HD46 - Interim Report: Review and Analysis of Agricultural Water Quality Improvement Programs Delivered by Virginia's Soil and Water Conservation Districts


Executive Summary:
[The reporting requirement of Item 382 I., Chapter 4 - Special Session I, is also included in this report.]
Agricultural water quality improvement programs in Virginia began in a direct, deliberate way with the establishment of the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Filter Strip Program in 1985 which offered farmers incentive payments to establish grass filters bordering crop lands. In the 20 years that followed, the Filter Strip program was quickly expanded to include a wide spectrum of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) which today exists as the Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program. During this same time other incentive programs were established to enable farmers to receive Virginia state income tax credits and cash reimbursements to offset BMP implementation expenses. The Cost-Share Program has become the Commonwealth’s most prevalent form for motivating farmers to implement BMPs. The Program is funded by Virginia general funds and through monies provided by the Water Quality Improvement Fund. In past decades, funds have ebbed and flowed with several years where little, if any state dollars were provided. In contrast, the 2005-06 biennium budget includes funds that enabled DCR to designate $6,233,062 in FY05 and $5,705,000 in FY06 for Cost-Share Program BMPs.

DCR maintains Cost-Share Program oversight and management. As each new program year begins (on July 1st) amendments to the Virginia Agricultural BMP Manual are considered. The Manual documents program guidance and the individual specifications for 60 agricultural BMPs. DCR relies on Virginia’s 47 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs or districts) to locally implement this state incentive program within the jurisdictions they serve. An additional important partner with program assistance is the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). DCR sets program direction and administers program funds, while districts in close partnership with NRCS work to locally recruit and technically assist farmer participants.

Through the combined efforts of the conservation partners significant progress addressing agricultural water quality problems has occurred, however, many problems of the past are still present today. There are still gullies in fields, rolling croplands with needs for terracing, strip cropping, contour farming and other land management practices that have been effective soil erosion treatments for many years. However, the last decades have also seen tremendous strides in agricultural conservation. In recent times more advanced understandings of nonpoint source pollution and the contributions from agricultural operations created interest in implementing many diverse BMPs – to not only control soil loss, but manage nutrients, pathogens and agricultural chemicals. Advances in farming technologies are generating newer BMPs that reduce land tillage, utilize animal wastes for crop nutrition and more accurately measure and apply agricultural chemicals. Today all BMPs supported through incentives provided by the Commonwealth have conservation benefits and all reduce nonpoint source pollution.

The convergence of many new technologies are now being focused on improving water quality. Watersheds as small as few hundred acres or as large as the Chesapeake are analyzed by DCR staff with sophisticated computer models. By minimizing nonpoint source pollution and managing point sources, the aim is improved water quality and the recovery of aquatic health. Projections of agricultural BMPs that are needed to meet water quality goals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 2010 are daunting. Similar water quality needs exist in Virginia’s Southern Rivers (SR). Given Virginia’s recent experience, there are several key points that Virginia lawmakers must consider if the state Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program is to improve its effectiveness:

• Significant peaks and valleys in BMP funding from year to year have dramatic impacts on technical staff – hirings and layoffs. If significant funding is devoted to provide incentives for implementation of agricultural BMPs, additional staff will be needed by SWCDs to provide technical services to farmers and provide oversight to ensure BMPs satisfy standards and specifications. Adding staff requires time to recruit, hire and train new employees.

• Virginia has chosen to address nonpoint source pollution problems largely through voluntary actions of land owners and managers. This means that farmers – even those with significant pollution loadings, are given a choice as to whether to implement BMPs. In the absence of requirements, incentives must be high enough to attract desired participants.

• Assessing agricultural BMP efficiency/effectiveness is complex. In some instances needed nonpoint source effectiveness data is unavailable, in other instances the available data is inconsistent and/or incomplete. Some BMPs prevent the introduction of agricultural chemicals (toxins, pesticides and herbicides) into surface and ground waters. Quantifying the pollution reduction benefits of these preventative pollution practices is especially difficult. Further research and analysis will continue during 2005. However it is important to note that research consistently supports the premise that preventing pollutants from entering surface and ground waters is much cheaper than removing contaminants once they are in place.

• At the scale of land treatment and BMPs needed, there is no guarantee voluntary participation by farmers (given the existing financial incentive opportunities) will achieve projected quantities of BMPs that are needed within the tributaries that feed the Chesapeake Bay. For example, planted cover crops are among the more effective, relatively low expense BMPs included within Virginia’s tributary strategies. Baywide in Virginia there are 769,000 acres of cropland. The collective need for implementing cover crops within the Bay basin is over 402,000 acres, which must be implemented annually through 2010. Persuading farmers to implement this practice on over half of all available cropland within the basin every year through 2010 presents a tremendous challenge.

• Agricultural BMPs provide reductions in nonpoint source contaminants, but their life span of effectiveness is relatively short lived. BMPs that receive benefits of state incentives must be maintained for a specified period of time. Some practices have only a one year maintenance requirement, others must be maintained for five, or no more than ten years. Simply stated, annual and relatively short term BMPs (five and ten years) provide nonpoint source pollution reduction benefits. But those practices are not permanently established and are often not continued by farmers due to many factors.

• Accounting for actual and ongoing implementation of BMPs is difficult.

• Accounting for implementation of BMPs not paid for in part by state and federal dollars is challenging.

• Balancing needs for cost effective practices against more expensive practices is challenging.

• Resolving indicators of SWCD effectiveness with delivery of their water quality and erosion programs will require considerable analysis and overall consensus among conservation partners in order to identify and carry out meaningful improvements.

Where significant funding and focus by SWCDs have been applied, the successful implementation of agricultural BMPs is significant. For example by 2000, initial nonpoint source pollution reduction goals were achieved in the Shenandoah and lower Potomac rivers after SWCDs added needed staff and implemented a large portion of nearly $13 million in BMP incentive funding. Elsewhere, successes with pollution reductions through agricultural BMPs are mixed, especially in the Southern Rivers since achieving success is dependent on steady funding for trained staff, program promotion and financial incentives that motivate actions by farmers.

Discussions about ways to strengthen conservation programs implemented by SWCDs led to establishment of performance deliverables within agreements between DCR and each of Virginia’s 47 SWCDs that took effect July 1, 2004. This action was prompted by events that occurred a year earlier. During April, 2003 the Governor’s Natural Resources Leadership Summit brought together key agencies and organizations to exchange ideas and develop a proactive agenda dealing with Virginia’s environmental and resource issues. From the summit the Governor’s Natural Resources Partnership Agenda emerged. The Agenda identified numerous areas of opportunity and needed improvement. Regarding agricultural BMPs, the Agenda states: “The Department of Conservation and Recreation will develop a plan to coordinate with local soil and water conservation districts to better target the use of state costshare dollars and encourage more farmers to implement conservation practices.” DCR, working closely with key partner representatives defined a list of performance criteria each SWCD agrees to fulfill as they locally implement the Commonwealth’s Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program. The agreements more precisely describe the expected actions of districts with use of program monies, the targeting of BMPs to address the greatest water quality problems, and the need to seek program participants that are generating the greatest nonpoint source pollution loads.

During 2005, DCR and the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board (Board) with assistance from key partners will continue to pursue approaches to analyze and assess agricultural BMP efficiencies and effectiveness to enhance agricultural programs SWCDs implement to improve water quality. DCR and the Board will work to identify indicators of SWCD effectiveness related to the impacts agricultural programs are making among the farm communities they serve. Finally, possible changes and needed enhancements to the statewide system of SWCD program delivery will be considered for recommendation and adoption.