The Leopold Center and local policy
NOTE: This is the original unedited version submitted by the Johnsons to the Leopold Center as a guest column. This more fully outlines their arguments for local energy districts.
We were asked to write a commentary about local policy. We’ll do so, but along the way we’ll touch on Leopold Center history, state and national policy, fertilization rates, conservation districts, and more. Overall, we’ll focus less on agriculture than on energy - please bear with us as we explain why.
The Leopold Center was created by the 1987 Groundwater Protection Act to promote sustainable agriculture in Iowa. Funding would come in large part from fertilizer and pesticide fees, but initially oil overcharge dollars were used to establish the first competitive grants program. Oil overcharge dollars came from federal court cases against oil companies who overcharged citizens during the 1970s energy crisis. Use of the funds was justified by the energy efficiency improvements possible through the reduction of commercial nitrogen applied to Iowa cropland.
Much early research, education, and demonstration happened those first few years. We learned that reductions of 20-30% in nitrogen application rates could be accomplished with no difference in yields. According to the Geological Survey Bureau of the Department of Natural Resources, annual savings by 1990 (over 1985 expenditures) due to input reductions and efficiencies (largely nitrogen) were in the neighborhood of $50 million. By 1992, Iowa’s average nitrogen application rate on corn ground was under 120 lbs/acre, while Illinois (which had no Leopold Center, or concerted input efficiency programs) was still at 142 lbs/acre.
The same Geological Survey Bureau report presciently stated “The special oil-overcharge funding terminates in 1992, however, and continued progress improving N-use will likely lose momentum without further support.” That support was not forthcoming, Leopold Center and partner priorities turned elsewhere, and by 2000 our average nitrogen rates were back up to over 135 lbs/acre.
We draw three important lessons from this brief history. First, the Leopold Center was born and baptized, at least in part, in the pursuit of energy efficiency and the resultant environmental and economic benefits. Second, that dramatic change can happen, much faster than naysayers like to admit, when adequate resources are dedicated to an issue or problem, and the benefits are made clear. Lastly, that change can be short-lived when resources dwindle, proponents move on, and the commercial sector becomes once again the primary source of information and assistance.
Today, no issue has more potential to harm Iowa’s farms and farmers, our landscapes and biodiversity, our communities and economies, than does energy costs and climate change. On the bright side, nowhere is there greater potential both short- and long-term for plugging the leaks, revitalizing household/farm budgets and community economies, and generating new income streams and jobs, as there is in energy efficiency and small-scale, distributed renewable energy. The only question is, how do we get there from here – quickly, dramatically?
The answer, we believe, is local – local policy, local organization, local implementation. True, we have international agreements and national incentives, but have they changed anything in your home or farm? We also have state-level efficiency programs operated by utilities that have done some good, but they are run by the very companies whose profits depend on maximizing their sales of the very product we’re asking them to help us use less of - energy. What we don’t have is organization in every community and county in the state, energy specialists going door to door with homeowners, farms and businesses, neighbors encouraging neighbors … we don’t have a movement for energy efficiency and energy self-reliance, and we don’t have an energy ethic. Instead of dramatic change, we have a trickle.
Can’t be done? Too expensive? Just more bureaucracy? The same charges were leveled against the soil conservation movement in the 1930s and 40s. Poor farming practices nationwide – magnified by the dust bowl – threatened to turn large portions of America the Beautiful into wasteland. Most people don’t realize that could have happened, if not for the advent of the soil conservation movement.
Sure, there had always been good farmers and proponents of stewardship, but no movement. Out of the crisis of the dust bowl was born the Soil Erosion Service, promptly re-named the Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Demonstration projects were begun around the country and field days drew hundreds and even thousands of farmers, but the federal conservationists quickly realized they would accomplish relatively little without local leadership and organization.
Soil Conservation Districts became the local partners that facilitated quick and dramatic change across the American countryside. District members were the eyes and ears for the state and federal agencies, the voices that preached the gospel of conservation. Everyone knew there was a problem, but the Districts created the climate of urgency and expectation of action that the federal and state governments weren’t able to create, and catastrophic change was averted. Movements mature, and we still have much potential for improvement in soil management. But those who know history know that the Soil Conservation movement dramatically changed – some would say saved – America’s working lands. Districts, in many places, continue to provide dynamic local leadership, and we have never had another dust bowl.
It is time for Iowa to lead the nation in the establishment of Energy Districts in every county in the state. Whether quasi-governmental or non-profit organizations, Districts should have a local board and a staff of technical energy conservationists capable of holistic energy analysis, planning, and implementation assistance for farms, households, businesses, and communities. Districts should have a dual mission, with equal emphasis placed on the economic (reducing energy $$ drain, creating new revenue and jobs) and the ecologic (reducing greenhouse gas emissions and local impacts). Energy Districts should be in friendly but fierce competition with each other to innovate and maximize accomplishments, but all should work from a common base of technical tools provide by a state-level partner.
You guessed it – this is where the Leopold Center, and Iowa State University, enter the picture. Natural resources conservation today has developed a vast infrastructure of sound analytical tools and conservation practices for use across the landscape. Energy Districts would need a state-level partner (or multiple partners) to develop a similar common platform of tools and practices for energy efficiency and distributed renewables. A local energy conservationist should be able to enter a home, farm, or business, do a comprehensive evaluation and analysis of all sources/uses of energy (including economic and greenhouse gases), and – together with the customer – develop a plan of action. This plan would include not only alternative practices and specific instructions on implementation, but also economic analyses, linkages to all relevant local/state/national financial assistance, and implementation assistance as necessary.
Many of the tools for such a toolbox exist and would only have to be integrated into a common platform, while others would require research and development. An Energy Services group integrated with various parts of ISU could serve this function well, bring in valuable research dollars, and continue the proud land-grant tradition of directly assisting the citizenry. Perhaps no sector has received less study or holds greater potential for both energy efficiency and distributed renewables than agriculture. In fact, agriculture can not be sustainable without such an effort. It is time for the Leopold Center to return to its roots.
Just a simple return to nitrogen provides some startling opportunities. In 2008 Iowa farmers planted 12.9 million acres to corn, and applied an average of 140lb/acre of nitrogen. At over 33,000 BTU/lb to manufacture, farmers put over 60 trillion BTU on their cornfields, at a likely cost of over a billion dollars. For perspective, that is close to the entire 2007 residential natural gas usage in the state, and about 30% over the entire residential electrical energy consumption. But commercial nitrogen is just one piece of agricultural energy use ripe for Leopold Center leadership: pesticides (more energy intensive than nitrogen to manufacture), machinery, tillage options, manure management, grain management … this list, and potential savings, are virtually endless.
“ At what cost?” the cynics ask again. We would point them back to the dust bowl, and say “at what cost will you do nothing?” Back then very significant resources (to the tune of probably over 200 million/year in today’s dollars) were put towards soil conservation in Iowa alone. Are the economic and environmental costs of doing little or nothing on energy and climate any less today? Well over 100 million of ratepayer dollars are currently spent annually by the utilities in their no-so-efficient energy efficiency programs, and that is just one possible source of funds.
Many states have energy efficiency and renewable programs, but no state has invested significant resources into a grassroots energy district-style approach. Our leaders have been talking a great deal about energy, but it is time to put our money where our mouth is and make a bold move to lead the nation in local leadership and the development of an energy ethic among all our citizens. Iowa agriculture – and the Leopold Center – are in a position to lead the way.