« Willmar's "Welcoming is Who We Are, Faith not Fear" draws 5 times more than unwelcome event | Main | Former Dayton senior policy advisor rips Walz comments on buffers & "regulatory humility" »

Jul 06, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Reynolds

Instead of buffers why not charge farmers a fee for the phosphorus and nitrogen they add to the water leaving their farm? It's not complicated especially when we have a clearly defined water flow. We have the technology to do this but probably not the political backbone.

James M Hamilton

I disagree with Walz on the idea of compensating farmers for buffers needed to reduce runoff of pesticides, etc. However, there should be alternatives for those able to accomplish the same thing in other ways. (I don't believe "pay to pollute" is a responsible approach. The goal should be to keep the pollutants out of the water in the first place.)


Alternatives for complying with a law? You mean something like the list of alternatives that are available on the BWSR website?http://bwsr.state.mn.us/buffers/alternative_practices_technical_guidance.pdf
Or more like the combinations of practices that can be done using another tool on the BWSR buffer page for alternatives?
How many options do they need?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Other Accounts

Important Information

  • All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.

    The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.

    Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors. While progressive in outlook, she does not caucus with any political party.


  • StatCounter

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad