WSP01268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UIllU-::'3 within these areas. This idea is similar to existing state programs designating certain geographic areas because of a threat to the quantity of water supply. Generally, these programs vest much authority in state agencies to J.imjt water diversions or withdrawals in these areas, Some eastern states have created special agricultural protection areas where the land may not be bought for conversion to nonagricultural uses, This provides additional security to the district but there are strings attached to the designation. Once so designated, the state may regulate and control land use practices. Although the incentive for those states that have implemented this protection area program may be something other than pollution control, the concept may be transferable to this objective. As an alternative to specific state laws tliat require district action or restraint, states could impose a more general mandate that irrigation districts develop water management plans to address water quality concerns, This approach has the advantage of meeting less legislative resistance becauSe it requires no corrective action, and imposes little cost on the district. The Role of Individual Farmers iIi Controlling Agricultural Pollution Maybe we should consider making individual farmers responsible for pollution clean up, Maybe the $5,000 grant to individual farmers under the 1985 federal farm bill makes sense. It particularly makes sense when one' considers this payment together with allowing any waters saved from conservation efforts to be banked within the districts, Another improvement to this model could be the financing of the $5,000 grant with a tax on the fanner who is actually adding to the pollution problem. This model may be offensive, however, panic.ularly in parts of " , 35