The Minnesota Department of Agriculture received more than 3,000 comments on its proposed groundwater protection rule over the summer.

Comments were submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings during five public hearings and through written submissions. OAH received 92 written comments and more than 2,900 form letters, and staff heard 40 people testify at the hearings. An additional six comments were submitted during a rebuttal period.

MDA expects to receive the judge’s decision by the end of September, says Margaret Hart, MDA communications director.

The Minnesota Corn Growers Association was one farm organization that provided written comments during both periods, as well as five letters of comments on previous versions of the rule, when it was known as the proposed nitrogen fertilizer rule.

While appreciating the effort made by MDA to gather public input, the corn farmers’ organization said in its first filed letter that voluntary efforts already undertaken by Minnesota farmers should be given time to show results and that the proposed rule is premature.

“In short, [MDA] has failed to satisfy its statutory burdens to show that the voluntary implementation of best management practices has been ineffective, or that the proposed rule is needed and reasonable,” stated MCGA’s letter, signed by MCGA President Kirby Hettver.

MCGA comments on rule
MCGA made the following comments about the proposed groundwater protection rule:

• The proposed rule targets the “sins of the 1970s” when commercial N fertilizer initially became available, acknowledged MDA officials at a public hearing July 26 in Park Rapids, Minn. The rule does not consider the “extensive efforts that Minnesota corn farmers voluntarily implemented over the last few years.”

“[MDA] has not established that the voluntary best management practices for nitrogen fertilizer have been ineffective or that the proposed rule is needed at this time. Accordingly, MDA does not have statutory authority to adopt the proposed rule,” the letter noted.

MCGA added that the state’s Ground Water Protection Act specifically emphasizes voluntary efforts to prevent, minimize, reduce and eliminate sources of groundwater pollution. It also restricts MDA’s authority to impose mandatory governmental regulations to situations where such voluntary efforts have been demonstrated to be ineffective.

• To support its argument that voluntary efforts have been ineffective in reducing groundwater pollution from N fertilizer, MDA improperly focused on total N fertilizer use increasing on growing corn acreage and ignored data showing increased N fertilizer efficiency.

“By focusing on the total amount of nitrogen fertilizer that is applied to cropland, [MDA] ignores the fundamental fact that as the yield from growing corn plants increases, the plants use more of the available nitrogen in the soil to produce the crop, and thus leave less nitrogen in the soil that may leach into groundwater,” the letter stated. Data that MDA had access to noted that the number of bushels of corn produced per pound of nitrogen fertilizer used by Minnesota corn farmers steadily increased from 0.8 to 1.3 over the past two decades. In other words, data show farmers have substantially increased the efficiency of their nitrogen fertilizer use in recent years.

• One reason for the improved N fertilizer efficiency is that fact that more farmers have adopted the state’s nitrogen fertilizer management plan, which emphasizes the 4R concept — apply N at the right time and rate, and use the right source and right placement. MDA has acknowledged that best management practices for N fertilizer have, in general, been adopted.

• MDA’s reliance on two surveys — FANMAP (Farm Nutrient Management Assessment Program) and NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) — only represents a small percentage of corn acres in the state, thus providing flawed data. The department supported its conclusions by cherry-picking survey data, rather than showing comprehensive survey results that indicate historical trends over time.

• All survey data cited by MDA in support of the proposed groundwater protection rule are outdated. FANMAP data is more than 15 years old, and NASS data is from 2010 through 2014.

“All of this data preceded the adoption by the Minnesota Legislature of the ‘Buffer Law’ in 2015,” the MCGA letter noted. “[MDA] acknowledges that riparian buffers are the second-most effective practice for reducing nitrogen loading in watersheds. Nonetheless, the department has completely failed to consider the impact of the buffer law in determining whether the voluntary implementation of best management practices is effective.”

• Voluntary efforts in Perham, Minn., to reduce increasing nitrate concentrations were effective. During the 1990s, the city of Perham experienced increasing nitrate concentrations in its drinking water. In working with MDA and the ag community on various educational events and field trials, the voluntary efforts had a positive impact and were successful in lowering average annual nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in community wells.

“The Perham drinking water case study demonstrates that education, promotion and voluntary adoption of best management practices are effective, and that the proposed groundwater protection rule is not needed at this time,” the letter stated.

For updates and more information on the proposed groundwater protection rule, visit the MDA Proposed Groundwater Protection Rule webpage or the MCGA nitrogen rule webpage.