Soil Erosion Far Worse Than Reported In American Farmlands, According To New EWG Report (VIDEO)

If the American classic song is right and “this land was made for you and me,” then why are we paying to have it destroyed? This is the question presented in the video for the new Environmental Working Group (EWG) report, "Losing Ground."

EWG, working with Iowa State University, has found that erosion in Iowa is much worse than previously reported. In some regions, soil loss was found to be 12 times greater than the stated average, as storms stripped up to 64 tons of soil per acre of land.

The organization blames irresponsible farming practices for putting America’s land and water at risk. As the video says, pesticides, fertilizers, and manure run into water, which “renders our water undrinkable, our beaches unfit to swim in, and has created an area in the Gulf so contaminated that aquatic life has to flee or die.”

There is little incentive for farmers to stop erosion, and EWG places part of the blame on Washington. According to The New York Times, “Enforcement is needed more than ever, environmentalists say, because high crop prices provide a strong incentive for farmers to plant as much ground as possible and to take fewer protective measures like grass buffer strips.” As EWG states, while wealthy landowners receive taxpayer money, “the rest of us, and the environment, pay the price.”

According to the report, $51 billion is spent on boosting all-out production in farm states. Meanwhile, 97% of soil loss could be prevented with simple conservation measures. Effective practices include placing strips of grass or trees near the edge of crop fields, and creating grass waterways to both prevent gullies from forming and filter out pollutants. It’s time to stop destroying this land, and start embracing conservation practices.

WATCH:

Comments

[grumpyfarmer]

12:36 AM on 04/18/2011

The EWG isn't noted for accuracy. I wouldn't bank on their figures for soil erosion.

[ILoveFiction]

08:17 AM on 04/18/2011

I hope they are wrong.

Good soil is a terrible thing to waste.

[Donald Carr]

11:36 AM on 04/18/2011

Grumps -- provide examples of our not being noted for accuracy, please. And we used data from ISU, FYI.

[grumpyfarmer]

08:33 AM on 04/19/2011

Where would I start? How about your homepage today, some article by Ken Cook entitled "Governments Continued Bailout of Corporate Agriculture" or something like that. The entire thing is misleading as far as I am concerned. First of all it equates farm subsidies with welfare, and that is not what they are. The idea, and it works about halfway, is to try to put a bottom on farm products so you don't have a flood of broke farmers when prices go into the pooper.

Moving on, in interest of the word limit, it then trashes crop insurance. Crop insurance is probably the most effective part of the farm program, because it now targets two areas, bad weather and low prices. Crop insurance basically gives farmers a minimum wage, you do believe we deserve some type of minimum wage surely.

Finally, and this is the dumbest part if you believe as you say you do in the small, sustainable movement, you seem to totally lose sight of the fact if you would remove these safety nets, it wouldn't be the "big corporate" farms that go broke first, it would be many of the medium sized farms who don't have much off farm income, and lack the huge cash flow of the big farms. Little farmers wouldn't take over those big farms. Bigger farms would get bigger.

Be sure to thank all your friends at EWG for kicking guys like me in the nads every single day.

[Milrepa]

10:34 AM on 04/15/2011

OK we get it. Blaming "someone else" in a strident way mobilizes us unwashed rabble. But the unintended consequences of this type of war also wreak havoc (massive forest fires being an example of environmental activism that prevented good forest management). Can we not evolve to an activism that streamlines success? Planting trees around a perimeter is something even Johnny Appleseed got behind. Reach out to all of us in inspiration, not just a few with hatred and blame.

[DocSkull]

08:25 PM on 04/16/2011

"massive forest fires being an example of environmen­tal activism that prevented good forest management­"

Where did that happen?

[jimboy71]

01:01 AM on 04/17/2011

Apparently this one equates conservation methods in the west with environmentalism. He/she/it is referring to a time when we did not allow forest fires to burn on national lands, thereby allowing scrub and brush accumulate to danger levels.

[mynameispaul62]

10:27 AM on 04/15/2011

The mennonites in my area are using organic gardening on a large scale. They seem to be doing much better than the commercial farmers in this area. Their crops are much healthier. They produce more per acre.

[benwha]

06:33 PM on 04/15/2011

What do they pay their laborers? Assuming there is a lot of child labor as well, not that that would be any different than my dad getting me to work as a kid, but I am guessing that to a mennonite operation, cheap labor is a given.

[KarlaElisa]

04:53 PM on 04/24/2011

aw c'mon ben. we know who most of the 'laborers' are and they are latino's who are legal and non citizens who work for peanuts and in some cases, like the immolokee's have learned, wind up virtual slaves on these farms.

[patman77]

07:50 PM on 04/14/2011

the dust bowl comes to mind. then we started regulating and rotating crops. the usda set up soil conservation guidelines and the neocorpoconmen have stomped these regs into dust along with small family operated farms and wall street investors sang their praises until neocorpoconmen dereged and rigged it too and they all lost the money they thought would grow huge. Its time to get back to basics of survival for all animals on this planet clean water to drink, cleans seas and waterways to allow sealife to breed,play in and regenerate in and provide us with food, clean air to breath and clean, chemical free soil to grow food for us to eat. who gave anyone the right to desecrate,pollute and profit with no regards to the survival of all animals on this planet? WHO !!

[thegreenchick]

06:24 PM on 04/14/2011

For those who react with skepticism or say "so what", I offer this thought; Americans, support action against countries that demonstrate a less than one percent chance of having nuclear weapon capabilities. We protect ourselves against a less than five percent statistical chance our house will burn. We insure ourselves for the less than twenty percent chance we may get sick. The question is what if this science is right.

If there is a less than one percent statistical chance that our soil and water is being poisoned by industrial farming modalities, why would we not take action? If there is a less than one percent chance that the rise of floods occurring today, compared with 30 years ago, particularly where more land is sown with row crops, creating gullies that channel more and faster water runoff than our rivers can carry, why would we not choose to take action?

Who puts that revolver to their children or grandchildren's heads, with all but one chamber empty and pulls the trigger? What dummy is willing to take that chance?

America was built when there were less people, but those relatively few people paid higher taxes, shared the costs, the labor and the pride. Those who inherited their works, refuse to pay their fair share of taxes, refuse to accept responsibility for sustaining the infrastructure, the soil, the land, the air or the dream. And, they say "so what?"

[TulsaMikel]

04:48 PM on 04/14/2011

Are environmentalist aloud to complain about high crop prices causing problems when they are largely responsible.

[Matt Stevenson]

05:05 PM on 04/14/2011

allowed

[TulsaMikel]

05:16 PM on 04/14/2011

DOH!

[DocSkull]

08:37 AM on 04/16/2011

"Are environmen­talist aloud to complain about high crop prices causing problems when they are largely responsibl­e."

Short-term costs are well worth it if you can avoid a long-term catastrophe. Besides, farmers could use some better prices so they have economic room to practice conservation. There won't be starvation, but we can increase the minimum wage if anyone is truly concerned about the working poor.

[benwha]

08:55 AM on 04/16/2011

"there won't be starvation" - of course there is starvation and it is increasing. Practicing more "environmentalist"-friendly (not environmentally) methods will increase that starvation even more.

That said, these high food prices are not because of the environmentalists. It is because of China and India wanting to eat like us (they still have a long way to go but will get there), crazy weather (maybe global weather), high oil prices (that will likely keep going higher especially if we cancel the ethanol support), and a government intent on inflating its way out of debt. The last point a sneaky way for the government too offload its debt problems on the poor and elderly.

[Robco1]

01:36 PM on 04/14/2011

The root problem as I see it is that farm policy is being written to benefit industrial agrabusiness that mass-produces a handful of commodity crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, etc.) and mainly operates in a handful of states.

I designed a farm policy report back in 2001 for Environmental Defense in conjunction with American Farmland Trust, DEN, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Environmental Working Group, and Trout Unlimited. This report demonstrated in great detail that a farm policy structured to provide incentives and assistance to more sustainable and organic farming practices would benefit small family farmers and rural communities in all fifty states, while improving water quality, improving public health, combating spawl, and protecting environmental health in the bargain. The report was well-received... then ignored. The farm belt senators (Look up Bob Dole: Senator for Sale on Amazon) and their Big Agra backers were not about to let go of their cash cow.

Isn't it time we had representatives who worked for the public interest instead of ADM and Monsanto's quarterly profit statements? What the h*ll are we passing on to our children here?

[gallon]

04:11 PM on 04/14/2011

Hey Robco1, check your email.

[Photofarm]

06:28 PM on 04/14/2011

Did you mention how many people would starve, and how much lower production would be?

[Robco1]

08:02 PM on 04/14/2011

No, because that would be false, as a recent head-to-head study of organic vs. conventional farming demonstrated. They were able to show parity with conventional farming, but with better soil quality and a 31 percent improvement in yields for organic during years of moderate drought. Looks like another corporatist canard bites the dust.

"In 4 out of 5 years of moderate drought, the organic systems had significantly higher corn yields (31 percent higher) than the conventional system."

And

"Corn and soybean crops in the organic systems tolerated much higher levels of weed competition than their conventional counterparts, while producing equivalent yields."

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-25-rodale-data-show-organic-just-as-productive-better-at-building

[Robco1]

08:11 PM on 04/14/2011

Whoops! I think you need to do a little more research before posting your assumptions.

Here's a recent UN report: "Based on an extensive review of recent scientific literature, the report demonstrates that agroecology, if sufficiently supported, can double food production in entire regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty."
http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food

[Virtual Indian]

12:43 PM on 04/14/2011

The federal crop insurance program needs reform for cases involving drought. Several years back, when a severe drought was impacting the South, I drove through Southern Georgia on the way to visit my Aunt. We used State highways because I75 was undergoing some repairs.

In much of Southern Georgia, the air was hazy with a light brown dust. Occasionally we would pass a source of part of the dust, a tractor working the fields with planter attachments. This seemed strange in light of the fact that the drought was so severe that the seed was unlikely to germinate or seedlings grow.

My Aunt explained that the farmers were "dusting in" their crops in order to collect crop insurance. Crop insurance that gives farmers an incentive to use fuel, seed, and labor in order to collect insurance on a crop that was never going to grow and have a portion of his fields blow away in the process needs to be fixed!

[Photofarm]

06:29 PM on 04/14/2011

Gee, and if a farmer gets paid for not trying to grow a corp wouldn't cause any problems?

[grumpyfarmer]

12:32 AM on 04/18/2011

Not a very good example. You can't grow a crop if you don't plant it. Many of us "dust in crops", it doesn't have anything to do with collecting crop insurance. Each crop has a relatively narrow planting window, you aren't going to have any income if you don't plant, that is a given. So, you dust your crops in and hope for the best.

[mickfan]

10:53 AM on 04/14/2011

And when everything is destroyed they will just blame it on Obama

[Randy White]

10:14 AM on 04/14/2011

Tom Szaky is under 30, and he made $1.5 million in from worm poop sales in 2006. Now the worm poop industry is ready to fertilize itself and promote it’s own growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv_WVUDjmIc

[Silver Owl]

07:41 AM on 04/14/2011

Soil erosion caused by heavy storms... Heavy storms caused by more moisture in the air.... More moisture in the air thanks to climate change....

[Photofarm]

10:50 AM on 04/14/2011

Nope, things go in cycles, and this year will be a dry cycle. Had heavy rains in the 40's and 1960's and 1990's as well.

[DocSkull]

08:09 AM on 04/16/2011

"Nope, things go in cycles, and this year will be a dry cycle. Had heavy rains in the 40's and 1960's and 1990's as well."

What drives that cycle and what is its area of effect?

[elcerritan]

11:43 AM on 04/14/2011

Soil erosion doesn't have just a single cause.

[William Moran]

01:20 PM on 04/14/2011

But soil erosion prevention requires intelligent human intervention.
Since we speak of mindless corporate america....we're doomed!

[Photofarm]

07:03 AM on 04/14/2011

Ah yes, nothing like clueless people saying how simple it is to control erosion. Let's just look at the one about grass waterways. Great idea, as long as you can get them established. If you do get them established, they only last a year or two before the grass catches enough soil to raise it high enough so that you get two more ditches, one on each side of the waterway.

[janharms]

04:29 PM on 04/14/2011

Those things require constant maintenance and care, but what do you want to do exept watch your topsoil fly away in the wind? Just a few day ago there was a heavy accident on a german highway (Autobahn) near Rostock, because eroding topsoil was blown into the traffic in a sandstorm-like manner by a sudden gust. It is not just a problem for the farmer, the whole society needs to get involved in this global problem.

[Photofarm]

06:30 PM on 04/14/2011

Actually there is more soil erosion from water than wind in many areas.

[Neil Rupe]

04:34 AM on 04/14/2011

More corn production for ethanol will increase this problem.

[Photofarm]

07:31 AM on 04/14/2011

Nope, another wrong conclusion and myth about ethanol.

[DocSkull]

08:14 AM on 04/16/2011

"Nope, another wrong conclusion and myth about ethanol."

I assume they mean because it encourages overproduction at the cost of longterm durability.

[JacklynD]

03:49 AM on 04/14/2011

I can't wait to see how the Tea Baggers spin this one. It'll either be Obama's fault or they'll treat as a hoax, like they do global warming.

[Robco1]

04:28 PM on 04/14/2011

...and some GOP Scott Walker clone governor in the Midwest will blame it on the unions...

Welcome to Bizarro World, brought to you by Republicorp!

[YoBear]

02:07 AM on 04/14/2011

Let's see. Government subsidized agribusiness hires cheap illegal laborers who send there money back home so food can be sold to third world countries who hate us all while our land and aquifers are going to the toilet and a bunch of rich execs make lots of money. And this helps the rest of us?

[Photofarm]

07:32 AM on 04/14/2011

Not an accurate statement, like most on here from people that don't know much about agriculture.

[TulsaMikel]

05:00 PM on 04/14/2011

Your on the wrong website for accurate statements. I am interested in your thoughts on how corn ethanol is helping us. Unless you meant corn ethanol will not increase erosion.