HARRISBURG, Pa. - As a new national farm bill is considered in Congress, there is concern that Pennsylvania farms and municipalities could lose vital funding. The bill is reworked every five years, usually with hearings and public input, but this year, it's being rolled into the budget duties being taken on by the so-called "Super Committee."

Doug Siglin, federal affairs director with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, says the new process could jeopardize farm bill funding for vital conservation programs, including the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI), which helps control runoff and other pollution that starts upstream and ends up in the Bay.

"We're concerned that program might get dropped and that Pennsylvanians might not even get the opportunity to say very much to their representatives about how important that program is to them."

He says most farms, and cities and towns for that matter, need all the federal help they can get when it comes to Bay pollution reduction.

"Municipalities, townships are going to have to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants and their urban runoff, and farmers are going to have to get their fertilizer under control, and they're being asked to lay out capital to do all those things."

It appears Pennsylvania does have some factors in its favor. Republican Senator Pat Toomey sits on the Super Comittee, and there are three other Capitol Hill lawmakers from Pennsylvania who are close to the issue.

"That's Senator Bob Casey and then Tim Holden and Glen Thompson. Presumably, they're going to be looking out for Pennsylvania's interests and going to be pushing the Super Committee to include things that are in Pennsylvania's interests."

Siglin says that even as it stands now the CBWI doesn't have enough funding on hand to help farmers who want to manage their runoff. He says ending the program would cripple efforts to improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay.




get more stories like this via email

Missouri's duck-hunting season runs through January, and many enthusiasts are concerned about how plentiful their future quarry will be because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

It's been six months since the high court removed protections for most wetlands in the nation.

Zack Morris is the president of the Conservation Federation of Missouri and said the Sackett vs EPA case dealt with identifying which waters are protected under the federal Clean Water Act.

This affects the quality of upcoming duck hunts. Morris said without thriving wetlands, the sport won't be able to carry on.

"It's hard to say how many of those unprotected wetlands are going to be plowed under or how fast," said Morris, "but that's certainly, I think, a reality that we'll face is significant wetland loss over the next 10 years or so and declining duck numbers as a result. "

Wetlands are also the primary habitat for 200 at-risk plants and animals in the state.

Morris said most of the ducks that migrate through the Midwest on the central or Mississippi flyways hatch in small pothole wetlands in North and South Dakota, Iowa and Canada.

Duck habitat is expected to decline for the U.S. portion.

Conservation groups in Missouri say protecting the wetlands is now up to state agencies.

Dana Ripper is co-founder and executive director of the Missouri River Bird Observatory and said wetlands are critical to Missouri's way of life and Missourians need to reach out to their legislators to gain protections.

Ripper said wetlands protect us from flooding and provide us with clean drinking water. They are key for fish and the millions of ducks and shorebirds that migrate through the state annually.

"They are some of our most biodiverse ecosystems here in Missouri - all throughout the Midwest," said Ripper. "They also provide water filtration. We have had devastating floods just in the last 15 years or so. And our wetlands are really important for helping to mitigate the effects of flooding. "

As many as 127 million acres of wetlands existed when settlers arrived on this continent. Today, more than 50% of those wetlands are gone - and without protection, thousands of acres will be
lost each year in the United States.

Of the original 2.4 million wild acres of forested lowlands in southeast Missouri, less than 60,000 acres, or 2%, remain today.




get more stories like this via email

States like Illinois are dealing with the fallout of a Supreme Court decision made earlier this year.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively removed federal protections for over half of the wetlands across the country. The case, Sackett v. EPA, dealt with which waters are protected under the federal Clean Water Act. Conservation groups said in Illinois, protecting the wetlands is now up to state agencies.

Paul Botts, president and executive director of the Chicago-based Wetlands Initiative, said the problem needs a congressional fix, but it is unlikely to happen soon.

"Congress, of course, is completely melted down and dysfunctional now, and this issue just simply is not going to rise to the top and cut through the partisan divide that we have," Botts acknowledged. "The chances of the Clean Water Act being updated are just pretty close to nil."

As Botts put it, the Clean Water Act is the reason Illinois waters are no longer on fire or used as open sewers. The landowners from the original case call the ruling a "victory for property rights."

Botts contended both of the state agencies dealing with wetlands in Illinois have a poor track record. He fears many of the state's pristine waterways will return to the poor condition they were in 50 years ago.

"We have an Illinois EPA, and then of course, we have our state Department of Natural Resources," Botts outlined. "Both of those agencies are starved for staffing resources, frankly, to carry out programs and to do things like issue permits in a prompt manner so that landowners can get an answer."

For almost 30 years, the rule the high court overturned served as the underpinning of the Clean Water Act. Along with investments made in wastewater treatment, Botts noted the safeguards afforded by the law resulted in enormous benefits for people and communities. Today, he fears conservation groups will be unable to keep up with the decline of waterways.

"Audubon estimates that tens of millions of acres have been made newly open to development by the Sackett ruling," Botts stressed. "It's just an estimate; it would be years of work to try to go around and use state wetlands inventories to figure out an exact figure."


get more stories like this via email

An Arizona water expert said the state faces a challenging situation with the Colorado River being overallocated, compounded with what she calls a historic drought.

Kathryn Sorensen, director of research at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University, said Arizona's water system is in distress.

She explained access to water from the Colorado River depends on what she called a "hierarchy of water rights." Certain Native American communities and farmers enjoy "senior rights," while other towns and cities have to get by with less.

Sorensen noted Arizona is blessed to have significant groundwater aquifers, so management of these aquifers is paramount.

"The water was laid down over tens of thousands of years, and it isn't annually renewed at any significant rate," Sorensen pointed out. "If you pump too much of it, you're basically 'mining' that groundwater and depleting it, meaning that there will be less available for future generations."

While Arizona has taken significant steps to conserve water, Sorensen said the work and innovation must continue, from improving use of reclaimed water to finding ways to augment water supplies. In a poll earlier this year, Arizonans said they believe the state should be doing more to regulate groundwater consumption, as well as prioritizing conservation and restoration projects.

As Arizona continues to grow, Sorensen stressed water demands are much more closely related to land use than to population growth, with the agricultural sector using about 70% of the state's water. She said some crops require as much as six acre-feet of water per acre of farmland. An acre-foot of water equates to about 326,000 gallons.

"Whereas urban developments actually use much less water, probably more like one to two acre-feet per acre," Sorensen stated. "So ironically, as our population has grown and we have converted what used to be farmland into urban uses, there has been a sort of natural water savings."

She added in the future, experts predict Arizona will be hotter and drier, so it is important to understand land use choices are meaningful and will have a direct impact on water availability.


get more stories like this via email