Conservation Wins in Wisconsin, but not Without Consequences
In Defense of the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association
In 2017 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was sued by the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association (WDBA) for requiring them to take additional measures towards protecting the state’s water from agricultural runoff. The DNR made the request in compliance with federal water quality standards. In contention were feed bunkers and calf hutches. Farmers were already planting vegetation downhill from these areas in order to interrupt the flow of nutrients from feed and manure carried by rainfall into streams and lakes. However, the DNR wanted farmers to cover feed bunkers and calf hutches- blocking the precipitation that carriers pollutants to water sources. Agricultural runoff in Wisconsin contributes to toxic algal and bacterial blooms, eutrophication of water bodies, and health hazards in drinking water. Poor water quality has been an increasing issue across southern Wisconsin as dairy farming becomes an increasingly unprofitable venture and farmers look for new ways to get by on vanishing profit margins. In the first days of 2019 Grant County published a study finding pathogen and nitrate contamination in 42% of the wells in three southwestern counties, and swimming docks on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus are increasingly closed due to toxic blue algae blooms. Nevertheless, the WDBA convinced the DNR to drop additional anti-pollution requirements, prompting conservation organizations to challenge the settlement in court. On January 11, the Milwaukee Circuit Court ruled that the DNR improperly removed state legal protections of its citizens- allowing the DNR’s original requirements to take effect.
As a proud Wisconsinite and conservation voter, this ruling should have filled me with the same green pride as George Meyer, leader of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, “We chose to intervene in this case to prevent DNR from taking a major step backward in environmental law enforcement by giving in to business lobbyists”. However, the situation is more nuanced than this celebratory rhetoric conveys. It is easy to view the WDBA as “bad guys” thoughtlessly seeking to poison our water and avoid government regulation, but it would be wrong to ignore the triple bottom line of environmental management. Wisconsin has seen a distressing rise in farmer suicides as people crumple under debt to large agricultural suppliers and the feeling of failing to uphold the family tradition. The number of farms in the state dropped by a record-breaking 638 herds in 2018, causing rural communities to disappear and beginning to erode the cultural ethos of the state. Additionally, dairy contributes $43.4 billion to the economy annually. Clearly, dairy farm profitability has ripple effects across rural and urban Wisconsin both economically and socially.
The DNR would do well to consider the power of financial incentivization to increase water quality, rather than command and control policies more at home in the 1970’s. The 21st century has seen a change from heavy regulatory activity to market-based policies. In order to save the legacy of generations of Wisconsin dairy farmers, policy needs to enter the modern era. For example, property taxes on farms could be reduced in proportion to level of farm compliance with runoff prevention measures, encouraging dairy farmers to protect current and future water resources for the state. Systems thinking shows us that benefits could cascade to fishing and tourism industries, improve the health of the state’s wetlands which serve critical functions for carbon sequestration and natural water filtration, and slow eutrophication (which often favors invasive species such as carp) and well water contamination. Drawbacks would include materials used to create precipitation covers (likely plastics and metals), loss of tax revenue, and a reduction in farmers exiting the industry. This last statement may have taken the reader by surprise. But it is important to note that farmers protecting the environment is preferable to not, our state should ultimately be looking for a new direction. Dairy prices and consumption have been trending down since 2015- the US currently has a record cheese surplus of 1.4 billion pounds. And 27% of American cheese comes straight from Wisconsin. The cheeseheads need to find something new that generates pride and profit- beer is a likely candidate and warming climates may bring new crops to the previously inhospitable frozen north. Dairy farming should by no means disappear, but a reduction in supply would allow prices to increase and provide a healthy living for remaining farmers. What is key is that people can exit the dairy industry with honor and assistance from the government- not by choosing to take their own lives.
