Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy looks to find answers to agricultural drainage issues for the future, while still maintaining the economic impact it brings to farmland.
The MCEA, a St. Paul-based foundation dedicated to protecting the environment in Minnesota, released a report Wednesday outlining the negative impacts agricultural drainage has on the Minnesota River. The organization also hosted a seminar to further explain these issues and explore possible policy solutions to webinar viewers.
Agricultural drainage is the practice of draining land of excess ground water into another body of water, typically a river. In this case, ag drainage turns otherwise useless land into farmable plots by draining the ground’s water into the Minnesota River.
Patrick Belmont, a professor at Utah State University who spent two years of his post-doctoral research studying the river basin, said that agriculture drainage is important to continue; however the costs are clearly evident.
“These methods are being used because they profoundly increase crop yield, but we are all paying the price,” Belmont said. “We’re not only seeing a change in the amount of runoff, but also the types of runoff.”
The runoff to the Minnesota River has increased exponentially since the 2000s. An average of 107,000 tons of sediment are brought into the Minnesota River every year from erosion to the bluffs alone, according to Belmont’s research.
“The flooding of the Rapidan Dam (on the Blue Earth River) was much larger because of the sediment from agricultural runoff,” he said of the June 2024 breach of the dam.
The reason sediment is so detrimental to the Minnesota River is because it creates an impairment for the river, meaning types of aquatic life and recreational activities don’t exist due to pollution.
Leigh Currie, chief legal officer at MCEA, talked about why the problem has gone on so long.
“The root of the pollution problem caused by agricultural drainage is the failure to account for environmental costs as part of our economic system,” Currie said.
The Minnesota Drainage Code, which Currie said, has not been substantially updated since the 1800s, encourages farmers to drain wetlands. While the code accounts for what it costs to actually build the drainage system, it does not account for the environmental economic impact it brings.
Whether that be erosion threats, drilling new wells when water becomes too polluted to drink from a different source, or dredging Lake Pepin to make it usable again, there are many economic costs not accounted for when assessing whether a farm can have a drainage system, she said.
Currie suggests multiple solutions to the problem, such as looking at ag drainage impact as a whole versus looking at single farms, and creating permits that require farms to use river-friendly water-storage options, something the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has the ability to change.
“There is no question that drainage systems are leading to water pollution, and it’s no question MPCA should be involved in this,” she said.
Belmont noted that repurposing only 4% of the current farmland to use as water storage would reduce the amount of sediment runoff into the Minnesota River by 40%.
He said that across his research around the United States, Minnesota had the strongest collective conservation mindset. He believes if Minnesota is to fix its drainage issues, it needs to tap into that mindset.
“You must lean into that, come together as people, and let’s get this thing solved.”