Agricultural Nonpoint Source Controls: Implications of Recent Legislation for Scott County, Minnesota

ABSTRACT

Interview responses from a 1983 targeted survey of 50 farmers with highly erodible cropland in Scott County, Minnesota, indicated a majority, 83 percent, would decline to participate in a voluntary state cost-sharing program for erosion reduction because of interferences with crop rotation, unsuitability of practices with their farming operations, inadequate cost sharing, and cash flow problems. The passing of a federal act, the 1985 Farm Bill (the Food Security Act), appeared to have the power to require conservation on highly erodible cropland until relaxation of provisions in 1988 weakened its conservation guidelines. However, another program, the Minnesota Surface Water Management Act, has required local units of government to prepare and enforce management plans for surface water quantity and quality within the boundaries of a watershed. This law will require rules and regulations that will reduce soil loss from erodible areas. It appears that for effective conservation on erodible farmlands, and thus a reduction in agricultural nonpoint source pollution, programs will have to be mandatory rather than voluntary. Conservation initiatives will have to originate from the local level with local input and local enforcement.