Notes for Chapter 16

Econ 2390

2

Walkerton WaterFacts

• The water supply for the town of Walkerton was operated by the Walkerton Public Utilities

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=walkerton+ontario&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Walkerton,+Brockton,+Bruce+County,+Ontario&gl=ca&ei=xeiwS_i0G8H98AaVpZjYBA&ved=0CAgQ8gEwAA&ll=43.683764,-80.26062&spn=2.597964,4.916382&z=8

• The two operators had no formal training only 30 years of job experience • The water supply became contaminated with E. coli bacteria, from farm

runoff into an adjacent well.• On May 15, 2000, many residents experienced severe gastrointestinal

symptoms.• For days the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission maintained that the

water was safe, even though it had lad tests to the contrary.• On May 21, more cases prompted a boil water advisory. • At least seven people died and about 2,500 became ill.• A key issue was the management of on farm animal waste (nutrients).

3

Close-up E-coli

4

Findings of Inquiry

• Poor regulation of provincial water supplies, especially in the face of privatization

• Poorly run municipal water authority

• Personnel deficiency

• No capital plan to improve monitoring and control

5

Case study on Nutrient Management Program

The adverse effects of manure coming into contact with water if it is not properly stored or applied include:

– The contamination of water supplies caused by coliform bacteria and nitrate nitrogen

– The promotion of algae growth caused by phosphorus, which uses up oxygen in a stream and kills fish

– Odours resulting from bacteria and other micro-organisms in stored manure that can bother neighbours

6

Need to change on-farm practice

• Manure typically concentrates in pens

• Cattle need to be managed to avoid concentrations of manure waste

• Manure storage capacity is often too low for the farm

• Manure spreading is commonly used to manage concentrations, but this often requires substantial investments

7

Manure spreading

8

Practices to manage nutrient• Properly locating manure storage structures the minimum safe

distance from field drains and surface water,• The renovation or construction of appropriate solid and/or liquid

manure storage and handling systems, • Proper farmyard runoff control.

Farmers need to • determine their land base needs in terms of spreading manure and • consider their options to properly manage excess manure

Options include

• increasing the size of the landbase, • reducing the amount of nutrients to handle, • applying more manure to the same landbase, • moving manure off-site, and • adopting innovative treatments of manure.

9

Nutrient Management Financial Assistance Act

(Case study in water pollution control)

OMAFRA established six general goals for the NMFAP• To reduce emissions from Ontario Agriculture• To reduce impacts of farm-based nutrients on Ontario

water resources• To improve nutrient management practices on Ontario

farms in concert with other subprograms of the NMA• To leverage funds from federal and other agencies for

eligible items offered by NMFAP• To provide participants with a one-window access to

agri-environmental cost share programs• To help participant farmers remain competitive while

becoming compliant with the NMA.

10

Mechanics of NMFAPNMFAP offered producers technical and financial assistance to adopt specific BMPs geared towards nutrient management.

Technical assistance

“operating funds were allocated for existing Ministry staff to provide technical, administrative, policy and management expertise as necessary to ensure program effectiveness and accountability.”

Producers were eligible to receive funding for up to 90% of their project costs, to a maximum of $90,000Some of the more common BMPs included

–improved manure storage and handling,–land application for manure, and –farmyard runoff control.

11

Key to the policy

• Technical assistance to identify ways to control run-off

• Preparation of a list of approved practices (Beneficial management practices or BMPs)

• Financial assistance (cost sharing)

• Delivery through third party (Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association)

12

Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Descriptions under NMFAP

BMP category Type of practice

Improved manure storage and handling

Solid manure storage and handling systemsLiquid manure storage and handling systems

Manure treatment Solid-liquid separation and nutrient recovery systemsComposting of manure and dead livestock

Manure land application

Specialized/modification to equipment for improved manure application:replacement of high-trajectoryconversion of existing equipment to direct injection or pre-tillrate monitors or sensors

In barn improvements

More efficient livestock watering devices and clean out systems to reduce water use and decrease manure volumes

Farmyard runoff control

Upstream diversion around farmyards (e.g. berms, eaves troughs)Downstream protection (e.g. retention ponds, constructed wetlands,

and catch basins linked to them)

Relocation of livestock confinement areas

Relocation of livestock confinement areas such as paddocks and wintering sites away from riparian areas

Water well management

Proper well abandonment (sealing & capping) water wellsProtecting existing water wells from surface contamination (e.g. pit-less

adapters, proper sealing)Professional services

13

Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Descriptions under NMFAP

Riparian area management

Remote livestock watering systems: gravity fed, pump & pipeline systemsBuffer establishment: forages, shrubs, trees – planting, weed controlFencing to manage grazing and improve riparian condition/function Improved stream crossings

Erosion control structures (riparian)

Professional design and construction costs for: constructed works in riparian areas: contour terraces, gully stabilization, bank stabilization, drop inlet and enhanced infiltration systems, in-channel control

Erosion control structures (non riparian)

Professional design and construction costs for: constructed works in non riparian areas to reduce cropland runoff: contour terraces, gully stabilization, drop inlet systems and enhanced infiltration systems

Nutrient Recovery from waste water

Milking centre wash water treatment and disposal systems (e.g. treatments trench systems)

Nutrient management planning

Consultative services to develop nutrient management strategies, plans, planning and decision support tools, mapping and inventory, material sampling and analyses, contingency plans

Soil erosion control planning

Consultative services for soil erosion control planning and decision support tools

Riparian health assessment

Consultative services for assessing riparian health and planning

14

Table 2: Factors government should consider when deciding to use voluntary programs or regulations (Based on farm survey and experts)

Factors Rationale

The level of risk to public health

Respondents said that regulations are needed to encourage a rapid response to significant public health concerns. They indicated that voluntary programs are not effective at responding to public health concerns because producers may delay their participation in the program or may choose not to participate at all.

The level of environmental risk

Respondents suggested that regulations are required to respond to situations posing a high level of environmental risk.

The level of economic benefit to the operation

Key informants indicated that the level of economic benefit to the operation is a key driver in producers’ decisions about whether to implement a practice. Therefore, respondents suggested that regulations are required to encourage producers to implement practices that derive little or no economic benefit for the operation, whereas voluntary programs are appropriate for practices that yield some economic benefit for the operation.

The number of operations required to change their behaviour

Respondents indicated that regulations are necessary to motivate all operations to change their behaviour. However, they also acknowledged that voluntary programs are effective at beginning the process of changing behaviours within a sector.

15

Third Party Delivery• Having credibility in the farming community. Some 92% of the

respondents to the surveys of producers agreed that this was an important factor.

• Keeping personal information confidential. While 91% of producers agreed that this was important, it was not something that key informants mentioned.

• Having experience delivering agri-environmental programs. About 87% of the survey respondents agreed that this was important.

• Having a province-wide presence. Some 77% of the responding producers agreed that this was an important factor.

• Having experience delivering multiple programs at the same time. Although, 74% of producers agreed this was important, key informants did not identify this factor as a consideration.

16

Pros of Third Party Delivery• It is easier for third parties to gain the trust of producers than it is for

government.• There are fewer administrative requirements for third-parties to meet

when hiring temporary staff than for government.• Using a third-party frees up government staff to focus on other

aspects of the program such as education and awareness.• A third party is in a better position than government to reach clients

through networking and farmer to farmer connections. A third party can also use the same local representatives to deliver multiple programs, which may minimize the need for training.

• A third party can mobilize and bring a program to operation more quickly than the government. Additionally, the operation of a third party will not be disrupted by political events such as an election.

• A third party has lower overhead costs

17

Cons of Third Party Delivery

• The government has less control over the program.

• There is potential for a conflict of interest if the goals of the government and the goals of the third party do not align.

• There may be more administrative costs involved in delivering the program through a third party.

• Third party delivery agents may not be as knowledgeable about the program as government staff members.

18

Best Practice in Third Party Delivery

• Ensuring open, clear, and ongoing communication between government, the third-party delivery agent, and producers.

• Using a “one-window” delivery approach for multiple programs.• Using a comprehensive selection process to secure a third-party delivery agent.• Ensuring the third-party delivery agent has complete understanding of the

program.• Providing the third-party delivery agent with the training and tools it needs to

successfully deliver the program.• Providing the third-party delivery agent with adequate financial compensation for

administering the program.• Ensuring the third-party is visible to producers and has a local presence across

the province.• Assessing the performance of the third-party delivery agent.• Treating all producers equally, and ensure they are all held accountable to an

identical set of rules.• Providing producers with multiple ways to access information and technical

assistance including online, over the phone, and in person.• Having a contract management committee review and oversee the program to

ensure it is cost-effective, timely, and adheres to the funding criteria.