Are the current regulations of fertilizers and farm pollution effective at protecting water quality and ecosystems in Wisconsin, and do they meet the needs of all stakeholders in the issue?
Background and History:
Nutrient and fertilizer pollution, also known as agricultural pollution, is defined as the process in which nutrients from fertilizers, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, make their way into and contaminate bodies of water. The main kinds of agricultural pollution includes pesticides and fertilizers being used on crops. As nutrient levels in soil are depleted, and new invasive species are introduced, fertilizers and pesticides have increasingly been developed with chemicals to combat these issues. However, this creates new problems as once these products are sprayed onto fields, they absorb into the ground and enter the aquifers. As the fertilizers seep into water sources, they introduce dangerous chemicals and elements into groundwater, lakes, and streams. This can lead to contamination of drinking water used by public or private wells (“Causes and Effects of...”, 2013). So while crops grow healthy, local water sources are polluted, causing multiple issues among people and wildlife, as well as posing health dangers. What a farmer spreads or sprays onto their fields depends on the farmer; however, manure, fertilizers, waste, and ammonia alike all contain nitrates that can reduce oxygen levels in water. Manure and other animal waste can also introduce bacteria into drinking water, and lead to diseases being spread through consumption. The decreased quality of the water sources are especially dangerous in private wells that are not monitored or treated by cities or local governments. In Wisconsin, over 1,000 different lakes and streams have experienced unnatural growths of bacteria and plants, leading to closed beaches and damage to wildlife. Furthermore, fertilizers and manure have been found to contaminate drinking water for over 100,000 Wisconsin families (Steven Verburg, 2018). Agricultural pollution is affecting every type of water source in Wisconsin, no matter if it is a lake or a drinking water pipeline. The main issue is connected to how fertilizers affect health and ecosystems within Wisconsin. High nitrate levels from fertilizers can have various health impacts including neural tube defects, increased risk of thyroid disease, and colon cancer. Furthermore, nitrates can turn hemoglobin (protein carrying oxygen in the blood) into methemoglobin which in high levels can turn skin a blueish gray color and cause feelings of weakness, fatigue, and excess heart rates (“Nitrate in Private Wells”, 2018). While fertilizers such as manure and chemicals have been used for almost a hundred years, the idea of them causing pollution and contamination began around the 1970’s green movement, since then numerous of studies have been done to help identity the dangers, and government sectors and conservationists have worked to impose limits and restrict agriculture pollution. However, many issues arise in this, as fertilizers ensure food quality and capital for farmers and consumers, and could impose strict restrictions that hurt the economy. Also, there is the issue of private wells and contamination of private wells in the concern of the governments because they are not owned by the government. The biggest concern is of course, the adverse health impacts contaminated water can have on populations who consume them. |
Power Dynamic Analysis:
The main power struggle in this issue has been between Wisconsin governor Tony Evers, and the Wisconsin/US legislature. Wisconsin politicians have known that nitrate pollution has been an issue since about 2005 (PoliticalEnvironment, 2020). However, a large amount of influential politicians and the legislature have kept it out of the public spotlight, by preventing news outlets from reporting on it, and not publicly addressing it, until now. This has turned it into a much larger issue than it would have been back in 2005.
Some major politicians however, namely Tony Evers, have kept pushing for nitrate pollution legislation, even now. In 2019, he proposed an increase of $125 million in his budget as a governor to increase and protect Wisconsin water quality (Madison.com). The legislature however, shot down many of his proposals, and he eventually signed a new budget which gave him an increased $48 million in funding. He intends to use approximately $12.5 million of this funding to address runoff from farms
Solutions:
The controversy surrounding fertilizer pollution is not one easily solved by Wisconsin, as there are many viewpoints to take into account while planning regulations. Governor Evers plan to increase regulation and decrease run off is a step in the right direction. However, Evers' plan fails to provide the funds needed to replace contaminated wells, and lacks any support for farmers who would need to change and update systems to comply with the new regulations. It is agreed upon, by all stakeholders, that fertilizer pollution is an issue for clean drinking water. Wisconsin farmer groups, as well as environmentalist groups are asking and showing support for legislation that would create a clearinghouse for trading credits in reducing water pollution (Kirwan, Hope, 2019). This would provide an incentive, and even compensation for farmers who take steps in reducing runoff into water sources.
While the solution is by no means clear, creating an incentive for farmers such as credits or increased funding, could compensate for the new regulations they need to abide by to prevent fertilizer pollution. If the Wisconsin government increased regulations for the standard of nitrate pollution, along with creating an incentive for farmers, it would help the farmers be motivated to abide by the new laws. Furthermore, if local or state governments were to simply impose new regulations and limits, there would be increased costs for farms and agriculture businesses to set up new systems. As there is already an issue in imposing the regulations by the DNR by counties, there would be no positive outcome in decreasing the levels of pollution. There needs to be a combination of regulations on runoff, as well as support and incentive for farmers to follow the new systems out into place.
As for the finding, and replacement of contaminated wells, budgets would have to be allocated to provide the money. This would most likely be appointed to a committee involving water conservation, and possible loans or investors would be included. However, once the funds are allocated, and the wells replaced, the upkeep would be easier as the fertilizer pollution levels in the state would be lowered.
While the solutions listed above are simply ideas, there needs to be a solution that provides for all stakeholders in the situation; the farmers, the people, and the government. It would take negotiations as well as lobbying to get regulations changed and funding for the farmers as well as replacement wells. As for the health of Wisconsin waters, something needs to be done to reduce fertilizer pollution, and decrease contamination of drinking waters.
Current Status:
Currently, Wisconsin poorly faces the water issue associated with fertilizer pollution. As stated above, drinking water of over 100,000 families has been contaminated with manure and other fertilizers. Furthermore, over 700,000 tons of fertilizers and manure are added to crops annually, which is more than is needed to produce healthy produce. Not only with the increase in the amount of fertilizers, but soil carrying these pollutants are becoming runoff at the fastest rate since 1982 (Chris Hubbuch) Meaning, right now, Wisconsin faces a higher danger of water contamination than in previous years. Creating increased health concerns as the population drinks water with high nitrate levels, and wildlife is exposed to contaminated lakes and streams.
The Wisconsin government, as well as local have imposed or suggested regulations pertaining to fertilizer and manure use. In 2019 Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers proposed a plan to create new limits on farm run off, with the goal of reducing nitrate levels in water. While the proposal was supported by Wisconsin conservation voters and Clean Wisconsin groups, farmers worried about increased costs associated with new regulations. Evers plan was cut by legislation, but he ultimately signed a budget for $48 million in new funding for the plan (Journal, Chris Hubbuch, 2019).
The DNR also plays a key role in the current regulations, in 2018 the DNR created a new rule involving bedrock that limited farmers in 16 Wisconsin counties, in order to prevent manure from contaminating groundwater (Chris Hubbuch, 2019). Animal waste from farms, along with all farm runoff is managed by the DNR, although according to Jayne Jenks of Waukesha County local governments work closely with farmers to prevent water contamination, and enforce the regulations. With regulation from the Wisconsin DNR and support coming from county governments, farmers should be able to comply and keep fertilizers and waste out of the water systems. Yet, it is hard for these groups to enforce the standards statewide. The 1997 State Farm Pollution Law puts county conservation officers (like Jayne Jenks) in charge of enforcing standards put up by the DNR. The problem is the standards are tricky to enforce as there is not enough money to pay for farmers costs to use substitutes to fertilizers, and the lack of funding has led to the system not being enforced (Journal, Steven Verburg). While Governor Evers proposed plan allocated funds, many think it won’t be enough to cover farmers' costs, and the cost of enforcement.
The main issue and controversy revolves around how the issue of agricultural pollution is contained and handled. There is a split among constituents in the state of Wisconsin, as farmers worry about extra costs and others worry about clean drinking water. Another issue is money, it is estimated that it would cost around $446 million to replace all contaminated wells (private and public) within Wisconsin (Chris Hubbuch, 2019), which is far more than what Evers plan allocated for, so another argument arises over who will pay for the new wells, as taxpayers don't want to pay for someone else’s well. Overall, there are multiple concerns in a variety of sections connected to the topic of agriculture pollution, pertaining to cost, health issues, farms, and water quality. Yet while each group has their own opinion, it is commonly agreed that contaminated water sources pose a danger to the health of Wisconsin.
Key Players:
The main key players in this issue are the farmers, normal citizens, and the politicians. Wisconsin farmers usually oppose the politicians, and the citizens are stuck in the middle of it all, with little power individually.
Wisconsin farmers place a large value on their crops, as well as the profits they gain from those crops. The farmers tend to use large amounts of fertilizer, even when it is not necessary, because they believe it increases their yield, and, in turn, their profit. In general, they do not view the runoff from their farms as a major issue, and thus believe they should be able to continue farming as they always have. They also do not like legislation limiting what they can do, especially in relation to fertilizer. They believe that new nitrate/fertilizer pollution prevention laws will cost them “Millions of dollars annually” (US News).
The average citizen values the health of themselves, and their families/communities over the potential profit loss of the farmers from new nitrate pollution legislation. Nitrate pollution is causing major health issues for people near farms, including (but not limited to) blue baby syndrome, and the death of animals and plants. Because of these issues caused by nitrate pollution, they highly support any legislation pertaining to limiting the use, or runoff, of nitrates and fertilizer.
Politicians value the support of the citizens, so they can stay in office as long as possible. Because of this, their opinions on nitrate pollution legislation usually aligns with the average opinion of the group of citizens they represent. In more rural areas with large amounts of farmers, the opinions of politicians regarding nitrate pollution prevention legislation is usually negative. In more urban areas however, with less farmers than other citizens, they tend to support, and try to push nitrate pollution prevention legislation. In 2018, politician and current Wisconsin governor Tony Evers ordered all Wisconsin farms to limit their nitrate pollution in drinking water.
The main power struggle in this issue has been between Wisconsin governor Tony Evers, and the Wisconsin/US legislature. Wisconsin politicians have known that nitrate pollution has been an issue since about 2005 (PoliticalEnvironment, 2020). However, a large amount of influential politicians and the legislature have kept it out of the public spotlight, by preventing news outlets from reporting on it, and not publicly addressing it, until now. This has turned it into a much larger issue than it would have been back in 2005.
Some major politicians however, namely Tony Evers, have kept pushing for nitrate pollution legislation, even now. In 2019, he proposed an increase of $125 million in his budget as a governor to increase and protect Wisconsin water quality (Madison.com). The legislature however, shot down many of his proposals, and he eventually signed a new budget which gave him an increased $48 million in funding. He intends to use approximately $12.5 million of this funding to address runoff from farms
Solutions:
The controversy surrounding fertilizer pollution is not one easily solved by Wisconsin, as there are many viewpoints to take into account while planning regulations. Governor Evers plan to increase regulation and decrease run off is a step in the right direction. However, Evers' plan fails to provide the funds needed to replace contaminated wells, and lacks any support for farmers who would need to change and update systems to comply with the new regulations. It is agreed upon, by all stakeholders, that fertilizer pollution is an issue for clean drinking water. Wisconsin farmer groups, as well as environmentalist groups are asking and showing support for legislation that would create a clearinghouse for trading credits in reducing water pollution (Kirwan, Hope, 2019). This would provide an incentive, and even compensation for farmers who take steps in reducing runoff into water sources.
While the solution is by no means clear, creating an incentive for farmers such as credits or increased funding, could compensate for the new regulations they need to abide by to prevent fertilizer pollution. If the Wisconsin government increased regulations for the standard of nitrate pollution, along with creating an incentive for farmers, it would help the farmers be motivated to abide by the new laws. Furthermore, if local or state governments were to simply impose new regulations and limits, there would be increased costs for farms and agriculture businesses to set up new systems. As there is already an issue in imposing the regulations by the DNR by counties, there would be no positive outcome in decreasing the levels of pollution. There needs to be a combination of regulations on runoff, as well as support and incentive for farmers to follow the new systems out into place.
As for the finding, and replacement of contaminated wells, budgets would have to be allocated to provide the money. This would most likely be appointed to a committee involving water conservation, and possible loans or investors would be included. However, once the funds are allocated, and the wells replaced, the upkeep would be easier as the fertilizer pollution levels in the state would be lowered.
While the solutions listed above are simply ideas, there needs to be a solution that provides for all stakeholders in the situation; the farmers, the people, and the government. It would take negotiations as well as lobbying to get regulations changed and funding for the farmers as well as replacement wells. As for the health of Wisconsin waters, something needs to be done to reduce fertilizer pollution, and decrease contamination of drinking waters.
Current Status:
Currently, Wisconsin poorly faces the water issue associated with fertilizer pollution. As stated above, drinking water of over 100,000 families has been contaminated with manure and other fertilizers. Furthermore, over 700,000 tons of fertilizers and manure are added to crops annually, which is more than is needed to produce healthy produce. Not only with the increase in the amount of fertilizers, but soil carrying these pollutants are becoming runoff at the fastest rate since 1982 (Chris Hubbuch) Meaning, right now, Wisconsin faces a higher danger of water contamination than in previous years. Creating increased health concerns as the population drinks water with high nitrate levels, and wildlife is exposed to contaminated lakes and streams.
The Wisconsin government, as well as local have imposed or suggested regulations pertaining to fertilizer and manure use. In 2019 Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers proposed a plan to create new limits on farm run off, with the goal of reducing nitrate levels in water. While the proposal was supported by Wisconsin conservation voters and Clean Wisconsin groups, farmers worried about increased costs associated with new regulations. Evers plan was cut by legislation, but he ultimately signed a budget for $48 million in new funding for the plan (Journal, Chris Hubbuch, 2019).
The DNR also plays a key role in the current regulations, in 2018 the DNR created a new rule involving bedrock that limited farmers in 16 Wisconsin counties, in order to prevent manure from contaminating groundwater (Chris Hubbuch, 2019). Animal waste from farms, along with all farm runoff is managed by the DNR, although according to Jayne Jenks of Waukesha County local governments work closely with farmers to prevent water contamination, and enforce the regulations. With regulation from the Wisconsin DNR and support coming from county governments, farmers should be able to comply and keep fertilizers and waste out of the water systems. Yet, it is hard for these groups to enforce the standards statewide. The 1997 State Farm Pollution Law puts county conservation officers (like Jayne Jenks) in charge of enforcing standards put up by the DNR. The problem is the standards are tricky to enforce as there is not enough money to pay for farmers costs to use substitutes to fertilizers, and the lack of funding has led to the system not being enforced (Journal, Steven Verburg). While Governor Evers proposed plan allocated funds, many think it won’t be enough to cover farmers' costs, and the cost of enforcement.
The main issue and controversy revolves around how the issue of agricultural pollution is contained and handled. There is a split among constituents in the state of Wisconsin, as farmers worry about extra costs and others worry about clean drinking water. Another issue is money, it is estimated that it would cost around $446 million to replace all contaminated wells (private and public) within Wisconsin (Chris Hubbuch, 2019), which is far more than what Evers plan allocated for, so another argument arises over who will pay for the new wells, as taxpayers don't want to pay for someone else’s well. Overall, there are multiple concerns in a variety of sections connected to the topic of agriculture pollution, pertaining to cost, health issues, farms, and water quality. Yet while each group has their own opinion, it is commonly agreed that contaminated water sources pose a danger to the health of Wisconsin.
Key Players:
The main key players in this issue are the farmers, normal citizens, and the politicians. Wisconsin farmers usually oppose the politicians, and the citizens are stuck in the middle of it all, with little power individually.
Wisconsin farmers place a large value on their crops, as well as the profits they gain from those crops. The farmers tend to use large amounts of fertilizer, even when it is not necessary, because they believe it increases their yield, and, in turn, their profit. In general, they do not view the runoff from their farms as a major issue, and thus believe they should be able to continue farming as they always have. They also do not like legislation limiting what they can do, especially in relation to fertilizer. They believe that new nitrate/fertilizer pollution prevention laws will cost them “Millions of dollars annually” (US News).
The average citizen values the health of themselves, and their families/communities over the potential profit loss of the farmers from new nitrate pollution legislation. Nitrate pollution is causing major health issues for people near farms, including (but not limited to) blue baby syndrome, and the death of animals and plants. Because of these issues caused by nitrate pollution, they highly support any legislation pertaining to limiting the use, or runoff, of nitrates and fertilizer.
Politicians value the support of the citizens, so they can stay in office as long as possible. Because of this, their opinions on nitrate pollution legislation usually aligns with the average opinion of the group of citizens they represent. In more rural areas with large amounts of farmers, the opinions of politicians regarding nitrate pollution prevention legislation is usually negative. In more urban areas however, with less farmers than other citizens, they tend to support, and try to push nitrate pollution prevention legislation. In 2018, politician and current Wisconsin governor Tony Evers ordered all Wisconsin farms to limit their nitrate pollution in drinking water.
Works Cited “Causes and Effects of Agricultural Pollution on Our Environment.” Conserve Energy Future, 17 July 2013. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-agricultural-pollution.php.
Hubbuch, Chris. “Tony Evers Orders New Farm Rules to Limit Nitrate Pollution in Drinking Water,” April 1, 2019 Wisconsin State Journal on Madison.com, https://madison.com/news/local/environment/tony-evers-orders-new-farm-rules-to-limit-nitrate-pollution/article_979926bf-1abb-53fe-8719-3a503568d680.html. Accessed 10 Mar. 2020.
Kirwan, Hope. “Farmers, Environmentalists Applaud Legislation To Change Water Quality Trading.” Wisconsin Public Radio, 27 Feb. 2019, https://www.wpr.org/farmers-environmentalists-applaud-legislation-change-water-quality-trading.
Rowen, James. The Political Environment.
https://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/search?q=nitrate&max-results=20&by-date=true. Accessed 10 Mar. 2020.
“Nitrate in Private Wells.” Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 9 Mar. 2018,
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/water/nitrate.htm.
Verburg, Steven. “Failure and a Call for Patience amid Rising Farm Pollution of State Waters.” April 9, 2018 Wisconsin State Journal on Madison.com
https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/failure-and-a-call-for-patience-amid-rising-farm-pollution/article_8bea2a1f-6958-56c9-bbfc-dfadedff0363.html. Accessed 6 Mar. 2020.
Hubbuch, Chris. “Tony Evers Orders New Farm Rules to Limit Nitrate Pollution in Drinking Water,” April 1, 2019 Wisconsin State Journal on Madison.com, https://madison.com/news/local/environment/tony-evers-orders-new-farm-rules-to-limit-nitrate-pollution/article_979926bf-1abb-53fe-8719-3a503568d680.html. Accessed 10 Mar. 2020.
Kirwan, Hope. “Farmers, Environmentalists Applaud Legislation To Change Water Quality Trading.” Wisconsin Public Radio, 27 Feb. 2019, https://www.wpr.org/farmers-environmentalists-applaud-legislation-change-water-quality-trading.
Rowen, James. The Political Environment.
https://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/search?q=nitrate&max-results=20&by-date=true. Accessed 10 Mar. 2020.
“Nitrate in Private Wells.” Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 9 Mar. 2018,
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/water/nitrate.htm.
Verburg, Steven. “Failure and a Call for Patience amid Rising Farm Pollution of State Waters.” April 9, 2018 Wisconsin State Journal on Madison.com
https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/failure-and-a-call-for-patience-amid-rising-farm-pollution/article_8bea2a1f-6958-56c9-bbfc-dfadedff0363.html. Accessed 6 Mar. 2020.