to criticise farmers when city people get their own house in order.  While contractors contribute just 19% of lake nutrients, they are highly organized, with relatively few people making decisions.  If contractors cannot clean up their act, then who can?

Details of the discussion thread

LukeW said...

Hi,

Nice post, glad you're passionate about the lakes. Just wanted to point out that a lot of P (as in phosphorous) going into Mendota comes from fertilizer and animal waste from the farms up-river, not really from the city itself.

Here's a good paper written on it. http://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/187

 -Luke

May 17, 2010 8:36 PM

Webmaster said...

Luke,

Thanks for calling that article to my attention. You are probably right that more of the phosphorus (fertilizer) going into the lakes comes from agriculture outside the city. Unfortunately, that has often been used as an argument for doing little within the city.

The article addresses import and export of phosphorus to/from the watershed (such as into the soils), not phosphorus actually going into the lake. In addition, for the city, they looked only at fertilizer on lawns. They ignored all other kinds of input to lakes, such as dog waste, leaf litter, ashes, and leakage from sewage pipes. So I suspect the study underestimates urban contributions to lake fertilization.

Anyway, as city dwellers, we need to do our part!

May 21, 2010 1:32 PM

LukeW said...

David,

You're absolutely right that as city dwellers we need to do our part too. But it is dangerous to start chasing potential phosphorous inputs that, according to our best estimates, are small or unimportant compared to the real culprits of change in our lakes.

For example, dog waste is likely minimal. You could try estimating it by looking at dog food imports into Madison, but it likely doesn't approach the estimated 700,000 kg/y that just corn fertilizer represents.

Sewage pipe leakage is a tough one, it would be very difficult to estimate accurately. But one could still think critically about it. Due to their buried position, any major leakage would probably show up in ground water impacts before it became a major contribution to the lake (I'm of course not referring to major inputs from sewage placed directly into the lake before proper treatment started).

In the end, this is all about most effectively using state funds to mitigate problems with the lake. It is very likely that one of the most cost effective reductions in phosphorous is not mitigation efforts in Madison, it is most likely working with farmers in the watershed to cut down on field and animal waste runoff. I think this cost-benefit analysis need to be considered.

-Luke

May 26, 2010 8:58 PM

Webmaster said...

Luke, you are absolutely right that agriculture runoff is key for the big lakes. Cost-benefit analysis is also very important. If ag runoff is your interest, go for it! Every one's contribution is needed.

However, for Lake Wingra, urban runoff must be the most important contribution.

Before urban citizens gain the right to preach to their rural brothers, they first have to get their own house in order. The lakes are our recreation, but agriculture represents their income. Urban citizens weigh in with more people, but farmers have a more intense interest in continuing agriculture as they know it. With a City Engineering dept, we have a whole infrastructure that farmers don't have.

In a sense, comparing urban to rural inputs is like comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure where this leads, except to say, again, that we urban dwellers have to do our part. When you single out one group, even the most important, the whole political thing starts to descend to finger pointing.

We point to the farmers and say, "You're most important, for reason A, so you do something first." They point back and say Urban dwellers are the most important, for reason B. Stalemate.

The science is important, but this goes beyond science arguments. Somehow, we all have to find the will to do something more rigorous, because we all care, and we all want to succeed. When Wisconsinites reach that point of commitment, we will all pitch in, roll up our sleeves, and get to work, without asking who is the baddest actor.