Talking Points for DATCP Rules
Targeting Polluted Runoff

 - information provided courtesy of Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group
8/31/01
Polluted runoff from agriculture is one of Wisconsin’s most serious water quality problems.Livestock wastes, toxic pesticides, algae-stimulating fertilizers and other pollutants continue to contaminate the waters we fish and swim in and our sources of drinking water.
Although hearings on the proposed rules are over, you can still submit comments that carry the same weight as public testimony.  To do so, send your remarks to Don Houtman, DATCP, PO Box, 8911, Madison, 53708-8911, or fax them to 608/224-4615 or e-mail don.houtman@datcp.state.wi.us.
Controlling polluted runoff is one of the most important steps Wisconsin must take to ensure the recovery and protection of our lakes, rivers, wetlands and groundwater.

Recognizing that, the state legislature enacted 1997 Act 27 to create a comprehensive program to protect Wisconsin’s precious lakes, rivers and streams from polluted runoff through the establishment and enforcement of strict water quality standards.

 
We support the efforts of DNR and DATCP to address polluted runoff from agricultural lands and livestock facilities and we continue to support strong ATCP 50 rules.  However, ATCP 50, as currently proposed, contains gaping loopholes that undermine the ability of the rules to be adequately enforced, among other problems.  These loopholes must be addressed before the proposed rules are deemed to have met the requirements of the law.

Funding
 

Given the scope of the polluted runoff problem, technical and financial assistance must be provided to farmers.  We support providing state, federal and county dollars to farmers to install and implement best management practices required in the proposed rules.  Because the dollars earmarked for runoff controls are very limited, DNR and DATCP must allocate resources efficiently in order to maximize their impact.
 
It’s necessary for the state to maximize scarce dollars to clean up more miles of rivers and more acres of lakes.  In that spirit, while we support cost share programs for farmers, we ask that DATCP provide money in a responsible manner that helps a maximum number of farmers to be good land stewards.  Unfortunately, the current proposal fails to ensure that scarce cost-share resources are allocated responsibly. 
Specifically, we support: 

oProviding up to 70% of the cost of implementing practices to curb runoff pollution such as nutrient management plans, vegetative buffers and conservation tillage.  However, we do not support funding the ongoing maintenance of these practices.

oRequiring landowners to implement practices if they are offered 70% funding for the practices. As ATCP 50 is written, farmers are only required to implement practices if they receive cost share money.  This extremely important distinction changes the program from a mandatory program to a voluntary program.  State law requires the implementation of this program – it is not voluntary.

oPrioritizing the implementation of conservation practices in areas where water quality is most degraded by agriculture runoff.  We support provisions in ATCP 50 that require state and county dollars to be spent first on farms that are directly polluting waterways.

oPrioritizing outstanding and exceptional waterways that are threatened by runoff pollution.

oCrediting the farmers’ in-kind contributions of labor and equipment toward the total cost of installing the project.

oProviding additional funding, above 70%, for farmers who qualify for hardship money.  However, it is important that the formula to determine who is eligible for hardship does not create a loophole whereby all farmers can claim and receive hardship status.  In the current version of ATCP 50 almost any farmer could be eligible for this additional funding.

oProviding money for one crop rotation cycle for nutrient management plans, rather than providing funding for 10 years as currently written in ATCP 50.

oRequiring farmers to implement no-cost or low-cost practices without funding.

Enforcement

It is imperative that the proposed rules to curb runoff are adequately enforced.  Both county and state DNR officials need to be monitoring farms to ensure compliance with these rules.  We need to ensure that our tax dollars are being used responsibly and will result in cleaner lakes, rivers and drinking water for Wisconsinites. If we are going to give tax dollars to farmers to install conservation practices, we need to know that those farmers are following the law.

Phosphorous

 
When it comes to pollution of waterbodies in Wisconsin, phosphorous is the primary nutrient of concern.  Control of phosphorous entry into waterways is perhaps the central component of controlling eutrophication and associated waterbody degradation.  Consequently, failure to address phosphorous applications to farmland ensures that the proposed rules will fall far short of what is necessary to restore and protect water resources.

The federal government, through the rewrite of NRCS 590, has acknowledged that sound farmland management is based on phosphorous levels in the soil rather than nitrogen.  Limiting applications of manure and other fertilizers to farmland on the basis of nitrogen allows excessive levels of phosphorous to be applied to those lands.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 590 is currently being rewritten to reflect phosphorous based standards for manure management.  It’s important that ATCP 50 follow the most up-to-date, NRCS standards which are based on the ecological reality of phosphorous based pollution in Wisconsin waterways.

back to the Wisconsin Stewardship Network home page