|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Water quality not just technical issue
Researcher studies socio-economic effects
Pat McCoy
Capital Press Staff Writer
February 2, 2007
Water quality is almost always seen as a very technical biological or physical science issue, but social and economic concerns affect it as well.
Large human dimensions guide people's behaviors and decisions, which determine what level of water quality is available as well.
That's a reality society and people in academia too often ignore, said J.D. Wulfhorst, rural sociology instructor in the University of Idaho's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
Wulfhorst is participating in a study looking at what agricultural producers really focus on when deciding what practices they'll apply. He reported on that study at the 17th annual water quality workshop on monitoring, assessment and management held in Boise recently.
"Society and regulators may pressure producers to take certain actions to improve water quality, but economic and social factors play into whether they can do it," he said.
For instance, most farmers and ranchers have a strong commitment to preserving their land in agricultural use. If the operation isn't financially sound, that may drive a producer to take a second or third job in town, he said. That, in turn, makes farming more complicated, taking time, energy and focus. The landowner may find it too difficult to install and follow a conservation practice.
Wulfhorst and several others are conducting a three-year study in Paradise Creek Watershed. Moscow, home of the UI, is located in it. Funding is from a USDA Conservation Effectiveness Assessment Program grant.
"Our project is trying to assess whether monitoring efforts and different funding sources producers can tap into are an effective use of public resources, and whether or not the hoped-for environmental benefits are being achieved," he said.
Paradise Creek lies in the Palouse country of North Idaho and Eastern Washington, an area prone to erosion. Decades ago, annual soil losses were very high. Modern farming practices such as no-till drills have changed that, but water quality is still a concern in the region, he said.
A survey is now under way across the region to gauge if operators have elected to, or even been able, to apply practices to protect or improve water quality. The data aren't in yet, but Wulfhorst has some anecdotal results gleaned from working with some producers for two years or more.
"We've seen a definite pattern correlating the rise in energy and fuel prices with whether a producer can afford to apply a practice," he said.
On the agency side, there's a dilemma. Programs can't be custom-designed for each individual, but a standardized program may not work for a producer, given his landscape. That leads to variations in costs and resulting benefits that are often overlooked, he said.
"There's a common assumption that all farmers are getting in on all these programs, but many don't even qualify for them," he said. "The Conservation Security Program is a prime example. There's a big concern over whether it's being applied equitably across different landscapes."
Pat McCoy is based in Boise. Her e-mail address is pmccoy@capitalpress.com
Water quality is almost always seen as a very technical biological or physical science issue, but social and economic concerns affect it as well.
Large human dimensions guide people's behaviors and decisions, which determine what level of water quality is available as well.
That's a reality society and people in academia too often ignore, said J.D. Wulfhorst, rural sociology instructor in the University of Idaho's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
Wulfhorst is participating in a study looking at what agricultural producers really focus on when deciding what practices they'll apply. He reported on that study at the 17th annual water quality workshop on monitoring, assessment and management held in Boise recently.
"Society and regulators may pressure producers to take certain actions to improve water quality, but economic and social factors play into whether they can do it," he said.
For instance, most farmers and ranchers have a strong commitment to preserving their land in agricultural use. If the operation isn't financially sound, that may drive a producer to take a second or third job in town, he said. That, in turn, makes farming more complicated, taking time, energy and focus. The landowner may find it too difficult to install and follow a conservation practice.
Wulfhorst and several others are conducting a three-year study in Paradise Creek Watershed. Moscow, home of the UI, is located in it. Funding is from a USDA Conservation Effectiveness Assessment Program grant.
"Our project is trying to assess whether monitoring efforts and different funding sources producers can tap into are an effective use of public resources, and whether or not the hoped-for environmental benefits are being achieved," he said.
Paradise Creek lies in the Palouse country of North Idaho and Eastern Washington, an area prone to erosion. Decades ago, annual soil losses were very high. Modern farming practices such as no-till drills have changed that, but water quality is still a concern in the region, he said.
A survey is now under way across the region to gauge if operators have elected to, or even been able, to apply practices to protect or improve water quality. The data aren't in yet, but Wulfhorst has some anecdotal results gleaned from working with some producers for two years or more.
"We've seen a definite pattern correlating the rise in energy and fuel prices with whether a producer can afford to apply a practice," he said.
On the agency side, there's a dilemma. Programs can't be custom-designed for each individual, but a standardized program may not work for a producer, given his landscape. That leads to variations in costs and resulting benefits that are often overlooked, he said.
"There's a common assumption that all farmers are getting in on all these programs, but many don't even qualify for them," he said. "The Conservation Security Program is a prime example. There's a big concern over whether it's being applied equitably across different landscapes."
Pat McCoy is based in Boise. Her e-mail address is pmccoy@capitalpress.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml