ffect The 1990 Farm Bill However, over the long-term, the annual acreage reductions can result in more intense, production on the remaining acres, causing a substitution of agricultural chemi cals for land and, thus, possibly resulting in greater water quality impacts. Other farm program components A number of other features of the farm program have negative effects on water quality. For example, the production of a num ber of fruit, vegetable, and spe cialty crops is affected by federal marketing orders. This system provides incentives for producing high quality output so that pro ducts will receive a high grade and producers can obtain a higher price. If grades are based on cos metic standards and these stan dards can only be obtained through relatively high rates of pesticide use, then greater pesti cide use may result and pesticides are more likely to enter groundwa ter or surface water. Proposals for water quality in the 1990 farm bill Proposals for incorporating water quality goals in the farm bill are being formulated by agricul tural, conservation/environmental, I.G. SALES Sllvardala, PA 215-257-5136 KERMTT K. LONE MAPLE KISTLER INC. SALES & SERVICE Lynnport, PA Nsw Alsxandsr, PA 215-298-2011 412-668-7172 LOST CREEK PIKEVILLE LANDIS BROS. INC. IMPLEMENT EQUIPMENT INC. Lancaster, PA Oakland Mills, PA Olay. PA 717-291-1048 717-463-2181 215-987-8277 End-of-the-Decade Sale! Field Cultivator Sweep Disk Blade so74* 7-in. sweeps for John Deere, and other makes of field cultivators. Part No. N 188992 and other interest groups. It is dif ficult to predict what type of specfic proposals will emerge, and how they will fare in the upcom ing debate over the new farm bill. However, several general catego ries of policy approaches may appear in some form in the final legislation'. Expanding cross compliance The idea of expanding the cross-compliance provisions for controlling soil erosion that were contained in the 1985 Food Se curity Act to water quality has received much attention. Under this alternative, farmers! eligiblity for federal farm program benefits would be linked to their adoption of practices that do not pollute sur face or groundwater above certain levels. The basic notion is to use a potential penalty (i.e. the loss of farm program benefits) to induce farmers to adopt “best manage ment practices” (BMPs) which haver fewer water quality impacts. A cross-compliance approach to water quality would have sever al shortcomings. Farm-level BMPs for protecting water quality protection are not as well developed as those developed for erosion control. This is especially true for farm practices affecting LEHIGH AG < EQUIPMENT Wmcosvlll*. PA 21S-3M-2593 OXFORD GREENLINE Oxford, PA 215-932-2753 215-932-2754 s|o23* 22-in. solid, fits most John Deere, Bush Hog and Kewanee disks. Part No. 835605 Planter Carrier Hate $9994* For John Deei Planters (plat Part No. A A.' 111 MALEVICH GEORGE V. SEIPLE BROS., INC. & SON HaekMtrtcmrn, NJ Eatton, PA 201-852-44 U 215-258-7148 Powdered Graphite so4o* groundwater. It appears that water quality BMP’s will need to be based on site-specific evaluations and may require more managerial input in the day-to-day farm decision-making. Such factors would greatly increase the com plexity of implementing such a cross-compliance approach to improving water quality, when compared to one focusing on ero sion control. The cross-compliance approach is also limited by farm program participation. Many agricultural activities that contribute to water quality problems are not affected by the farm programs. Thus, cross-compliance is in no way a comprehensive means for addressing agricultural water quality issues. Also, the success of this approach is dependent upon the attraclivenss of participation in the program. In years when farm ing decisions are market driven, such as in periods of relatively high prices, program participation and water quality benefits obtained through cross-compli ance would be lower. An expanded Conservation Reserve Program Targeting those areas causing significant water quality prob- SMITH’S IMPLEMENTS, INC Mwcaraburg, PA 717-328-2344 SOLLENBERGER EQUIPMENT Evartll, PA 814-652-5223 How Share s96l* Fits most John Deere 20,30,40 and 50 Senes Tractors from 100- to 195-horsepower. Part No. AR50041 Hand Cleaner 16-in., 4-bolt, for many John Deere plows. Part No. A 51501 so37* Heavy-duty, in pump bottle. Part No. TY15745 •John Deere dealers are independent retailed who determine their own prices, so actual selling price may vary from the pnce shown Offer good through December 31,1989 lems, and paying farmers to take such land out of production are also possible. Similar to the Con servation Reserve Program of the 1985 Food Security Act, which identified “highly erodible land,” areas that “have a high potential to degrade surface or groundwater” could be identified. Farmers could then submit bids to the govern ment for amounts desired to take the land out of production or to reduce or eliminate contaminating practices. Government decision makers could adjust the accept able level of bids to obtain the desired level of farmer participa tion and water quality impacts. The impact of expanding the conservation reserve program in this manner would depend on the method of implementation. Since numerous water quality parame ters are of interest, defining land that may cause water quality de terioration is more complex than defining “highly erodible” land. Once criteria are established, areas must be designated for pos sible inclusion in the program. Shortcomings in existing data bases, especially for pesticide use, and limits to our understanding of groundwater vulnerability, are issues that need to be dealt with. Participation in an expanded TOBIAS EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Halifax, PA 717-362-3132 WALTEMYER'S SALES & SERVICE Rad Lion, PA 717-244-4168 M.S. YEARSLEY & SONS Waal Chaatar, PA 215-696-2990 Diesel Fuel Filter $742* Lancaster Farming Saturday, December 16, 1989-017 conservation reserve would depend on the prices of products produced as well as the payment level offered by the government. If market prices are high in the sign-up year, lower farmer partici pation should be expected. The cost of this approach - gov ernment cash outlays needed to pay farmers to take land out-of production or reduce water pollut ing praclices-would depend on how the approach is implemented. For example, if crops are permit ted to be grown on land included in the reserve, but only with prac tices that do not degrade water quality, government payments would be lower than if no harvest is permitted. Other proposals have suggested that acreage in an expanded reserve program be per mitted to meet the land set-aside requirements of commodity pro grams. This would also increase the appeal of the reserve to far mers and lower the federal cost. However, as more productive land moves into the reserve, program costs to the government would rise. Evidence of agriculture’s con tribution to water quality degrada tion has rapidly accumulated over the past ten years. As policies to control point sources (e.g. indust rial and municipal discharges) have been implemented, govern ment agencies have devoted more attention to diffuse or nonpoint sources of water pollution. The most common agricultural conta minants are sediment, nutrients, Dauphin Co. Receive $90,000 To For Chesapeake Bay Program HARRISBURG (Dauphin Co.) —The Dauphin County Conservation District will receive $90,000 to reduce agricultural non-point source pollution as part of the 1989-90 grant for the Penn sylvania Chesapeake Bay Program, Environmen tal Resources Secretary Arthur A. Davis announced. “The monies received by the county conserva tion districts have gone to assist farmers in high priority watersheds to implement sound nutrient management practices,” Davis said. “By reducing the amount of soil erosion and nutrient runoff from these farms, Pennsylvanians have made sub stantial efforts to improve the quality of water reaching the Chesapeake Bay from the Common wealth.” With matching federal and state funds, the Pen nsylvania Chesapeake Bay Financial Assistance Funding Program (FAFP) has obligated over $7.6 million to farmers in 20 counties. These funds are used to help defer the costs of implementing ero sion control and other best management practices on farms in the Commonwealth’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Currently, 28 county conservation districts participate in the-FAFP. To date, 34 farmers in Dauphin County have signed up for cost-share assistance since the Bay Program was introduced to the county in 1985. Farmers receive cost-share funds based on priori ties established by the county conservation dis trict's board of directors. For more information on the Pennsylvania Che sapeake Bay Program in general, write the Bay Education Office, 225 Pine Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105, The Dauphin County Conservation District’s allotment of FAFP funding is currently open to farmers and landowners in the Concwago and Swatara Creek Watersheds, and all of Dauphin County north of Peters Mountain. If you think you may be eligible and would like to sign up to parti- Water quality impacts from agriculture (Turn to Page DIB)
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers