Mandatory Buffers Removed from Proposed State Rules to Curb Polluted Runoff

Previous Page | Home

Move seeks to preserve $200 million in federal funds, better use state dollars

MADISON -- Mandatory requirements that farmers leave at least a 10-foot buffer between a stream or lake and fields have been dropped from proposed runoff control rules to avoid losing federal funds for such buffers strips and other farming conservation practices and to focus limited state dollars on more effective measures, state water quality officials say.

Instead, farmers can continue to receive state funding to voluntarily install buffers strips of at least 35 feet -- the minimum width research suggests is needed to effectively trap phosphorus and sediment from fields, the water quality officials say.

"The federal government has informed us that if we put mandatory buffers in place we would be ineligible for part of the $200 million in federal funding available through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program," says Al Shea, who leads the Department of Natural Resources' watershed management bureau. "We didn't want to put anything in place that would jeopardize that critical federal funding for buffer strips."

Under an agreement Gov. Scott McCallum signed Oct. 29, 2001, with the federal government, Wisconsin will receive $200 million in federal funds and add in $40 million of state funds for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). That program would pay landowners to sign up for 15 years or permanently to voluntarily install buffers or filter strips to keep soil from washing or blowing into lakes or streams.

Shea said water quality officials also removed the mandatory buffer strips from the proposed polluted runoff rules to focus limited state dollars on the most cost-effective and environmentally effective measures for controlling polluted runoff from farms. "Most research suggests that to start getting the benefits of filtering out phosphorus and sediment running off farm fields, you need to have a minimum buffer of 35 feet," he says.

The proposed runoff rules previously would have made buffer strips mandatory, and under provisions advanced by agricultural interests, would have allowed buffers of 10 and 20 feet in addition to 35 feet, and would have paid the farmer to install the strips, maintain them, and an annual amount to cover the lost opportunity of not being able to raise crops in that strip of land.

Water quality officials worried that the financial obligation of paying farmers every year for a loss of farming opportunity would have been tremendous and would have left limited or no state funding for other measures to control agricultural runoff from farms. Such traditional conservation methods including contour farming, no tillage farming, and leaving corn stalks and other crop residue on the land would have been considerably cheaper and more effective per acre than a narrow buffer in reducing the amount of soil and fertilizer running off from fields, Shea says.

He and other state water quality staff continue to "strongly advocate" for buffers of at least 35 feet wide, not only for the benefits they bring for water quality, but for wildlife, and DNR will continue to help share the cost with farmers who want to voluntarily install buffer strips.

"We anticipate tens of thousands of acres of buffers being installed in the next five years whether the buffers are made mandatory or not," Shea says. "Given the state budget picture and the availability of CREP funding for buffer strips, we think we should focus the limited state dollars available on other cost- effective ways of reducing runoff from farm fields."

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Shea (608) 267-2759 or Russ Rasmussen (608) 267-7651

Previous Page | Home