Numeric nutrient criteria in your watershed

decrease font size  Resize text   increase font size       Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for protecting the designated uses of water resources and enforcing the Clean Water Act in the U.S., has stated that N and P pollution is a “widespread, significant, and growing problem”. The U.S. EPA expected states and tribes to adopt or revise ecoregional nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, and wetlands – that were published in 2000 and 2001 – into water quality standards by 2004.

As of December 2008 (the latest public EPA posting: half of the 50 states had not adopted numeric nutrient criteria into standards. In August 2009, a call to action was issued to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson by the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group, stating the urgent need for a “common framework of responsibility and accountability for all point and nonpoint sources.” This urgent call added to the burdens of the states because they are ultimately responsible for completing and implementing N and P loss reduction plans to protect water resources. Some states have made good headway in defining and implementing nutrient criteria for their own water resource priorities and needs. However, in Florida, which was considered to be among one of the most proactive states in developing nutrient criteria, a consent decree to settle a 2008 lawsuit forced the U.S. EPA to step in and federally establish water quality standards for lakes and flowing waters, using causal (total N and total P) or response variables (chlorophyll a and clarity).

On top of federal and state budget deficit challenges, financial and professional resources are being strained as public servants and private contractors strive to scientifically develop numeric nutrient criteria and standards. Financial and professional resources are expected to be stressed even more as standards are enforced; especially for nonpoint source or diffuse nutrient pollution, which includes agriculture. The total annual regulatory compliance costs of such numeric nutrient criteria and standards regulation have been estimated to range from hundreds of millions of dollars to multi-billions per state, based on the current case in Florida. Unsurprisingly, some state and local water quality authorities and many agricultural stakeholders question the practicality and economic feasibility of trying to regulate nonpoint source (diffuse) N and P pollution. It has been commonly argued that it would be virtually impossible to monitor individual farm and field nutrient management and application activities, while others contend that random audits could be effective enforcement “sticks”.

Most experienced agronomists, conservationists, ecologists, and land managers recognize that it takes time to accomplish significant cropping system management and conservation changes in the landscape or watershed … and it may take even longer for those changes to impact the quality of adjacent and downstream water resources. Because the large majority … if not all … of us in agriculture want to protect and preserve the integrity of our water resources, there have been increased discussions and proposals for the adoption of practice-based standards, as opposed to strict water quality or performance standards. These discussions are raising thoughtful questions, such as:

• Could increased agricultural stakeholder involvement in open discussions with state water quality authorities, and other interested parties, foster opportunities to address state-level policies that would intensify nutrient management and water quality education?
• Could state-level strategies and public policies endorse and expand implementation of science-based nutrient best
management practices (BMPs), which adhere to the principles and objectives of 4R Nutrient Stewardship?
(Visit http://www.ipni.net/4r and www.nutrientstewardship.com)
• Could pilot efforts be undertaken in selected watersheds, to evaluate the impacts of intensified ‘4R’ BMP implementation, using rigorous water quality monitoring, to evaluate achievement of scientifically-defensible, realistically-attainable, designated use goals?

If (or when) strict water quality numeric nutrient criteria and standards are required within your state, or within your watershed,how would you cope? Could you continue to farm and economically prosper with potentially mandated reductions in nutrient use? Is it time to get more involved in supporting and implementing 4R Nutrient Stewardship?


Buyers Guide

Doyle Equipment Manufacturing Co.
Doyle Equipment Manufacturing prides themselves as being “The King of the Rotary’s” with their Direct Drive Rotary Blend Systems. With numerous setup possibilities and sizes, ranging from a  more...
A.J. Sackett Sons & Company
Sackett Blend Towers feature the H.I.M, High Intensity Mixer, the next generation of blending and coating technology which supports Precision Fertilizer Blending®. Its unique design allows  more...
R&R Manufacturing Inc.
The R&R Minuteman Blend System is the original proven performer. Fast, precise blending with a compact foot print. Significantly lower horsepower requirement. Low inload height with large  more...
Junge Control Inc.
Junge Control Inc. creates state-of-the-art product blending and measuring solutions that allow you to totally maximize operating efficiency with amazing accuracy and repeatability, superior  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The flagship blending system for the Layco product line is the fully automated Layco DW System™. The advanced technology of the Layco DW (Declining Weight) system results in a blending  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The LAYCOTE™ Automated Coating System provides a new level of coating accuracy for a stand-alone coating system or for coating (impregnating) in an automated blending system. The unique  more...
John Deere
The DN345 Drawn Dry Spreader can carry more than 12 tons of fertilizer and 17.5 tons of lime. Designed to operate at field speeds up to 20 MPH with full loads and the G4 spreader uniformly  more...
Force Unlimited
The Pro-Force is a multi-purpose spreader with a wider apron and steeper sides. Our Pro-Force has the most aggressive 30” spinner on the market, and is capable of spreading higher rates of  more...
BBI Spreaders
MagnaSpread 2 & MagnaSpread 3 — With BBI’s patented multi-bin technology, these spreaders operate multiple hoppers guided by independent, variable-rate technology. These models are built on  more...


Comments (0) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left


Elevator Legs

Adams Fertilizer Equipment offers an increasing line of fertilizer handling equipment to meet the needs of today’s industry. Whether it ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Feedback Form