A note from the MN Agricultural Water Resource Center
The current debate over the Governor’s buffer proposal has generated a great
deal of interest. While details are still unclear, it is clear that the Governor’s
proposal would curtail county flexibility, likely forcing counties to increase
enforcement of Minnesota DNR’s shoreland rule along rivers, streams and lakes
and greatly expand the current buffer requirement along ditches.
The debate is largely based on water quality and wildlife habitat. The following
information is provided to help answer questions that have emerged.
And a reminder—the debate should not divide Minnesotans over the goal of
protecting and preserving water resources, we can all share that objective.
Some frequently asked questions
Is it well documented that buffers will reduce agricultural pollution?
Buffer science clearly shows that where there is direct surface runoff from fields to streams, sediment
and phosphorus delivery to streams and rivers will be reduced. The science does not clearly show that
50 feet is the right buffer width in all cases. Buffer effectiveness and buffer width requirements are
affected by many factors, including slopes, soil types and watershed size. Buffers along constructed
drainage ditches with a berm between the field and the ditch provide little benefit once the buffer
extends past the crown of the berm, unless the areas is also subject to periodic high water that breaches
even the berm. Buffers are very ineffective in removing nitrate nitrogen from tile water because tile
lines bypass the buffer areas. Reducing nitrates in tile drainage water begins with proper nitrogen
management in the field, and can be aided by practices such as routing tiles to wetlands, which are very
efficient at removing nitrates.
Are farmers dramatically increasing cropland acres?
Data on total acreage planted to crops in MN, from the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service
(all in millions of acres)
1995- 19.6
1996- 20.1
1997- 20.2
1998- 20.5
1999- 20.2
2000- 20.4
2001- 19.4
2002- 20.0
2003- 20.0
2004- 19.7
2005- 19.4
2006- 19.7
2007- 19.6
2008- 19.8
2009- 19.6
2010- 19.8
2011- 19.6
2012- 20.0
2013- 19.5
2014- 19.7
These acreage figures include alfalfa and other hay. In 2014, MN farmers harvested 1.9 million acres of
hay and about grazed another 2.5 million acres of pastureland, perennial crops that help reduce soil
erosion. Many of these hay and pasture acres are already serving as buffers and supporting beef and
dairy production, which helps create an efficient nutrient re-cycling system.
Are we dramatically losing wildlife habitat due to expiring CRP contracts?
CRP is a land rental program, not a land purchase program. When contracts expire, it is my experience
that most farmland owners desire to put their land back into the program. This is not always possible
because over time the eligibility requirements and rules have changed in an effort to better target CRP
to areas providing greater environmental benefits, to increase the efficiency of program resources, such
that some lands in the program during early years are no longer eligible.
The current farm bill also reduced the national CRP acreage cap from 32 million acres to 24 acres, which
means that acreage will likely remain at approximately current levels during the current farm bill.
It is also important to note that many acres previously in CRP are now enrolled in other conservation
program and continue to provide wildlife habitat.
From BWSR Conservation Lands Summary- total of Federal Farm Program acres plus USFWS Easements
and DNR WMAs (Wildlife Management Areas). (in million acres)
2004- 3.5
2005- 3.5
2006- 3.5
2007- 3.6
2008- 3.5
2009- 3.5
2010- 3.4
2011-3.5
2012-3.5
2013-3.4
2014-3.3
Continuous Sign-up CRP is a special subset of the CRP that is primarily focused on water quality areas,
including filter and buffer strips. Data from BWSR and FSA show increasing acreage in CCRP, even while
CRP has been reduced overall. (acres in thousands)
2001- 144
2002- 195
2003- 237
2004- 250
2005-262
2006-280
2007-292
2008-299
2009- 303
2010- 309
2011-335
2012- 386
2013- 393
2014- 416
2015-549
How much change has there been in urban development?
According to the University of Minnesota, the state’s urban area increased from 2.2 million acres in 1990 to 3.2
million acres in 2000. Meanwhile, land in farms is declining. According to the MDA, total land in farms fell from
27.5 million acres to 26.9 million acres between 2002 and 2007.
A quick math question- about 27 million acres in farms and about 22.5 million acres of crops and pasture? Why
the difference?
Farms provide a lot of habitat! The 4.5 million acres in question includes farmsteads, but also includes more than
a million acres of CRP, along with nearly 3 million acres of wetlands, unharvested grasslands and wooded areas.
Is agriculture totally unregulated?
Minnesota farmers are subject to numerous regulations. Here is a partial list:
Feedlots- from the MPCA website:
The MPCA regulates the collection, transportation, storage, processing and disposal of animal manure and livestock processing
activities, and provides assistance to counties and the livestock industry. The rules apply to all aspects of livestock production
areas including the location, design, construction, operation and management of feedlots, feed storage, stormwater runoff and
manure handling facilities.- read more at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/feedlots/index.html
Feedlot operators are also subject to local government regulations.
Pesticides- from the DMA website:
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) regulates the use, application, storage, sale, handling and disposal of
agricultural chemicals. This includes fertilizers and products to control weeds, insects, fungi, rodents and other pests. Pesticides
must be registered with both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state of Minnesota. The MDA
Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Division (PFMD) conducts routine inspections and performs investigations about pesticide
use complaints. – read more at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/complaints.aspx
Wetlands and Drainage- from the BWSR website
Since 1985, the Wetland Conservation provision of the federal farm bills (Swampbuster) requires all agricultural producers to
protect the wetlands on the farms they own or operate in order to be eligible for USDA farm program benefits.
The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) is a state law that regulates activities that result in the draining, filling, or
excavating of wetlands in Minnesota, including those on agricultural land. -read more
at http://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/Wetlands_on_Ag_Land.pdf
The Bottom Line:
Water quality is a top priority of Minnesota farmers.
Minnesota farmers work diligently to provide crop and livestock products on which we all
depend and reduce environmental impacts.
The false choice of clean water or farms is, in my view, unreasonable—society requires
both, and the farming community is doing its part to contribute now and continues to
strive to do even better.