The U.S. Soil Conservation Service was established in 1935. The act provided that, in return for furnishing technical and financial assistance on private lands, states were required to enact and enforce laws imposing permanent restrictions on the use of erosive lands. State laws that were passed made passage and enforcement of controls on the use of erosive lands difficult. Few, if any, instances are recalled in which the regulatory powers granted to state conservation districts have actually been used to conserve soil for long-term public benefit. Thus, one of the basic intents of national conservation policy, local controls on use-of-land problems, has been lost ((81B1), p. 85).

There is little by way of laws requiring farmers to prevent soil erosion. Most (all?) soil erosion legislation relevant to agriculture appears to take the form of bribes and financial aid to encourage soil conservation. Refs. (78U1) and (81U1) describe one such bribe (aid) measure - the Agriculture Conservation Program (ACP).

The Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) of the early New Deal was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1936. Its replacement was the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. Both acts are described and evaluated in Ref. (83C1). Chapter 2 of (83C1) is a history of public attitudes, policies and laws regarding soil erosion: "Erosion controls would be achieved by voluntary means or not at all". Conservation laws and the "taking" issue are discussed in Ref. (87W3).

In 1977, Congress passed the Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act reflecting the national concern over erosion in the 1970s ((83C1), p. 14).

Among other things, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1981 authorized creation of a special-areas conservation program to compensate farmers for using less erosive cropping systems (82O2).

Better Environmental News (2/4/09), Contact: Steve Bertjens, 608-732-0847,  Brett Hulsey, 608-334-4994,

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Acreage Trends, 2006-2008 (USDA data)

One of the most successful conservation programs in history, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was created in the 1985 Farm Bill to pay farmers for conservation practices. CRP protected 33.6 million acres of highly erodible lands and wetlands in December 2008, an area equal to 15 Yellowstone National Parks.

The analysis also looked at CRP acres expiring in the next two years in western Wisconsin counties and estimated that 165,079 more acres could lose protection. Grant, Iowa, Trempealeau and Dane Counties could lose the most if farmers don't renew their contracts, as the data below show. 

The CRP was established in 1985 as a voluntary program that allowed farmers to retire highly erodible land from production and also ensure a secure income during times of low commodity pricing. As the program grew farmers were able to retire land to reduce degradation of other environmentally sensitive areas of their land. Some of these environmental aspects include wetland acreage, runoff into waterways, and wildlife habitat. Currently the USDA pays $1.6 billion in annual CRP rental payments to land owners and operators. During their 5-10 year contracts, CRP participants practice a number of conservation methods including grass and tree planting and wildlife cover. The continuation of the CRP program is at risk due to budgetary pressures.

In 1997, over 2.1 million acres of U.S. cropland were devoted to some type of wind erosion or runoff control buffer conservation practice (herbaceous wind barrier, grassed waterway, etc.). This is an increase of 74.6 thousand acres from 1996. Although the NRI estimates are based on measurements of acres, assuming buffers average 30 feet in width, these acreage figures translate to 607.2 thousand miles total with 20.7 thousand miles added in 1997 (97B4).

Acres of cropland devoted to wind erosion control buffers (windbreak/ shelter belt, herbaceous wind barrier, and cross-wind trap strips) increased in 1997 from 272.2 thousand acres (75.6 thousand miles) to 320.9 thousand acres (89.1 thousand miles) (Figure 2). This improvement along with better residue management contributed to the reduction of soil loss due to wind (97B4).

Average U.S. soil loss due to wind: 2.3 tons/ acre in 1996; 2.2 tons/ acre in 1997 (97B4). One of the most widely used buffer type conservation practices is the grassed waterway. In 1997, the number of acres of cropland devoted to the installation of new grassed waterways installed was 59.0 thousand (16.4 thousand miles) (Figure 3). However, at the same time, 39.9 thousand acres of waterways were removed resulting in a net gain 19.1 thousand acres. In addition, 1.6 thousand acres of new waterways were installed on new cropland (non-cropland in 1996) for a total of 20.7 thousand acres of new-grassed waterways. This contributes to a total of 1.6 million acres (462.6 thousand miles) of waterways (97B4).

Field border and filter strip installations in 1997 also contributed to increases in acres of buffers. An increase of 5.1 thousand acres (1.4 thousand miles) resulted in a total of 199.6 thousand acres (55.4 thousand miles) of these practices in 1997 (Figure 2). Although not true buffer strips, terraces are linear conservation practices that perform similar functions (water diversion, trap sediment, etc.). For this report, terraces include terraces, diversions, water and sediment control basins, and hillside ditches. In 1997, 28.0 million acres were treated/affected by terraces, an increase of 72.3 thousand acres treated from 1996 (97B4).

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA) allowed farmers more production flexibility. Thus, land set aside to conserve soil could once again be placed in production to take advantage of high commodity prices. Therefore, soil could be susceptible to high erosion rates. The USDA projected that 10-15 million acres of land might be brought into production during the 7-year life of the FAIRA. Quality of the land that might be brought into production and the effects on conservation practices were of concern. The USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conducted special NRIs in 1996 and 1997 to evaluate these potential impacts (97B4).

The 1997 Special NRI found that in 1997, 4.2 million acres of U.S. land were brought into crop production while 2.4 million acres of cropland were converted to other land uses, resulting in a net gain of 1.8 million acres. Approximately 0.4 million acres (21%) of this net total were cultivated cropland, and the remaining 1.4 million acres (79%) were non-cultivated cropland (mostly hay land) (97B4).

• Sheet and rill erosion rates (water erosion) as determined by the Universal Soil Loss Equation on HEL cultivated cropland increased from 6.2 to 6.4 tons/ acre/ year between 1996-1997. On NHEL cultivated land, soil erosion rates increased from 2.3-2.4 tons/ acre in 1997.
• Average soil erosion rates for all cultivated U.S. cropland was 3.4 tons /acre in 1997 (3.3 tons/ acre in 1996).
• Wind soil erosion rates as measured by the Wind Erosion Equation on all U.S. cropland: 2.4 tons/ acre in 1996, and 2.2 tons/ acre in 1997.
• In 1997, U.S. soil loss was calculated to be 1.14 billion tons from water and 0.85 billion tons from wind for a total of 1.99 billion tons.
• In 1996 U.S. soil loss was 1.10 billion from water + 0.89 from wind.
• In 1992, total soil loss was 2.26 billion tons (1.26 billion from water + 1.0 billion from wind).

Until recently, up to 240,000 km² have lain fallow in the U.S. as a result of payment-in-kind programs, set-aside requirements, and mandatory conservation (94L1).

Trends in government control of erosion and sedimentation in urban developments are discussed in Ref. (89M1).

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced in October that payments of over $1.3 billion are being made to eligible farmers under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - an average of $5000/ farm and $45.15/ acre. "The CRP is tremendously beneficial for producers and the general public," said Glickman. "It has reduced soil erosion and expanded wildlife habitat while improving air and water quality, restoring wetlands, and encouraging tree planting." Under CRP, producers voluntarily retire environmentally sensitive land for 10-15 years. In return, USDA makes annual rental payments to farmers and shares the cost of establishing approved conservation practices. Enrolled land must be highly erodible, contribute to a serious water quality problem, or provide substantial environmental benefits if devoted to certain specific conservation uses. (Watershed Currents, 3(4), 12/23/99) More USDA CRP information can be obtained on www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crpinfo.htm

The USDA announced (1/29/98) that it will accept 5.9 million acres (24,000 km²) of environmentally sensitive farmland into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). 31% of this land is acreage subject to current CRP contracts due to expire on 9/30/98. The new enrollment will bring total area in the CRP to 29.9 million acres (121,000 km²) on 10/1/98. This compares to 28.7 million acres (116,000 km²) currently enrolled, of which 4.8 million acres are subject to contracts expiring 9/30/98 (See (http://www.usda.gov) or (http://www.fsa.usda.gov))

The US Food Security Act, revised in 1990, mandates that, by 1/1/95, farmers must use the RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil-Loss Equation) to develop and implement soil conservation plans in order to continue to receive federal subsidies (94G1). The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) began to develop RUSLE over a decade ago. By 1970 the model known as USLE was widely used by U.S. soil conservationists to help define agricultural practices on highly erodible land (94G1).

The costs of the "conservation compliance" provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act to U.S. farmers are discussed in Ref. (89H3). 231,000 km² of highly erodible Great Plains land are subject to "conservation compliance" (89H2). That land generated 0.814 Gt./ year of soil erosion - half of the U.S. total. 429,000 km² of other highly erodible land are subject to "sod-buster" provisions of the 1985 law (89H2). 198,000 km² of the 231,000 km² of highly erodible land in the Great Plains are eligible for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (89H2). Public concern over heavy soil losses produced overwhelming bipartisan support for the 1985 Food Security Act (88B5). Only land eroding at 3 times the rate of natural soil formation is eligible for the CRP. The costs of establishing grass cover ($80/ acre) and tree-cover ($76/ acre) are defrayed 50% by the USDA, in addition to payments which average just under $50/ acre/ year during the first 2 years of signups under the CRP (88B5). A study by Norman Berg found that erosion on the 8 million acres signed up in 1986 (CRP) was reduced from 29 to 2 tons/ acre/ year, for a total topsoil savings of over 0.2 Gt./ year. The USDA reported that acreage added to the CRP in 1987 saved 0.3 Gt./ year. Other soil conservation practices adopted in 1987 (rotation, terracing, etc.) saved another 0.16 Gt./ year (88B5).

As of 1990, almost 140,000 km² have entered the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to be planted in grass or trees for 10 years. Excessive soil erosion nation-wide has been cut from 1.45 to 1.0 Gt./ year (Ref.37 of (91P1)). The natural resource benefits from the CRP are estimated at $9.6 billion ($213/ acre) (89R1). (Farmers receive $120/ ha/ year in annual rental payments.) Some problems in the CRP are discussed in Ref. (88B2). The CRP will convert 40-45 million acres of highly erodible cropland to perennial vegetation, and will become one of the most important conservation- and commodity-supply-control programs in U.S. history. Its overall impact will depend largely on the fate of the land after the 10-year contracts expire (88C1). Some 12% of the CRP lands are to be planted in trees. After 8 signup periods, 30.6 million acres (124,000 km²) have been accepted into the CRP (89M2). (34 million acres by 1989 (89U1)).

The U.S. government will pay $636 million/ year (nearly $40/ acre/ year) to idle 16.1 million acres and enroll the land in the CRP under 10-15-year contracts. Nearly 33 million acres are enrolled in the CRP but contracts will soon expire on 21.2 million acres, so the net acreage in the CRP will be 27.8 million. (Congress has authorized 36 million acres.) (Wall Street Journal, 5/23/97). It has been argued (Howard G. Buffett, Wall Street Journal, 5/22/97) that some CRP lands are of good quality, and that each of these acres idled will require 3-4 acres elsewhere in the world to be bought into production.

The CRP encompasses 34 million acres. Under CRP, farmers receive $49/ acre/ year to plant their most erosive land in grass and trees for 10 years. In 4 years CRP has reduced erosion on its land from 21 to 2 tons/acre/ year (90W3). As a result of the 1985 Farm Bill (The Food Security Act), excess topsoil loss has been cut from 1.6 Gt./ year to 1.0 Gt./ year (Soil formation = 4 tons/ acre/ year) (90W3).

The U.S. spends $1.7 billion/ year in the CRP to save 584 million tons of soil/ year, i.e. $2.91/ ton (Ref. 108 of (95P1)). The analysis in Refs. 30, 105 and 107 of (95P1) give a cost of $2.10/ ton of topsoil saved.

Over 60% of the soil savings on U.S. croplands since 1985 is credited to the CRP (Ref. 61 of (97G1)).

Over 60% of soil savings on U.S. croplands since 1985 are credited to the CRP (Ref. 78 of (96G2)). Conservation practices of all kinds contributed to a 25% reduction in U.S. soil erosion rate during 1982-1992 (Ref. 79 of (96G2)).

Law contains considerable coercive authority for achieving conservation goals. These laws are generally ineffective because they are not administratively pursued (91L2). New South Wales also has strong penalty legislation. As in U.S., continuing conflict exists between public interest and private rights (91L2).

Erosion- and sediment-control legislation has been enacted in 10 states. Model legislation has been developed by National Association of Conservation Districts (Ref. 87 of (76P2)).

Iowa landowners who do not practice responsible soil conservation can be fined and even jailed ((78B1), p. 264).

Iowa's Conservancy District Law of 1971 limits erosion on agricultural, horticultural, non-agricultural land and construction sites to 1-5 tons/ acre/ year (73F1).

Various local government programs in the U.S. to protect farmland against urban encroachment are described in Ref. (79T1).

Various state legislation to protect farmland from urbanization is reviewed in Ref. (79C4).

State regulation of soil erosion is virtually non-existent (89R2). Some 12 states have statewide erosion- and sediment control laws. In 8 of these 12 states these laws apply to some, or all, agricultural activities (81B1).

Winona County MN became the third county in Minnesota to pass a soil erosion control ordinance. Other counties are Fillmore and Olmstead. Penalty: $500/ day or jail (89U3). A description of Minnesota's "Reinvest in Minnesota Relief Act of 1986" is in Ref. (86K1).

American Farmland Trust Poll on Farmers, Subsidies, the Environment, and Public Perception (somewhat before 7/23/01) A full summary of the poll is available from Grace Chen at American Farmland Trust, 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 202-331-7300x3060 http://www.farmland.org

• 75% think support to the American farmer should come with conservation requirements.
• 66% believed these conservation requirements should include water pollution prevention.
• 62% believed these conservation requirements should include wetlands protection.
• 71% are concerned about pesticide residues in their food.
• 69% are concerned about the loss of farmland to development.
• 63% are concerned about drinking water being contaminated by pesticides or livestock manure.
• 44% have bought organic products within the last year.

The UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was signed by the U.S. in 1994 but has yet to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The treaty contains measures to slow the loss of farmland due to climate variability and unsustainable human activities. Over 250 million people are directly affected by desertification, and one billion are at risk. (See UNCCD web site http://www.unccd.ch) (98S2).

Europe's Common Agricultural Program (CAP) is claimed to be rife with corruption as farmers take advantage of the system. The CAP costs EU taxpayers $50 billion/ year - over 50% of EU's budget. The OECD estimates that farm subsidies cost consumers in its 25 member countries (the world's richest) $348.6 billion in 1994 - down 2% from 1993 (George Melloan, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/95).

In 1983, bills were introduced in Congress (S633 by W. Armstrong, (CO, R) and HR 1077 by H. Brown, (CO, D)) to deny government price supports, crop insurance, disaster payments, FHA loans, and Farm Storage Facility Loans for crops grown on newly plowed, erosion-prone land (83U1).

Authorities who believe the world's food supply can dramatically be expanded include the late Herman Kahn, Walter R. Brown, L. Martel, the late Roger Revelle, Vaclav Smil, and Julian L. Simon (94B5).

Public policies capable of reducing soil loss by 50% are examined:

1. a ban on fall plowing;
2. a soil-loss tax (10-20 cents/ ton) and a subsidy for minimum tillage;
3. a ban on straight-row cultivation on slopes

The most cost-effective policy appears to be a combination of (1) and (3) (80W3).

Some political controversies over the 1985 Farm bill are discussed in Ref. (87S1). The battle over the 1985 Farm bill saw the welding of 30 conservation groups into a strong conservation coalition (including the Sierra Club). Congress and the administration were made well aware that the public viewed soil erosion as a national problem (88M2).

President Clinton's 1995 budget proposals do not include funding for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Under the current CRP, 37 million acres are devoted to soil-, water-, and wildlife preservation. CRP saved $1.6 billion in reduced soil erosion, saved $500 million in reduced wind erosion, produced $3.6 billion in water-quality benefits, reduced topsoil loss by 700 billion tons, and reduced crop subsidies by $2 billion/ year (94W1).

Land ethics as they relate to farmland protection are discussed in Ref. (79S1).

Strategies for preserving U.S. farmland are described in Ref. (80F2). Strategies being attempted in states to preserve agricultural land are described in Ref. (79C1). States are involved in each of 12 different types of programs are listed (79C1).

An account of past attempts in Oregon to protect farmland from encroaching urban developments is given in Ref. (79M1).

An annotated bibliography of publications on zoning- and land-use planning approached to farmland preservation is found in Ref. (81U5) (150 references). Another document on the issue of protecting croplands from urbanization and similar developments is Ref. (81G1) (pp. 63-100). The history of various actions of the federal government to protect farmland against urban encroachment is outlined in Ref. (79F1). The history of activities of the USDA in land-use policy (mainly protecting prime farmland from urbanization) is in Ref. (79B2). A variety of land-use-planning, zoning, development rights purchase, etc. - approaches to protecting farmland from urban developments -is described in Ref. (80C1). It describes the status of efforts in various states. Preservation of U.S. farmland is discussed in Ref. (79L1).

The ways Europe deals with the protection of agricultural lands from urban encroachment are described in Ref. (79M2).

David Stockman (Former President Reagan's Budget Director) proposed, in 1984, to abolish the S.C.S. (85R1). When Peter Myers was appointed to head the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) replacing Norman A. Berg in March, 1982, it was the first political appointment to the post in the history of the SCS (See Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 37 (1982) p. 158.)

The Reagan budget (Jan. 1985) proposed to halt the Agriculture Conservation Program immediately, and eliminate the SCS by 1988 (See SCSA Conservogram 17 (3/85) p.1).

In 1980, Anson R. Bertrand, senior USDA official said (of the USA) "The economic pressures to generate export earnings, to strengthen the balance of payments and thus the dollar, - has been transmitted more or less directly to our natural resource base. As a result, soil erosion today can be described as epidemic in proportions" ((84B2), p. 53).

Ref. (76F1) relates the structure of land tenure in El Salvador to the population density, and the erosion and deforestation and the human migrations that make El Salvador such a disaster area (76E1).

Land ownership in the Inter-Andean corridor: 20% of the population controls 80% of the land (91N1).

Crop rotation, manuring, liming, and other soil-building procedures became common only after feudalism and communal agriculture disappeared in Europe (74C1), p. 160).

Plowing native grasslands in the southern Great Plains began in the 1880s, but most sod busting occurred in the early 1900s when tractors came into common use and WWI created a great demand for wheat (Ref. 18 of (85D1)). Extended drought, clean tillage practices, over-grazing and high seasonal winds produced the great dust storms of the 1930s (85D1).

A description and history of the shelterbelt tree-windbreak across the Plain States of the U.S. in the 1930s are in Ref. (76G2).

The Soil Conservation Act of 1935 (Public Law 46) created tension and conflict in Missouri and other states. People felt a strong federal approach to soil conservation represented too much intervention in the solution to state and local problems (which previously had been addressed by state colleges of agriculture and extension services). (The Feds felt that extension service efforts were not accomplishing the soil conservation work that was needed (82C1).)

Serious soil-erosion problems in the Upper South resulted from plantation crops - tobacco, indigo, cotton and coffee, particularly tobacco. The effects are evident to this day (56S1).

A bibliography of Walter Clay Lowdermilk and his involvement in soil conservation is given in Ref. (88H1).

A history of the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Conservation Program is on p. 85-89 of Ref. (81B1). The fundamental problem with these concepts is also discussed.

Nearly the entire shift from horse to tractor in the U.S. occurred during 1930-1950 (80W4).

The change from draft animals to motors had many harmful long-term effects on soil. These are described in Ref. (56S1). Comments: The main effects were the loss of organic nutrients (manure) and soil compaction due to increasingly heavy tractors.

Land-use patterns in Denmark and northern Germany, from earliest times, have been highly conservative of soil fertility. The animal husbandry maintained so effective a ground cover that northern Europe has known very little soil erosion. Animal manure and compost provide adequate return of fertility to the soil. Man has pretty well established a closed ecological cycle (56S1). A lot of insights into the history of agriculture in Europe are given in Ref. (56E1). Maps of Europe give average size of farm holdings and percent of tenanted land in agricultural enterprises. A map of types of legal inheritance in Central Europe is found on p. 257 of Ref. (56P1). This reference gives an excellent history of European Agriculture.

A history of western European agriculture and its interaction with the political history of the area is given in Ref. (74C1) Chapter 10.

Modern crop rotation probably originated in the Low Countries of Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries. By the 16th century, most Flemish and Dutch farmers were using it ((74C1), p.167). Most land in Western Europe recuperated during the Dark Ages from the abuses of Roman times. By 1050, most land north and west of the Alps was nearly as productive as before civilization came. During the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, the amount of cultivated land doubled, tripled or quadrupled over most of Europe - colonized by feudal lords and bishops ((74C1), p.163). In the middle of the 11th century, 12-15% of the land in today's Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark and northern France was being cultivated, but only 6-7% was being planted to crops each year. For southern France and northern Spain, the figures are 20-25% and 10-12% respectively. ((74C1), p. 162).

In Ireland in the middle of the 11th century, probably no more than 15-20% of the land was under cultivation ((74C1), p. 162).

Less than 20% of England was being farmed at the middle of the 11th century. Probably 50% was in pasture or meadow, so only about 10% of the total area was being cultivated. A 2-field system was used, so only 5% of the land grew cultivated crops in any one year ((74C1), p.162).

The Scottish Highlands had acute erosion problems in the later part of the 18th century, but they checked it by planting the steepest slopes to grass, practicing crop rotation, contour farming, strip-cropping and terracing ((74C1), p.187).

Deforestation and over-grazing in the Alps was acute by the 15th century. Around 1800 a series of torrents drowned so many livestock, piled so much rocky debris onto fields and destroyed so much property that the French government took steps to get at the source of the problem. Herders resisted, but an 1856 storm forced the government to reforest over all objections (and build check dams, levies, etc.) This work began in 1882. It is being extended to the Pyrenees ((74C1), p. 185).

A history of Australia's soil erosion and related laws is in Ref. (87H2).
A history of Canadian soil erosion and conservation is in Ref. (86D1).
A history of Zimbabwe's soil erosion and conservation is in Ref. (88W1).

• The first wave occurred when farmers left the valleys and alluvial soils of the Yellow River, Indus, Tigris-Euphrates and lesser rivers (or from the Maya lowlands) and ascended forested slopes where they exposed virgin soils to seasonal rains.
• The second wave occurred in the 16^th to 19^th centuries when stronger and sharper plowshares helped break the sods of the Eurasian steppe, the North American prairies and the South American Pampas.
• The third wave came after 1945 when modern medicine, rapid population growth and other factors propelled a new frontier into the world's thinly populated tropical rain forests. Heavy rains in, for example, Rwanda and Guatemala have lately bought some of the highest recorded rates of soil erosion.

Private philanthropic efforts (which started the Green Revolution) in the area of agricultural productivity have been nowhere near large enough to offset the flight of public funding from intensive farming (99A1).

In 1994, the Third World agricultural research network (CGIAR - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) was going bankrupt, with donor nations unwilling to pledge the $300 million needed (99A1).

U.S. government farm research funding has dropped by 30% in real terms since 1960 (99A1).

Official development assistance for agriculture has been steadily declining since the late 1980s, $7.5 billion between 1995-1997, vs. nearly $15 billion in 1986-1988 (FAO data). (Slow Progress Towards Sustainable Agriculture Since Rio, FAO Warns, FAO, 4/24/00).

Amount spent to produce the food consumed in the U.S. in 1996 (farm cost): $126 billion. Amount spent marketing this food: $421 billion (USDA data) (WorldWatch 11(2) (1998)).

Ref. (97C1) defends the premise that topsoil losses due to erosion and other forms of land degradation do not pose a threat to the capacity of the global agricultural system, and that the primary obstacle to achieving the necessary crop yield increases is the current system's capacity to generate agriculturally relevant knowledge.

In the past 50 years, federal, state, and local government agencies have spent over $15 billion of public funds to control soil erosion (83C1) (89C2).

Total federal outlays from the mid-1930s to 1980 on soil conservation programs were $60 billion (in 1980 $) - $1.3 billion/ year as compared to total farm production expenses in 1980 of $119 billion (USDA data, 1980) ((83C1), p. 60).

The U.S. federal government spends over $1 billion on soil conservation programs (around 1980?). State, county, and local governments spend an added $152 million on soil conservation programs ((81B1), p. 85). Public and private spending on soil- and water conservation was $3.8 billion in 1988 and $2.9 billion in 1987 (88I1).

Rental paid for land in the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is $51/ acre (89U1). The issue of who should pay for soil conservation is discussed in Ref. (80L1).

About 20% of the U.S. work force is involved in supplying food in the American system (81W1). About 80% of the people of China work on the farm to produce food ((74C1), p. 200).

Financial problems associated with the 1985 Farm Act (an effort to preserve U.S. soils) and some of its components (Conservation Reserve Program, Sodbuster, Swampbuster, and Conservation Compliance) are discussed in Ref. (87N1).

Some $10 billion/ year are spent on planning, development, management and use of water resources by the U.S. federal government alone, yet U.S. flood damage increases, water quality keeps dropping, in-stream uses compete more intensely for withdrawals, and water shortages occur more often ((81B1), p. 85).

A 1941 survey found that 39% of U.S. reservoirs had a useful life of less than 50 years due to sediment (76E1?). Total U.S. economic loss from reservoir sedimentation was estimated at $50 million/ year as of 1962 (76E1). $125 million/ year are spent in the U.S. dredging 38 million cubic yards of sediment from harbors and waterways (USGS report) (73O1). $100 million worth of reservoir capacity is lost annually from stream-born sediment (73O1). New U.S. reservoir capacity costs $300 to $700/ acre-foot (87C1). Dredging costs 3-8 times more than the cost of building replacement capacity, excluding disposal costs (87C1). Cropland sediment costs $197.2 million/ year in reservoir capacity (87C1). Sediments eroding from agricultural land into rivers, lakes, drainage ditches and other surface waters cause damages of $6 billion/ year in 1980 $ (89C1).

In-stream damages (U.S.) about $4.1 billion in 1980. Off-stream damages (US) $1.9 billion in 1980. Total: $6 billion/ year. Those directly related to sediment cost $3-3.5 billion for all sources of sediment, and $1-1.2 billion for cropland erosion. Benefits of sediment control less than costs (e.g., less silt causes more stream bank erosion) (85C6).

EPIC shows that if management, tillage, and conservation practices inventoried in 1982 National Resources Inventory (NRI) continued for 100 years, sheet/rill- and wind erosion would exceed the T values on 127 million acres and 64 million acres, respectively. This rate of soil loss will reduce productivity in the 100th year by an estimated 2.3%, the equivalent of taking 7.4 million acres of cropland out of production. The present value of this 100-year national loss is $22 billion. Productivity losses from water erosion will average 0.018%/ year. Productivity losses from wind erosion will average 0.005%/ year. This is an irreversible loss of $1.19/ acre/ year ($294/ km²/ year) in gross revenue. Total loss (productivity+ nutrients) estimated at $2.15/ acre/ year ($531/ km²/ year) (nearly $1 billion for U.S.) (88P5).

On-site costs of erosion in U.S. exceed $1 billion/ year, but off-site costs several times greater. 25% of farmland (all non-federal land) produces 85% of erosion. 185 million of 420 million cropland acres are eroding fast enough to eventually impair productivity. ERS estimates that if present erosion rates continue for 100 years, productivity loss might be only about 4%. For all agricultural lands (including present land with low erosion rates) decline would be under 3%. Northeast and Appalachia face losses of 8 and 7%, respectively, in next 100 years (87A2).

Economic losses from declining productivity on problem soils may total $1.3 billion/ year. Total U.S. agricultural production in 1987 will have market value of $130 billion. Off-site damage estimated at $2.9-12 billion/ year, with point estimate of $5.2 billion. Of this, $1.9 billion is attributed to cropland erosion (87A2).

Minimum tillage (which reduces costs) and water conservation (which increases yields) have been adopted widely in the U.S. Soil conservation is an incidental benefit, not the cause for adoption of these measures (85D2).

Total cost of on-site- and off-site damages (such as health costs, dredging waterways and water treatment (but neglecting damage to aquatic life) from agricultural erosion is roughly $400 billion/ year (97A1). Comments: This analysis apparently places no value on the lost soil.

National action plans (in Africa) to improve soil fertility and move toward full food production would require an estimated investment of at least $100-$500 million/ country/ year over 10 years (99U1).

U.S. Federal government spent $15 billion on conservation practices since 1930s (89C4).

If and when the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) reaches its enrollment target of 40-45 million acres, it will produce a net program benefit of $3.4 to $11 billion and save 0.73 Gt. of topsoil/ year (90E1).

It costs 25 cents/ ton of erosion prevention to treat land eroding at more than 30 tons/ acre/ year. It costs over $4/ ton of erosion prevention to treat land eroding at less than 5 tons/ acre/ year (Ref. 8 of (82O2)).

It would cost $4000/ km²/ year to reduce U.S. cropland erosion rates from 1700 to 100 tonnes/ km²/ year. It would cost $500/ km²/ year to reduce U.S. grazing land erosion rates to the same value. Total = $8.4 billion - about 20% of the annual cost of erosion (Ref. 30, 105, 107 of (95P1)).

Total cost of on-site- and off-site damages (such as health costs, dredging waterways and water treatment (but neglecting damage to aquatic life) from U.S. agricultural erosion is about $44 billion/ year (97A1).

Current U.S. topsoil losses of 3.6 Gt./ year represent a financial loss of $1 billion/ year (EPA estimate, 1980) ((82S1), p. 36). Peripheral damages due to wind erosion (cleaning costs, recreational costs, health costs, etc.) in the western U.S. are estimated in Ref. (89P1). 26 papers on economic effects of soil erosion are collected in Ref. (84U1). Comments: Is this cost on-site or off-site?

Economic costs associated with soil erosion are analyzed in Ref. (95P1). Total off-site and on-site cost in the U.S. = $44 billion/ year (95P1).

Off-site damages from soil erosion in the U.S. are estimated to be $7.1 billion/ year in 1983 (Ref. 6 of (89R3)).

Total damage costs due to soil erosion in the U.S. are estimated to be $6.1 billion (1980) ($4.2 billion of in-stream effects; $1.9 billion of off-stream effects) (89C2).

Off-site household costs of wind erosion on all land in Western U.S. was $4-$12 billion/ year. Best estimate is likely to be closer to $4 than $12 billion. More than 75% of costs occurred in Central- and Southern Plains Region and in Western Range and Irrigated Region. Preliminary estimates of production losses due to wind erosion (sand blasting, etc.) are $188 million/ year, 99% in West, 65% in Montana, Colorado, and Texas (89P6).

In the U.S. around 1980, the off-farm costs of erosion from all sources was $3-13 billion (Ref. 5 of (97C1)). Ref. (97C1) believes that these costs are several-times to an order-of-magnitude larger than on-farm costs of erosion in terms of lost productivity (Ref.6 of (97C1)). Ref. (97C1) notes anecdotal evidence suggesting that, in less-developed countries, off-farm costs of erosion are high in terms of increased flood damage and reservoir siltation, but that no reliable estimates of those costs have been produced.

The 1983 loss is from crop-production losses ($420 million), fertilizer losses ($105-168 million) and erosion control costs ($1200 million) (89C2).

Desertification may cost (the U.S.??) up to $16 billion/ year in lost agricultural production (on-site costs). $9 billion/ year of this is losses of crops and forest products; the rest is range- and pastureland deterioration (82S1). A list of 19 on-site costs of excess soil erosion is given in Ref. (88N1).

The cost of replacing nitrogen, phosphorous, and 25% of the potassium in U.S. agricultural soils (to augment soil erosion losses) would be $7.75 to $6.8 billion/ year ((76P2), p. 152). It would cost $4 billion/ year to replace nitrogen and phosphorous lost to erosion (in the U.S.) ((82S1), p.12).

On-farm damaged caused by sheet-, rill- and wind erosion in the U.S. in 1982 are estimated to be $1.2 billion (89R3).

Total on-farm damages are $1.2 billion/ year by sheet, rill, and wind erosion. Off-farm damage from cropland erosion: $2.2 billion/ year. (1982 data). Estimated on-farm and off-farm damages are about equal in Mountain- and Southern Plains regions, only. Off-farm damages are higher in other regions (89C4).

Iowa State University soil scientists put the loss to U.S. farmers of nutrient losses via soil erosion at $20 billion/ year (Ref.1 of (97P3)). Comments: This is contrasted to a statement by Crosson in a 1995 Science article contending that U.S. farmers lose $500-$600 million/ year due to nutrient losses and other adverse effects (97P3).

Pierre Crosson, Charles Benbrook and Peter Myers have estimated U.S. losses to farmers (on-site losses) from sheet- and rill erosion of 0.5 to $1 billion/ year (89C2). Crosson estimates the total cost of erosion to be $1.7-1.8 billion/ year, which included erosion-control costs.

Crosson (cited) estimated total cost of erosion at $1.7-1.8 billion/ year as of 1983. $420 million for crop yield loss, $105-168 million for fertilizer loss due to erosion, for total of $525-$588 million/ year. Erosion control would cost $1.2 billion/ year. Average damage: $0.50/ ton of soil (SCS estimate) (89C4).

Estimates of national loss to farmers by current rate of sheet and rill erosion: $0.5-1 billion/ year (89C4). Calculated yield-reduction due to erosion in U.S. for next 100 years: corn, 4.6%; cotton, 4.5%; soybeans, 3.5%; wheat, 1.6%; and legume hay, 0.8% (if current erosion rates continue). The calculations used EPIC yield- and fertilizer effects from the 1982 NRI. They assume no yield loss if T not exceeded. Almost 2/3 of U.S. cropland will suffer no yield loss (89C4).

RCA (1980) estimated U.S. crop yields have been reduced by 8% after 50 years due to erosion. Pierce et al. (1984) estimated loss of 5-10% after 100 years due to erosion. RFF (1983) estimated loss of 2-3% after 30 years of erosion. Crosson's estimate for corn and soybeans loss is $4 billion over 100 years when discounted at 10% (first year loss about $40 million) or $17 billion at 5% discount. Soil conservation policy may be centered on reducing erosion damage, not on reducing erosion per se (84C1). Off-site erosion damages are probably much greater than on-site damages (costs) - perhaps 15 or more times greater (84C1).

A soil loss of 5 tons/ acre/ year represents a replacement cost of about $24/ acre/ year for the three main nutrients (N (0.15%), P2O5 (0.12%) and K2O (2.2%)) at current fertilizer prices (77W1). The value of average yield and input (N, P, lime) losses due to erosion ($/ ton) is given in a table of p. 37 of Ref. (89C2) ($0.29/ ton for yield; $0.07/ ton for N loss; $0.11/ ton for P loss, $0.03/ ton for lime loss, $0.49/ ton for total loss).

Ref. (88N2) challenges traditional assumptions that conservation does not pay in the U.S.. Says that assumption is based on calculations that do not accurately capture all the costs of excessive erosion. Among these on-farm losses are those due to lost nutrients, lost pesticides, non-uniform distribution of pesticides, added replanting costs, greater costs for machinery wear, labor costs to repair machinery, deposition of sediment, increased energy costs, increased irrigation costs, etc. No data on magnitude of these costs. Still, it may not be profitable to install conservation practices in some cases, even when these costs are known (88N2).

The average cost to farmers of land degradation is estimated to be $3,600/ year/ farmer (Ref. 2 of (90S2)). (90 million tons of soil is lost annually in Australia (90S2).)

Public expenditures for irrigation and drainage in Canada are more than 10 times those for soil degradation control (86D1).

In Canada's 3 prairie provinces, on-farm costs of soil degradation in 1984 = C$468 million for water/ wind erosion, C$105 million for salinity, C$49 million for acidification (90G2).

About $10 million/ year direct cost due to wind erosion based on a statewide survey of farmers (85D3).

Wind erosion, Total off-site damage costs $466 million. Practically all due to household damage ($457 million). Major source: rangeland ($402 million). Croplands contributed $28 million (85H4).

Off-site wind-erosion costs were estimated to average $466 million/ year in New Mexico (86H1). (Wind erosion damaged 857,800 acres (3473 km²) in New Mexico between November of 1983 and May of 1984. Some 12.3 million acres (50,000 km²) were damaged in 10 states of the Great Plains during 1983-1984. (86H1)) Off-site costs of wind erosion are evaluated in Ref. (89H1).

The cost of soil erosion on Java has been estimated at $350-420 million/ year, with 80% attributed to on-farm productivity losses and the rest to siltation of rivers, dams and canals downstream (World Bank, 1989) (96M1).

Developing countries use over 60% of their energy (including wood) for their food system (Ref. 102 of (76P2)). On a global basis, nearly 25% of all energy (including wood) goes into the food system (Ref. 103 of (76P2)).

If the world used petroleum energy in agriculture as farmers in the U.S. do, the world's known petroleum reserves would last 13 years ((78B4) p. 133).

Estimates are given of the ratio of energy-input/ food-energy-output for a wide variety of agricultural systems, e.g. 10.5 for shifting cultivation and traditional rice cultivation; 0.2 for livestock production; 0.1 for commercial marine fishing, 0.02 for greenhouse crops ((80W2), p. 226). Trade-offs between labor, energy and land in agricultural systems about the Globe are analyzed in Ref. (80W1).

In the U.S., people consume 20-30 times more fossil fuel energy per capita than people in developing nations. Agriculture directly accounts for 17% of all the energy used in the U.S. (94P4).

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalent are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994) (94P4). Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows (94P4):
31% for manufacture of inorganic fertilizer;
19% for operation of field machinery,
16% for transportation
13% for irrigation
8% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed,)
5% for crop drying
5% for pesticide production
8% for miscellaneous
Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets and household cooking are not considered in the figures.

The input of fossil energy for U.S. crop production is about 3 million Kcal/ acre (740 million Kcal/ km²) (Ref. 93 of (76P2)). About 50% of these inputs are to increase crop productivity, and the other half is to reduce labor (Ref. 93 of (76P2)).

Agriculture's consumption of primary energy is 3-5% of the U.S. total (92N1).

Some 17% of U.S. fossil energy goes for production, processing, shipping and preparation of food (81W1).

A chart is given of 1974 U.S. agriculture energy use. Energy consumed in fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides (7 trillion BTU) was 34% of the total energy used in agriculture ((81B2), p. 87). Irrigation uses 10% (81B2).

Energy inputs to U.S. agriculture are discussed in Ref. (79C3). In 1973, energy costs in corn-production were 35% of the value of corn produced (20% for soybeans) (79C3).

Contour planting increases farming time and fuel use by 5-7% ((76P2), p. 151).

See Chapter 11, Section (F) for a compilation of large databases on net fuel imports in 2001.

See Chapter 11, Section (F) for a compilation of large databases on trade in fish and fisheries products during 2000-2002.

See Chapter 11, Section (F) for a compilation of large databases on net cereal imports as a percent of cereal consumption in 2002.

Against this background, FAO's 1995 study, World Agriculture: Towards 2010, estimated net cereal import requirements increasing during 1995-2010 from:
About 8 to 19 million tonnes for sub-Saharan Africa;
About 38 to 71 million tonnes for the Near East and North Africa;
About 27 to 35 million tonnes for East Asia (excluding China);
About 5 to 10 million tonnes for South Asia (primarily as a result of shortages of arable land).

People in the First World tend to be unconcerned about food prices. However they should be aware that exploding economic mobilities have led to "globalization" - world trade doubling every decade, the size of cargo ships increasing by an order of magnitude every few decades, the scale of global communications growing orders of magnitude faster than ever before, multi-national corporations expanding in size and number at ever-increasing rates, and with several billion more people scheduled to join the global economy over the next few decades. Thus ratios of food- and fiber prices to labor prices, like all other economic ratios, appear certain to tend ever more rapidly toward globally constant values. The global rate of topsoil loss must therefore gradually assume much greater importance that any regional rate - even for inhabitants of soil-rich, low-loss-rate regions. Globalization of human pressures on land (through both trade and emigration) must also cause regional topsoil loss rates to tend toward global average rates. First-World residents should also note that the elasticity of food prices is very low. A slight surplus leads to collapsing prices, while a slight surplus leads to explosive increases in food prices.

Data on sugar production, prices, etc. are available from www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar/Data/data.htm/

World wheat prices ($/ bushel) are plotted vs. time (1950-1996) in Ref. (97B3). $12 in 1950; $8 in 1906; $6 in 1970; $8 in 1980; $4 in 1990 (1995 $).

In 1992-1993, the World Resources Institute reported that food prices dropped further than the prices of most non-fuel commodities. Cereal prices in the international market fell by 1/3 during 1980-1989 (94B5).

During 1950-1993, world prices of wheat, corn and rice fell in real terms by 67%, 83%, and 88%. During 1993-1996, wheat, corn and rice prices rose 39%, 58% and 30% (98B1).

Percent of disposable income spent on food (76H1) in 1971: 15.7% in the U.S.; 65% in developing countries; 30% in the USSR, 26% in the European Economic Community. Comments: This data have historical value, but is obsolete.

Food expenditures in the U.S. as a % of disposable income: 24% in 1929; 17% in 1961; 14% in 1970; 11.8% in 1990 (USDA data, Pittsburgh Press, 12/29/91). Farm commodities represent 25% of the U.S. retail cost of food, as compared with 33% a decade ago (95K3).

U.S. citizens aged 65+ spend $1861/ capita/ year on food; those between 25-34 spend $1468/ capita/ year on food. Low-income households spend 25% of their income on food, middle-income households spend 14% (Wall Street Journal (2/19/98)).

(Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975 Statistical Abstracts)
Comments: The 1975 increase resulted from the oil embargo.

In the summer of 1996, the government of Jordan, suffering from higher prices of imported wheat and a growing fiscal deficit, was forced to eliminate its bread subsidy. The resultant riots lasted several days and threatened to bring down the government (Ref. 9 of (97B3)). Comments: Egypt is also known to have a significant bread subsidy ~ paid by the U.S. as part of the Mideast Peace agreement.

Most Russians spend more than 50% of their family budget on food, but remain unable to afford meat and fruit (Erin B. Friar, Wall Street Journal (7/17/95)).

The Soviet Union's 1972 decision to import massive quantities of wheat after a poor harvest caused world grain prices to double (95B1). Comments: The year 1972 was the year when Hurricane Agnes and global weather patterns produced global problems with crops and prices.

Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

• 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
• 19% for the operation of field machinery
• 16% for transportation
• 13% for irrigation
• 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)
• 05% for crop drying
• 05% for pesticide production
• 08% for miscellaneous

See the database listing in Chapter 11, Section (11-F) for a compilation of large databases on tractors per 1000 ha in 2001 and agricultural Labor intensity (workers/ ha.) in 2001 and annual water withdrawals by sector in 2000.

See the database listing in Chapter 11, Section (11-F) for a compilation of large databases on energy consumption per capita.

LATIN AMERICA/CARIB.| 19
~ ~Bolivia ~ ~ ~ ~ ~| 44
~ ~Guatemala ~ ~ ~ ~| 45
~ ~Haiti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~| 62

NEAR EAST/N. AFRICA | 33
~ ~Afghanistan~ ~ ~ | 67
~-~Turkey ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 45
~-~Yemen~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 50

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA ~| 62
~ ~Burkina Faso ~ ~ | 92
~ ~Ethopia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 82
~ ~Niger~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 88
~ ~Tanzania ~ ~ ~ ~ | 80

TRANSITION COUNTRIES| 15
~ ~Albania~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 48
~ ~Tajikistan ~ ~ ~ | 33