Buffers coming to water near you

[sandbur]

I have seen the same thing in Ottertail county and I believe Art has the same observations by him. After working with the NRCS on my property I've come to the conclusions that it is all about reporting enrolled acres instead of quality acres. If they actually measured acres that met minimum quality standards the acres would be less. Once again the perception is all these acres are enrolled but many do little for the wildlife.

Our local area manager wants to turn most of the wildlife management areas into oak savannah and NWSG, He removes the cedar and says we have enough of that type of cover in our area. NWSG do not provide winter cover on our light soils. I don't think he likes deer anyway.

the area sportsmens club that donated the land to tghe DNR is not happy with the management and has chosen to keep other lands under their ownership. Then they can plant foodplots and manage for deer as well as pheasants.

 

[wildfire]

If the land was previously tiled, 1940 as an example, the tile could be useless, but because it was previously tiled it can be tiled again.

 

[MoLandOwner]

Global warming/climate change is debatable. Water quality and the causes of high nutrient levels in southern MN isn't. Whether its too late to do something or not may also be debatable, but it sure would be nice if we learned from our mistakes. Every time I see a marsh/swamp getting tiled I cringe. Those areas serve the purpose they were intended to serve...filtration of excess nutrients/sediment. With all the jackpine going into spud fields up north, its pretty clear what's going to happen if we don't do something. I suppose when all the lakes and rivers in central and NC MN are also unswimmable/unfishable maybe folks will say "we should do something"

Yes I don't like it when the low spots get tiled out, but they do. 25% of the framers in my area are not enrolled in any gov programs, so they do what they want. The don't want to be controlled by any gov entity, let alone a soil and water or FSA office. Neighbor 2 miles east of me just bought 200 acres 3 years ago and just completed totaling clearing all the trees in the way and installed Pattern tile. No more pockets of cattails on that chunk anymore and no trees.

I understand he wants as best of return on his investment as possible. The government wants as cheap of food as possible for all the masses of people in this country and people want clean water and abundant areas of habitat for the wildlife. I don't know if we can ever find the right balance that everyone can be happy. But we need clean water, or none of any of it will matter in the end!

I have installed buffers on my own dime 25 years ago, but I like to hunt and it only made sense if you like wildlife. But I like no runoff into the waterway through our farm as well. We have killed 2 birds with one stone with buffers.

 

[BuckSutherland]

Its not always the farmer running the land that is making the call. I run a farm where the county ditch meanders through all 80 acres. The farm is broken up into 59.5 acres tillable and 5 fields cause of the ditch. The north half of the farm is very low and we have some small culvert downstream. I have been lobbying the landlord for 2 years to put in a riprarian buffer. Every time there is a heavy rain it backs up into the field and floods and kills the crop.

Point being the LL is the one making the call, not me. I think the last number I heard was 65% of farmland is rented ground. LL want as many tillable acres as they can get. I tried to talk about RIM and CREP and damn near lost the farm. Tried same thing with the neighbor next door and did lose that farm.

 

[bwoods11]

I have buffered everything I can on my farms with exception of one area in NW MN. Which I will do next year.

Trees on much of it. Excellent for wildlife and it does help on erosion and run off.

Imagine fifty feet on each side of every creek, River and ditch that is currently tillable.

That'd be a big change! I see both sides, but it's probably necessary.

 

[Ben.MN/WI]

There are a lot of towns in SE MN with nitrate levels above the safe drinking levels. Complaining about losing 30 feet of ground that can be enrolled into CRP to at least partially replace lost dollars doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the damage that is caused by the current practices. Will this rule fix all the problems - probably not, but it can't hurt. At some point a priority needs to be made to have clean drinking water and it's clear that current practices aren't cutting it.

And I have land that will be impacted by the new rules, so I have skin in this game as well.

People running other companies need to follow government rules regarding pollution, so ag pollution should be treated the same way in my opinion.

 

[Ben.MN/WI]

And how would you feel if they took some of your land and jammed this down your throat, gave you zero tax relief, and you just paid $10,000/ acre to buy the land? Most of the drainage ditches that are dug have the dirt mounded up and for water to get over them and into the ditch would take a ten inch rain.

And once again all the cities, roads, bridges, and "progress" of mankind gets exempted. Never mind the millions upon millions of acres that have been lost to development the last 2-3 decades. We arent farming any more ground than 50 years ago. We are just farming different ground cause the progress is making us. I know 1000s of acres of prime farmland with housing developments and shopping malls sitting on them that weren't there a couple years ago.

I agree with you on the impacts of the housing developments and the potential impacts that has on water quality along with lost prime farmland and wildlife habitat. Rules that apply to ag lands regarding buffer strips should also apply to housing developments and lakeshore homes.

 

[bwoods11]

No offense to pheasants forever. (PF doesn't always like trees in pheasant country, especially hardwoods)....but I'd love to see 50-100 feet of trees on at least one side of the creek or waterway.

Oaks, spruce, plum, crabapple...to name a few

Even if it's all private land it would really increase the amount of deer and turkey in parts of MN which lack habitat.

--CRP will pay 90% of the cost, +signing bonus and good rental rate for 15 years.

 

[bwoods11]

Is my math correct? 50' wide buffer along the length of a section (1 mile-5280') = 264,000 sq ft./43,560 sq.ft in an acre = 6.06 acres

That sounds correct. Keep in mind 100 feet is allowed in CRP. That'd be 12 acres. I think some landowners will max it out.

 

[sandbur]

No offense to pheasants forever. (PF doesn't always like trees in pheasant country, especially hardwoods)....but I'd love to see 50-100 feet of trees on at least one side of the creek or waterway.

Oaks, spruce, plum, crabapple...to name a few

Even if it's all private land it would really increase the amount of deer and turkey in parts of MN which lack habitat.

--CRP will pay 90% of the cost, +signing bonus and good rental rate for 15 years.

I like the idea of woody cover much better than grassland. The buffer strips in our watershed were planted in oaks, spruce, white pine, and perhaps other species.

I also hope the creating of buffer strips does NOT lead to more clearing of other lands for crop production or heaven forbid, another government program to create those additional lands from existing cover.

Too often the government starts one program and then another level of government makes tax law changes or a new program that spends money pulling in just the opposite direction. Accelerated tiling due to the business stimulation package of a few years ago comes to mind.

 

[wiscwhip]

If all this land needs to be tiled so extensively, they should not be growing high expense grain crops on it in the first place, it is obviously suited more to something like cranberries if you need to get that much water off of it just to grow another crop. I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with those buffer strips being hayed, grazed is another story altogether. If you have ever witnessed what a herd of cattle can do to streambanks and the resulting erosion they create, it is almost worse than not having the buffer strips in the first place. You may keep the fertilizer nutrients out of the water, but the sediment caused by cows in the water can be just as detrimental to water quality.

 

[MoLandOwner]

What a lot of people don't realize is back in the day the government was afraid we would run out of food in this country. That would cause all sorts of unrest. So they promoted fence row to fence row farming in the Earl Butts days. And many farmers have not taken there foot of the gas since. And now we have a gov that is trying to reverse a trend that has been in place for 50 years or more. Lets see how many farmers go along with this law. Many will opt out of the programs and say screw you is my guess.

 

[sandbur]

What a lot of people don't realize is back in the day the government was afraid we would run out of food in this country. That would cause all sorts of unrest. So they promoted fence row to fence row farming in the Earl Butts days. And many farmers have not taken there foot of the gas since. And now we have a gov that is trying to reverse a trend that has been in place for 50 years or more. Lets see how many farmers go along with this law. Many will opt out of the programs and say screw you is my guess.

Ethanol subsidies?

 

[MoLandOwner]

Ethanol subsidies?

What about them?

 

[wiscwhip]

Lets see how many farmers go along with this law. Many will opt out of the programs and say screw you is my guess.

I am confused Mo?:confused: Are you saying the farmers will have a choice? Am I reading the whole thing wrong? I understood that they must comply or receive some type of punishment, is that correct? In that case they would have no choice but to "go along with the law". I don't think "opting out" of any programs will make you exempt, what I'm reading is that the programs will be to help the farmers recover lost revenue from not being able to plant those areas in the future. Saying "screw you" will only get them into trouble from what I see? Am I way off on this?:confused:

 

[MoLandOwner]

I am confused Mo?:confused: Are you saying the farmers will have a choice? Am I reading the whole thing wrong? I understood that they must comply or receive some type of punishment, is that correct? In that case they would have no choice but to "go along with the law". I don't think "opting out" of any programs will make you exempt, what I'm reading is that the programs will be to help the farmers recover lost revenue from not being able to plant those areas in the future. Saying "screw you" will only get them into trouble from what I see? Am I way off on this?:confused:

So there going to tell all the farmers to stop farming if they don't put buffers in?

That will never happen!

 

[MoLandOwner]

There has been a buffer (smaller) rule in place for quite awhile....and it has largely been ignored (and not enforced)

My point exactly!

 

[MoLandOwner]

Right now SWCD offices are understaffed and they are so far behind on evaluating projects that have been finished for years, they don't have time even come out and look anymore. The farmer says they are done....then they must be done! This will just be another debacle that will go by the wayside as everything else has for years and years.

 

[wiscwhip]

So there going to tell all the farmers to stop farming if they don't put buffers in?

That will never happen!

There has been a buffer (smaller) rule in place for quite awhile....and it has largely been ignored (and not enforced)

My point exactly!

My understanding is the SWCD will be responsible for making sure the new buffer rule is implemented. I can about imagine how "strictly" the rule will be enforced :rolleyes: Those local SWCD guys form some pretty good friendships with many of the farmers they work with.... "Yep, all the farmers I work with have completed the necessary buffer requirements" ....wink, wink, nudge, nudge

All of the above is why I was asking, if it is just a matter of belonging to the "good ole' boys" club, then the whole thing is a mute point by any standards, won't make a dick bit of difference. I suppose the Gooberment could pull ALL subsidy funding and fine them if the farmers didn't comply, but I'm sure they built enough loopholes into the law that it will be easy for anyone to circumvent in the first place, couple that with the G-O-B club membership and they shouldn't have anything to worry about. The fines would likely be a small pittance compared to what they can actually produce in crop monies off of those acres, so they would have no reason to let that deterrent stop them from plowing fence-to-fence. And the water quality will suffer as much or more than it always has, but the Gooberment has the documentation that makes it ok. More feel good legislation.:rolleyes:

 

[West Branch]

I see a lot of spots like this in farm country where I live in MN in the Mcleod, meeker, sibley counties area. Most of them are tiled and manage to drown out every year but get tilled up again and replanted and don't grow sh!t. The picture below is 10 acres that haven't grown a bushel of corn or beans from 2012-2015. This spring it got planted again but rains in late May killed it off. There is a tile flag out there. I took a few minutes and totaled up the ones that I drive by on a 12 mile stretch of state highway and I totaled 60+ acres of spots that varied from 2-18 acres that have not grown a thing since I have been driving by them. Almost all have tile flags and get tilled up in the fall or spring. Could support a few pheasants in some of those spots. I suppose the extra couple hours of tilling around them would be too much.