Excerpt
A question of fairness or equity bears on who should pay for soil conservation. But personal values determine just how the question is addressed and the answer one gets. There is no correct or incorrect answer. The question can only be resolved in the public arena. That may cause frustration with the answer at times, but there is no better approach.
Let me characterize the problem. Some cropland can be farmed in any reasonable manner without excessive soil loss. Other cropland must be converted to alternate uses to attain soil loss tolerance limits because profitable combinations of row crop production and conservation techniques do not exist. Still other land can be used for crop production, but the conservation practices applied will determine whether soil loss falls above or below accepted levels. In some cases, farming on the basis of good business management practices will result in “excessive” soil loss.
In addition to on-farm erosion damages—reductions in yields or increases in costs—there are off-site damages. These include, among other damages, sediment deposits in roadside ditches, waterways, and reservoirs; reduced racreational use of land or water resources; and increased water treatment costs. Off-site …
Footnotes
Wesley D. Seitz is head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, 305 Mumford Hall, University of Illinois, Urbana, 61801. This editorial is based on a presentation at the 1984 Illinois Farm Bureau State Women's Conference in Champaign.
- Copyright 1984 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.