CHARITABLE TRUST • Hadrian Cook
Farming in the ‘Big Apple’ watershed Hadrian Cook of Imperial College, Wye, used a Farmers Club Charitable Trust Scholarship to visit the New York State Water Resources Institute (NYSWRI) at Cornell University to compare agriculture and water management between the UK and the US. Here is a précis of his report. DEBATE around the means of achieving clean water and quality food production never ceases. Remove industrial effluent and urban wastewater from the equation and the farmer remains to be accused of contaminating the water we drink. Others believe that legislation and regulation can bankrupt those who work to feed the nation. Preferably, many of us (farmers, water professionals and academics), instead propose ‘win-win solutions’ that balance the responsibilities of two industries ensuring delivery of wholesome food, potable water and a sustainable environment. However, the means vary and there is much to learn from international comparisons at a time when UK farmers face increasingly stringent measures to protect water supplies. Experience in the United States is especially relevant. The structure of US agriculture is complicated, involving federal support for a range of crops, meat and milk products, and there is an enviable tradition of agricultural extension. Sadly, there are also ‘horror’ stories regarding water-born disease in cities using water that originates in the rural hinterland. A particularly notorious outbreak caused by polluted drinking water was the epidemic in 1983, in Milwwaukee, Wisconsin, which infected over 400,000 people with cryptosporidiosis, killing more than 50.. The drinking water was fully treated, including filtration, though, unfortunately, some authorities regard filters as unreliable in removing the pathogen Cryprosporidium parvum.
Pathogen priority Understandably, US water legislation has now made pathogens a priority. Nutrient control (especially phosphorous) is also a concern, because algae are a pre-cursor to cancer-causing organics in drinking water. Watershed rules and regulations to protect water supplies were first adopted in New York State in 1885, and planning the New York City Watershed in the Catskill region began in 1906. In the wake of the US Safe Drinking Water Act 1974 came watershed planning for environmental protection.
Today, in New York State, 270 water supply systems have state-approved watershed rules and regulations. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has power to make rules and regulations to protect sources of public water supply to the city, an undertaking that includes five reservoirs in a combined watershed region of nearly 2,000 square miles. The supply system yields up to 1.4 billion US gallons a day to nine million residents in the New York City region. Clean water comes with a social cost. Roughly 50,000 acres of the best farmland was sacrificed beneath the reservoirs. In constructing the Cannonsville Reservoir (built almost 150 miles from the city in Delaware County) about 10% of the population of the watershed lost their homes. Surprisingly, the New York City water supply, while chemically treated, is unfiltered, as the city wishes to avoid building and operating filters on the required scale. Accordingly, the city proposed rigorous watershed control measures as a preferred option. In 1990 the city proposed new draft Watershed Rules and Regulations. These were angrily rejected by farmers, in particular, who feared the regulatory provisions including large setbacks from watercourses - would render farming impossible.
Stakeholder forum The NYSWRI assisted in creating a forum for stakeholders, called the Ad Hoc Task Force for Agriculture, in the watershed. Interests represented were the farming community; state, city and local agencies; the scientific community; the Co-operative Extension at Cornell University; and the County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The Delaware County Department of Planning also played a supporting role for farmers in the watershed. After two years of intense discussions, the Task Force proposed the withdrawal of the proposed regulations for farming (excepting acts of wilful or irresponsible pollution). In substitution of the regulations, the Task Force proposed the adoption of a farm programme. It was agreed by all parties that this should be voluntary and not regulated, it should be farmer-lead, that New York City should meet the cost of the programme, and that had to be based on the soundest scientific credentials. Based on this agreement, a watershed Agricultural Council was established in 1992, comprising mainly farmers, to undertake the Watershed Agricultural Program. New York City has provided more than $75million for the farm planning and implementation of plans, conducted in conjunction with a comprehensive scientific programme. The NYSWRI and other agencies involved fostered stakeholder co-operation in the watershed, specifically to: •
Identify, discuss and advance local views and understanding;
• •
Determine the scientific and technical issues of Whole Community Planning; Foster institutional support for the local management programme by involving local, state and federal agencies in addition to the private sector.
As a result, funds that might otherwise be directed to filtration now sustain the economic viability of farms, with the major objectives of minimising the risk of pathogens (Cryptosporidium and Giardia) from entering watercourses and of reducing total phosphorous that encourages algal blooms in reservoirs. It should be noted that pesticides, sediment and hydrocarbons also are taken into account in securing the integrity of the water supply.
Three approaches Agriculturally, three approaches emerge: whole farm planning, nutrient management, and diffuse pollution control. Whole Farm Planning (WFP) aims to achieve sustainability in nutrient, runoff and erosion through ‘best-management practices’, using decision support material in consultation with farmers. At the heart of WFP is the multiple barrier approach, classified as three barriers located at source, landscape and the stream corridor. Grants available for ‘source control’ include costs of barnyard construction (for example concrete and storage). Rotational grazing includes the exclusion of cattle from watercourses by fencing, manure spreading regimes, and three-week rest periods to increase productivity. Strip cropping systems are corn (maize) and hay terraces cut along the length of slopes, to stabilize the soil, encourage infiltration and trap eroded particles. Stream and bank stabilisation and the emplacement of 35ft (10m) riparian strips establish forest along the rivers. Integrated nutrient management planning includes the Cornell University Nutrient Management Planning System (‘cuNMPS’). This aims to improve nutrient utilisation, environmental balance and the profitability of livestock farms. Through precision feeding, phosphorus consumption by cows can be reduced by more than 30%, while simultaneously reducing the need for purchases of imported feed. Balancing the nutrition of cows also optimises milk production. The nutrient management programme also improves forage production, which further reduces the need for imported feed while increasing the retention and uptake of soil nutrients. The nutrient decision support allocates manure and fertiliser nutrients based on soil type and crop requirements and balances environmental risk. In sum, there are significant economic benefits for the farmer, in addition to more secure protection of water quality.
Non-farm businesses and communities are also a vital part of the New York City Watershed programme. An especially important programme is that managed by Delaware County, which accounts for about 50% of the watershed area.
Scientific support The Delaware County Action Plan (DCAP) seeks comprehensively to protect water quality, while not compromising economic growth. Delaware County includes the Cannonsville Reservoir, which is the third largest in the 21 reservoir system. Unfortunately, however, the Cannonsville Reservoir Basin experiences high phosphorus levels, which promotes algae blooms in the Reservoir. Through WRI, Cornell scientists are engaged to provide scientific support for the DCAP program. For example, they are modeling the behavior of phosphorus in the watershed. Estimates of annual mean total P loading are: 1 Mg (64%) attributed to agriculture and septic tanks, 14 Mg (30%) to forestry and 3.2 Mg (6%) to urban sources, largely stormwater runoff. Agriculture, therefore, provides by far the greatest proportion of the phosphorus loading. The City imposes a phosphorus restriction when the concentration of total phosphorus in the reservoir exceeds 20µg P/l. Operationally, this restriction severely limits economic growth, which provides a strong incentive for the local communities and residents to find ways to reduce the loading of phosphorus to the reservoir. Outside the New York City watershed, the Upper Susquehanna Coalition (USC), is a County-based network of natural resource professionals. This 13-county coalition develops and implements strategies, partnerships and projects to protect the headwaters of the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay watersheds. USC provides strategic support to county members, local watershed organisations, public works, planning officials, farmers and businesses. Funding is procured from US federal state and local sources, in addition to various private sources of funds. USC has adopted from the New York City Watershed the multiple barrier approach. Priority is also given to flood control measures, including the restoration of wetlands and floodplains. Apart from flood protection, these measures also promote wildlife.
Shared expertise Interaction between UK and New York State stakeholders has been cemented and a website is under construction to share experience and expertise. In this way, we plan to develop ‘watershed alliances’ to share expertise. It is useful to draw comparisons: •
The US conservation groups and hunting lobby are strong, but the UK has a highly developed sense of ‘countryside management’, economically realised through such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme.
•
The US has an historically established ethos of vigorous participatory local democracy and community involvement. Parallel developments in the UK around community participation in environmental management have been slow and very limited by comparison.
•
The UK tradition prefers top-down environmental management, manifest in the ‘vulnerable zone’ to water protection that requires a ‘Statutory Code’. The NYSWRI approach is not only technically sophisticated but also requires that communities take ownership of problems.
All too often, the British farmer is heard to lament that he or she is in danger of being relegated to being a guardian of the countryside, as a virtual park keeper. Regardless, farmers must provide food products in sufficient quantity and quality to feed the nation. The question therefore becomes: what is the appropriate role for UK farmers in protecting high quality water, which is as important for human and environmental well being as is food? If the means are sufficiently provided, as in the New York City Watershed, then surely we can jointly work out an agreed purpose and programme? •
Hadrian Cook is Senior Lecturer at the Wye Campus of Imperial College, where he specialises in land use and water quality. He can be contacted at h.cook@imperial.ac.uk