Pesticide Use: EnvironmentalRisks and Alternatives

by Jennifer Decker

INTRODUCTIONOf the 1.1 billion pounds of pesticide chemi-

cals used nationwide in 1984, seventy-seven percentor 861 million pounds were used in agriculture. TheCalifornia Public Interest Research Group (CAL-PIRG) reports that sixty to eighty percent of pesti-cides used are to enhance the cosmetic appearance,and not the life, of the produce. Agriculture Practicesand the 1990 Farm Bill Hearings Before the Sub-comm. on Conservation and Forestry and Comm. onAgric., Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Febru-ary 9, 1990 (statement by Mr. Richard Reed, Califor-nia Action Network). Nationally, eleven percent ofthe pesticides used are fungicides, twenty-three per-cent are insecticides, and sixty-six percent are herbi-cides. Mattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habit, AMICUSJournal, Fall 1989, Volume 11, Number 4, p. 16. InCalifornia alone, farmers use over ninety-three mil-lion pounds of pesticides and nearly five billionpounds of fertilizers each year. Agriculture Practicesand the 1990 Farm Bill Hearings Before the Sub-comm. on Conservation and Forestry and Comm. onAgric., Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Febru-ary 9, 1990 (statement by Ms. Jennifer Curtis, Re-search Associate of Natural Resources DefenseCouncil).

Nationally, pesticide use has increased dra-matically in the latter part of this century, without acorresponding reduction in pest damage. Pesticidechemical use has increased thirty-three fold since1945 (Hileman, Alternative Agriculture, Chemicaland Engineering News, March 5, 1990, at 29), yetcrop loss from insects has increased twofold, fromabout seven percent to thirteen percent. Id. See alsoMattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habit at 10. Accordingto Dr. Pimentel, a professor of insect ecology andagricultural sciences at Cornell University, societyturned to chemicals during the 1940's as an easysolution to agricultural pests. He believes society'sresulting reliance on a chemical solution to every pestproblem was misguided, creating costly environ-mental and health problems. Dr. Pimentel suggests

that the only longterm answer to pest control is througha highly complex "ecological approach" to farming. Id.at 17.

This article surveys problems with pesticideuse and a number of "ecological approaches" tofanning that are currently used or being tested byU.S. farmers. Some of these methods have beenaround for centuries and are being rediscovered inthis country; others are being developed throughuniversity and government research programs.These programs have a number of common benefitsincluding their dramatic reduction pesticide usageand reduction of water waste from irrigation. Id. at17.

THE PROBLEMS: HUMAN HEALTH ANDTHE ENVIRONMENT

Pesticide use affects the health of farm work-ers and consumers and damages the environment.EPA's experts rank pesticides as a more seriouspublic health risk than hazardous waste sites.Johnson, Congress Again Tries Rewriting PesticideLaw, San Francisco Examiner, July 31, 1987. Scien-tists, however, disagree about the degree of healthdanger from any given pesticide. Because EPA'stesting of over 600 chemical agents is decades behindschedule and terribly underfunded, answers will notcome quickly.

The potential health problems from pesticideexposure can be divided into two classes: acuteeffects and chronic effects. Acute effects result fromcontact with high levels of a chemical over a shortduration, usually causing immediate signs of con-tamination. These effects include nausea, skin irrita-tion, and other minor problems. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Agricultural Chemicals inGround Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategy, Officeof Pesticides and Toxic Substances, December 1987,p. 25.

Chronic effects from pesticide exposure areharder to document because of the long latencyperiod between exposure and the onset of symp-

toms. Many effects are known, however, includingcancer, mutations, birth defects, and immunologicalproblems. Scientists agree that there are risks fromdrinking pesticide-laden ground water, but they areunsure about the exact health effects of low levelexposure to specific pesticides. Id. Although gapsexist in scientific data, there is consensus that pesti-cide use is an endemic problem that threatens ourhealth. Currently, an average of three California farmworkers report pesticide poisoning each day, andofficials estimate that at least eleven additional casesof poisoning go unreported. Agriculture Practicesand the 1990 Farm Bill Hearings Before the Sub-comm. on Conservation and Forestry and Comm. onAgric., Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Febru-ary 9, 1990 (statement by Mr. Richard Reed, Califor-nia Action Network). The general public is exposedon a daily basis through fruit and vegetable con-sumption. We are further exposed through drinkingpesticide-contaminated water.

PESTICIDES AND GROUND WATERPesticide monitoring began in the 1970's, and

by 1986 nineteen different pesticides had been de-tected in ground water in twenty-four states. Today,twenty-six states report ground water contamination.Id. Most contamination comes from non-point sources,such as agricultural applications, rather than from spillsor concentrated point sources. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Agricultural Chemicals in GroundWater: Proposed Pesticide Strategy, Office of Pesti-cides and Toxic Substances, December 1987, at 21-22.Pesticide-contaminated aquifers are particularly troub-lesome where they are the primary or sole source ofdrinking water, such as in smaller communities (like theIsland of Oahu); aquifer contamination means import-ing water at a great expense.

Nationally, EPA's Superfund program hashalted any site investigation where non-point sourcepesticide contamination is suspected. Contamina-tion from legally applied pesticides is so widespreadthat any attempt to cleanup the potential Superfundsites would bankrupt the program's budget.

Currently in California, approximately fifty-sevendifferent pesticides have been detected in groundwa-ter, one-half of these being attributed to legal pesti-cide application and one-half to point sources orunknown causes. The result is that many Califor-nians risk greater pesticide exposure than peoplefrom most other states. For example, nearly 700,000Californians may have been exposed to dibromo-chloropropane (DBCP) in 1987 from 2500 DBCP-contaminated drinking water wells; sixty percent ofthese wells had levels above the State standard. Id.at 22. California's environmental problems frompesticides are not unique. The state monitoringprograms only confirm the problems. In Long Is-land, New York, 1,000 aldicarb-contaminated wellscontained levels about the state standard of 7 partsper billion (ppb). Id. at 22. In Florida, 1,200 drinkingwells have been closed due to aquifer contamination;ten percent of the public and private wells therecontain ethylene dibromide (EDB). A 1986 Minne-sota survey reported pesticide contamination in fifty-two percent of 225 private wells. Id. at 22.

MOVEMENT OF PESTICIDES FROMTHE TOP SOIL TO THE GROUNDWATER

Natural factors, as well as agricultural practices,affect the potential for pesticides to contaminate groundwater. These factors include the physical properties ofthe chemicals and the soil, and climactic conditions.

The chemical properties of the pesticides affecttheir longevity in the soil and their rate of movement

: Pete McDonnell From "RESOURCES-

from the surface soil to the aquifer. For example, watersolubility determines a pesticide's propensity to dis-solve in water, making the chemical more able to mi-grate through the soil and into an aquifer. Hydrolysis isthe rate of degradation of a pesticide in water; if thepesticide leaches below top layers of soil, beyond bio-logical activity, hydrolysis becomes the only processavailable to decompose a pesticide. Dragun, Kuffner,and Schneiter, A Chemical Engineer's Guide toGroundwater Contamination, Chemical Engineering,Nov. 26, 1984, p. 6 6 .

Once the soil and pesticides begin to interact,their combined chemical properties create molecularreactions, forming new molecular bonds. Chemicalstend to bind to soil particles in a process known asadsorption, which slows the pesticide migrationprocesses. Adsorption is most greatly affected by thesoil type, soil moisture, and soil organic matter con-tent. Id. at 67.

This propensity for soils and pesticides tobond affects the rate of pesticide migration in differenttypes of soils. For example, clay soils have a highsurface area which encourages adsorption. Id. Thechemical properties of clay allow positively-chargedchemicals to easily bind with the clay fraction in thesoil. The percentage of clay or sand or silt in the soilis called the soil texture. Soil texture affects thepesticide's ability to leach, moving slowly in fine orcement-like clay soils, and more quickly and deeperin course or light soils. Agricultural Chemicals inGround Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategy, EPA,Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Decem-ber 1987, p. 22. The larger structure of soils also affectstheir propensity to bind with chemicals or allow chemi-cals to readily pass by. Large soil structure is deter-mined by the way soil particles bind together into largerunits. Dragun, Kuffner, and Schneiter, A ChemicalEngineer's Guide to Groundwater Contamination at 66.

The most simple soils are made of uniformgrains. However, soils can also bind themselves intoplates or clumps or other shapes. The manner in whichthe soil clumps contributes to the propensity for waterand dissolved pesticides to migrate through spacesbetween the clump. The more pore space betweensoil groupings the higher the porosity; the higher theporosity of the soil, the quicker the percolation ofpesticides toward the aquifers. Agricultural Chemi-cals in Ground Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategyat 22.

Pesticide persistence in the soil also determinesthe longterm effect of these chemicals. Persistence isessentially a chemical's expected lifespan. It is meas-ured as the time required for one-half of the pesticide'sresidue to degrade to a non-detectable level. Persistenceis an inherent characteristic of the chemical itself.Dragun, A Chemical Engineer's Guide to GroundwaterContamination at 66.

Once pesticides are sprayed onto a field, theyhave the potential to migrate deep into the soil andinto the aquifers below. The downward movement ofa pesticide in the soil is driven by competing proc-esses of degradation and leaching. Id. If the chemicalis degraded by biological or chemical processesbefore it leaches, it never reaches the aquifer. If thechemical has high persistence, is not degraded, andalso does not bind with soil, it is very likely to leachinto and contaminate the ground water. Id.

Climactic conditions also greatly affect thelikelihood that pesticides in soils will reach thegroundwater. One of the most important variables isthe amount of precipitation in the area. As rain fallsonto the soil, the rain water binds with the chemicalsand carries them through the soil particles to theground water below. Air temperatures compete withthis process since evaporation reduces the wateravailable for migration. Id. The depth of the aquiferfrom the surface soils is also key to how quickly anaquifer can become polluted. Agricultural Chemicalsin Ground Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategy at 35-37.

AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AFFECT-ING PESTICIDE CONTAMINATION

Many agricultural practices affect the level ofenvironmental contamination from pesticide use.These practices include:

* Application Rates: The amount of pesti-cides applied correlates directly with the amount ofpesticides available for leaching into the soils andgroundwater.

* Timing of Application: Timing the sprayingrelative to rainfall events, season of the year, and thepresence or absence of a crop affects the net amountof chemicals reaching the soil. Id. at 36.

* Method of Application: Pesticides are ap-plied in a number of ways. These include sprayingthem directly on the crops or on bare soil, dissolvingthem in irrigation water, or injecting the chemicals

beneath the soil surface. Subsurface injection and directsurface spraying are the methods most likely to contami-nate groundwater. Id. at 36-37.

* Cultivation Practices: Tillage used to de-crease soil erosion can increase a soil's porosity,which hastens the percolation of soluble pesticides.

* Irrigation: Irrigated soils are highly perme-able. The amount of irrigation water commonlyreaching subsurface soil is estimated to be twenty toforty percent of the applied water. Id. at 39. As thiswater leaches, it carries the soluble pesticides andtheir residues with it.

* Aerial Application: The common practice ofspraying pesticides from aircraft spreads the chemi-cals where they are not needed. Only 0.1 percent ofthe chemicals applied reach their actual target.Mattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habit at 10.

* Affects of Pesticide Use: Pesticides createthe need for more pesticides. Insecticides breedinsecticide-resistant insects and kill bugs' naturalenemies. Herbicides and fungicides create resistantweeds and pathogens. They also may increase thesusceptibility of crops to insects and disease. Id. at 10.

Six crops account for about ninety percent ofpesticide applications. These are alfalfa, corn, cot-ton, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat. This concentra-tion of pesticide use on a few major crops means that theapplication is heavily concentrated in certain major

agricultural areas. Herbicides currently form the largestand most rapidly growing class of pesticides. Applica-tions of herbicides now account for nearly ninety per-cent of the acreage of all major crops treated. Agricul-tural Chemicals in Ground Water: Proposed PesticideStrategy at 31.

COSTS OF PESTICIDE USAGEAND CONTAMINATION

Pesticide use costs a great deal in terms of theaffects on public health, farm workers' lifespans,damages to the ecosystem, and food costs. Croplosses, decline in property values, medical costs, andlaw suits are just a few of the other indirect costsresulting from pesticide use. According to Dr. Pi-mentel, a conservative estimate suggests that theenvironmental and social costs of pesticide use in theU.S. amount to about $1 billion annually; the poten-tial costs are much higher. Mattes, Kicking thePesticide Habit at 12.

Measuring the costs of pesticide usage tosociety is a difficult task. A USDA report by Nielsonand Lee in 1987 estimated the costs of avoiding risksimposed by pesticides in ground-water contamina-tion. Household well water monitoring costs alonewere an estimated $1.4 billion. Installing home-watertreatment units or obtaining alternative drinkingwater supplies are viable options, but the costs arehigh. Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water:Proposed Pesticide Strategy at 26.

Cleanup of all point-source contaminatedaquifers is not economically feasible. Cleaning upnonpoint sources resulting from pesticide applica-tion would be even more expensive and may not betechnologically feasible for most areas. The Nielsonstudy estimated that hazardous waste site cleanupscost from $1.9 million to $6.1 million. Id. at 26-27.These cleanups involve groundwater monitoring,pumping, and treating. The cost variables include thesize of the cleanup area and the volume of groundwa-ter being pumped. Based on current Superfundcosts, actual costs are more than ten times Nielson'sestimates.

THE DEMAND AND NEED FORALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES

Farmers are asking the federal governmentto help develop alternatives to pesticide use because ofmarket pressures, the cost of pesticide usage, and con-

cern for their health. According to a University ofCalifornia study, seventy-seven percent of Californiaadults are concerned about food safety in general.and forty-eight percent are concerned specificallywith pesticides in food. Agriculture Practices and the1990 Farm Bill Hearings Before the Subcomm. onConservation and Forestry and Comm. on Agric.,Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate, February 9,1990 (statement by Mr. Richard Reed, CaliforniaAction Network, quoting Dr. Christine Bruhn, Uni-versity of California). Consumers are demandinglower pesticide residues in their food products, asindicated by the strong California organic (meaningno synthetic fertilizers or pesticides) food market.Organic sales are increasing yearly, totalling over $1billion in 1988. Fifteen states have recently passedlaws or adopted regulations defining "organic" forlabeling purposes. Hileman, Alternative Agricul-ture, Chemical and Engineering News, March 5,1990, at 38.

International concerns about pesticide useare growing as well. Dr. Pimentel was recentlyinvited to Sweden to advise officials there on a newnational policy aimed at reducing pesticide use byfifty percent within the next four years. Denmark willfollow with a similar national plant to reduce pesti-cide use by 1997. Mattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habitat 12.

OVERHAUL OF FEDERALPESTICIDE POLICIES

In response to growing concerns over pesti-cides, the Senate Subcommittee on Conservationand Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutri-tion and Forestry has held hearings on the use ofalternative agricultural practices and their economicviability. One force driving these hearings is SenatorWyche Fowler (D-Georgia) and his proposed Farm

Conservation and Water Protection Act. The hearingshighlighted the Department of Agriculture's (USDA)economic policies that restrict farmers' abilities to util-ize pesticide alternatives and innovative agriculturaltechniques.

The time seems to have come for our weaknational pesticide policies to be overhauled. Agricul-ture Practices and the 1990 Farm Bill Hearings Be-fore the Subcomm. on Conservation and Forestyand Comm. on Agric., Nutrition and Forestry, U.S.Senate, February 9, 1990 (statement by Dr. BillLiebhardt, Director, Sustainable Agriculture Re-search and Education Program, University of Cali-fornia, Davis). As Senator Fowler stated, "Mancreated the (pesticide) problem, and we ought to beable to find a way to do it better." Id. (quoting SenatorFowler). However, in finding a way to "do it better,"policies must be formulated that do not place all therisks on innovative farmers.

Reforming pesticide policies must also in-clude reforming the numerous and complex federaland state programs and authorities which directly orindirectly address pesticide-related issues inground-water. For example, EPA currently admini-sters five major statutes that address some aspect ofpesticide contamination in ground water, includingthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and RodenticideAct (FIFRA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) ,Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA), and ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation and Lia-bility Act (CERCLA). The U.S. Department of Agri-culture, the US geological Survey, and the Depart-ment of Interior also play roles. In addition, stateagencies and statutes address pesticide problemsand often conflict with federal goals, policies, andcontamination levels. All of these federal and stateagencies and acts must be coordinated into a coher-ent means of confronting the damages posed by pes-ticide usage.

MISGUIDED FEDERAL POLICIESFederal tax and support incentives currently

encourage monocultures or large-scale single cropfields, which are less resistant to adverse conditionsthan diversified crop systems. Planting corn on corn,year after year, for example, intensifies the insectproblem, weeds and diseases. Mattes, Kicking thePesticide Habit at 10. Existing laws only give priceand income support for a few crops such as feed grain,

cotton, wheat, rice, sugar and soybeans. By changingcrops to any but these, the farmer loses financial incen-tives and rewards. Hileman, Alternative Agriculture at36. The federal government's support of monocultureshas indirectly encouraged widespread abandonment ofcrop rotation, increasing the need and use of insecti-cides. According to the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, in 1945 when farmers universally rotated cornand used no insecticides, crop loss to insects was 3.5percent; today the loss is twelve percent. Mattes, Kick-ing the Pesticide Habit at 10.

ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDESAND MONOCULTURES

A. Integrated Pest ManagementIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) is an

alternative pesticide control system. Eleven yearsago, IPM became part of our national agriculturalpolicy. However, since then overall pesticide usehas increased, and there has been no correspondingreduction in pest damage. The program has not anoverwhelming success to date due largely to lowfunding. According to NRDC, federal funding forIPM has remained at only $7.5 million for the pasteight years. Id. at 12.

California state funding for IPM research andalternative farming experimentation is nearly $2 mil-lion per year. This state funding includes a competi-tive grant program awarding $760,000 to forty differ-ent projects on commercial farms by university re-searchers and county based advisors. Mattes, Kick-ing the Pesticide Habit at 15. There are fifteendifferent elements of the research programs in fivebasic areas: cultural, environmental, physical, bio-logical, and chemical needs.

Cultural control of pests involves soil mix,growing methods, pest-resistant crops, and timingand quantity of watering. Environmental controlrequires temperature and humidity regulation.Physical control includes weeding, disposal of dis-eased or infested plants, and insect traps. Biologicalcontrol education increases awareness of life cyclesand the encouragement of natural enemies. Chemi-cal control allows for only limited use of targetedinsecticides, fungicides, and herbicides.

Using IPM, at each stage of pest and weedcontrol, decisions are based on the "economicthreshold" -- the point at which the cost of potentialcrop loss without control out weighs the cost of control.The entire ecosystem is considered in the analysis, not

just the short term need to eradicate an insect.In practice, farmers are sometimes hesitant to

use IPM since the proposed actions mean makingchanges to their current practices. However, IPMhas been very successful in many farms where theprogram has been fully implemented. For example,fifteen years ago, six or seven pesticides were usedon San Joaquin Valley cotton crops. Today, onlyone is used per year. Mattes, Kicking the PesticideHabit at 15 (quoting Mary Louise Flint, acting Direc-tor of IPM education and publications for the Uni-versity of California). In addition, the New York1988 IPM Annual Report showed a continuingdecrease nationwide in pesticide use. IPM Potatogrowers, for example, used twenty-one percent lessfungicides and seven percent less insecticides bybetter understanding crop life cycles. AgriculturePractices and the 1990 Farm Bill Hearings Before theSubcomm. on Conservation and Forestry andComm. on Agric., Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Sen-ate, February 9, 1990 (statement by Ms. JenniferCurtis, Research Associate of Natural ResourcesDefense Council). In Texas, the use of insecticideson cotton dropped by eighty-eight percent between1966 and 1974; similar results in other states haveshown a reduction of insecticide use on grain sor-ghum, cotton and peanuts by from forty-one toeighty-one percent. Id.

Over forty-two colleges and universities offerIPM Extension education programs while a stateIPM coordinator reports to the program leader inWashington. A 1987 USDA report states that250,000 clients participated in 150 separate IPMprograms incorporating twenty-seven million acres ofcrop land. Mattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habit at 16-17.IPM's most significant accomplishment to date has

been its effect on farmer's attitudes about their farm andits integrated environment. The IPM program's mostglaring gaps are its lack of research programs and its solefocus on insects and pathogens without concern forweeds.

B. Pesticide ReductionDr. Pimentel just released a study exploring

the results of cutting pesticide use by fifty percent onforty different crops. See Environmental and Eco-nomic Impact of Reducing U.S. Agricultural Pesti-cide Use, to be published in the Handbook on PestManagement in Agriculture (CRC Press) this year.This effort is based on exhaustive research by semi-nar students with crop-by-crop information and illus-trations. By reducing pesticide use to half its currentlevel, concludes Pimentel, farmers would spendabout $830 million on pesticides and food costswould rise a slight 0.5 percent. Mattes, Kicking thePesticide Habit, at 16-17. Farmers now spend $4.1billion per year on pesticides, with the price of thepetroleum-based chemicals steadily rising. Othersavings by society as a whole would more than makeup for the minor food cost increases. Crosson andRosenberg, Strategies for Agriculture, ScientificAmerican, September 1989, Volume 261, Number 3,at 135.

C. Low Input Sustainable AgricultureAnother alternative method for farming is

LISA or Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture. LISAtheoretically encompasses every aspect of an agroeco-system, ranging from fertilizer and irrigation use toerosion control and tractor fuel. LISA minimizes humaninput and emphasizes maintaining the resources of theland.

Pilot projects are underway to test LISA.Administered by USDA in conjunction with state agen-cies and private organizations, the pilot program evalu-ates low-input experiments in areas such as cover crops,soil balance, and livestock systems, in all regions of the

country. Federal funding began in 1988 at $3.9 millionand in 1989 totals only $4.5 million. Mattes, Kicking thePesticide Habit at 17. Wide-scale research and implem-entation are not close and profitability is, as yet, un-known.

NRDC reports on a highly successful experi-mental farm using LISA at the Rodale ResearchCenter in Emmaus, Pennsylvania. Wheat and cornwere rotated on farm plots with nitrogen fertilizercoming from plowing down legumes in previousseasons. After 4 years of low production, corn in thelow-input plots yielded sixteen bushels more peracre than corn grown with recommended chemicalfertilizers and pesticides. Yields have equaled orexceeded those of conventional corn ever since. Id.at 10.

D. Multiple CroppingAgricultural innovations today often incorpo-

rate ancient farming principles such as crop integra-tion. The concept of multiple cropping takes in croprotations, intercropping (sometimes with trees andannual crops sharing the same field), overseedinglegumes into cereals, and also double cropping. Pre-Columbian practices in Central America continue tothis day by growing maize, beans, and squash to-gether. The maize provides a trellis for the beans; thebeans enrich the soil with nitrogen; and the squashprovides ground cover which reduces erosion, soilcompaction, and weed growth. Multiple crop-ping can sharply increase crop yields. Crosson andRosenberg, Strategies for Agriculture at 133.

In the Midwest, farmers have grown cornwith other low ground-cover plants. In one Nebras-kan experiment, corn windbreaks were spaced everyfifteen rows throughout a field of sugar beets. Thewind shelter provided by the corn increased thesugar yield by eleven percent. The greater sunlightpenetration and more rapid replenishment of carbondioxide to the corn's leaves increased the yield ofcorn by 150 percent from previous years' outputs. Id.

Multiple cropping has another -importantadvantage. In fields where crops are rotated regu-larly, pests, including weeds, insects, and pathogens,cannot adapt themselves to a single set of environ-mental conditions and therefore do not multiply asquickly. Predators in one crop are kept down by preda-tors in the other.

Cotton growers in Texas have successfullytried multiple cropping by mixing cotton varieties that

• -'-o ,o °- " . .- .- - - • . . o ,

....' - IL

mature early. This changes the environment to onehostile to the most common cotton pests. The farmersalso encourage predators that consume the commonpests, and then they bum the fields after the harvestto destroy larvae. Id. at 133.

E. Biotechnological InnovationsBiotechnology's creation of genetically al-

tered plants is another possible way to reduce pesti-cide use. A variety of large businesses are involvedin developing this technology, including Union Car-bide, Eastman Kodak, Monsanto, and GeneralFoods. There are plenty of criticisms of biotechnol-ogy, including the exceptionally high costs associ-ated with research and development. AgriculturePractices and the 1990 Farm Bill Hearings Before theSubcomm. on Conservation and Forestry andComm. on Agric., Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Sen-ate, February 9, 1990 (statement by Mr. RichardReed, California Action Network). The technologyrisks the creation of unforeseeable hazards and therelease of unintended new life forms. Other criti-cisms include more subtle consequences, such aslocking farmers into new uses for chemical manufac-turers' products. It is still not known whether theultimate use of biotechnology and whether the benefitswill go to the chemical companies' sales rather than toreduce chemical use in the environment.

F. Water Use Problems and TrickleIrrigation Solutions

Only 2.59 percent of the earth's water is located

on land. Most of that water is in the form of ice and snowor groundwater. Water is a very limited and valuableresource that is not adequately conserved.

Averaged on a world-wise basis, only aboutthirty-seven percent of all irrigation water is taken upby agricultural crops; the rest is never absorbed bythe plants and can be considered lost. Much watercan be saved by using trickle or drip irrigation sys-tems that send water directly above the individualplant's root system. Crosson and Rosenberg, Strate-gies for Agriculture at 90.

Trickle systems, along with some others, notonly increase efficiency in the use of irrigation waterbut also offer new approaches to prevent saliniza-tion. One new strategy emphasizes keeping salts andpesticides on the land, rather than passing them backinto the water supply. This is done by cycling waste-water back into the farm's irrigation system andstrategically reapplying it to the fields at times and inways that minimize the effects of the salt. Id. at 92-94.

Trickle irrigation is particularly helpful in thisregard. Much of the damage from salt occurs whenlarge concentrations remain after repeated wateringand irrigation. High concentrations of salt outside theroots of plants lower the osmotic pressure and make itmore difficult for the plant to take water in from thesurrounding soil. In trickle systems, the plant roots arecontinuously supplied with water, and the salts do notbuild up enough to make water uptake difficult. Id.

G. Information DisseminationThere are other ways to increase farmers'

understanding of pesticide alternatives and the risks andbenefits of one system or product over another. TheNew Farm magazine, for example, is written by and forfarmers. Its readership is over 100,000 and growing.Topics in the magazine include reports on insect-toler-ant crop varieties, nutrient recycling, crop/weed interac-tions, and biological pest control. In addition, themagazine includes case studies of the particular suc-cesses or failures of innovative agricultural techniques.

Pest control advisors (PCA) can also be a valu-able resource by providing crucial information to farm-ers and a support network for new ideas. Chemicalsalesmen typically play this role; however, they arebacked by the National Agricultural Chemical Associa-tion. For about every 500 farms in NY, there are tenchemical agents and only one government funded or"extension" agent. Mattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habitat 16. More of these independent PCAs or "plant healthdoctors of the future" are needed since they offer advicewithout conflicts of interest. Id. at 16 (quoting JimTette, NY Extension coordinator at Cornell U.) As moreis learned about alternative techniques, PCAs can helpspread information about new agricultural methods andserve as consultants to the farmers.

UPCOMING LEGISLATIONThe legislature may help reverse many of

these problems with the 1990 Farm Bill and its com-panion Farm Conservation and Water Act (S. 970)sponsored by Senator Wyche Fowler, Jr. (D-Geor-gia), cosponsored by Alan Cranston and AlbertGore (D-Tennessee). The proposals aim to changemany of the inflexible rules that make little senseagronomically or environmentally. Hileman, Alter-native Agriculture, Chemical and EngineeringNews, March 5, 1990, at 38. The bills would givefarmers more flexibility in deciding which crops toplant without losing federal financial support, such astax incentives and benefits. The proposals includegiving positive incentives to farmers to encourage prac-tices that reduce soil erosion and groundwatercontamination. Id. at 38. Most importantly, the billsinclude increased federal support for low-input andsustainable agricultural research and informationdissemination. It includes wetland and groundwatersafeguards, recommends national low-input certifi-cation, and provides crop insurance and credit in-centives to farmers making the transition away frompesticides.

CONCLUSIONFarmers will generally remain skeptical of

new agricultural practices until large scale economicsuccess using these techniques becomes a reality.Financial backing and educational support for lowpesticide use experiments on portions of crops areneeded. This will encourage information collectionand dissemination without risking a farmer's entireinvestment. Mattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habitat at13 (quoting Carol Glenister, IPM Laboratories,Inc.). Highly trained field PCAs could help findanswers to specific problems and direct research inthe right direction.

With the increased interest in Washington,D.C., more bills will be sponsored to fund research.The market is shifting and is driving this change inagricultural practices. Consumer expectations arerising, and farmers are seeing the health and economicbenefits of shifting their practices away from methodsemploying heavy pesticide use. Traditional farmingtechniques --many long forgotten -- are making a come-back as ecologically healthy and economically viablealternatives to chemicals.

REFERENCESAgriculture Practices and the 1990 Farm Bill Hearings

Before the Subcomm. on Conservation andForestry and Comm. on Agric., Nutrition andForestry, U.S. Senate, February 9, 1990 (state-ments by Dr. Bill Liebhardt, Director, Sustain-able Agriculture Research and Education Pro-gram, University of California, Davis; Mr.Howard Beeman, Jr., Farmer; Mr. Edward Sills,

Farmer; Ms. Jennifer Curtis, Research Associ-ate of Natural Resources Defense Council; Mr.Richard Reed, California Action Network; Dr.Brian Baker, Coordinator, Technical ProgramCalifornia Certified Organic Farmers; Mr.James P. Knutzon, Senior Vice President, Nutri-Clean, Inc.; Steven R. Beckley, General Man-ager of the California Fertilizer Association)

Ainsworth, Pesticide Conference Drafts Food SafetyGuidelines for Key Groups, Chemical andEngineering News, February 12, 1990, pp. 18-20.

Crosson and Rosenberg, Strategies for Agriculture,Scientific American, September 1989, Volume261, Number 3, pp. 128-135.

Dragun, Kuffner, and Schneiter, A ChemicalEngineer's Guide to Groundwater Contami-nation, Chemical Engineering, November 26,1984, pp. 64-78.

Hileman, Alternative Agriculture, Chemical and Engi-neering News, March 5, 1990, pp. 26-40.

Johnson, Congress Again Tries Rewriting PesticideLaw, San Francisco Examiner, July 31, 1987.

Mattes, Kicking the Pesticide Habit, AMICUS Journal,Fall 1989, Volume 11, Number 4, p. 16.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AgriculturalChemicals in Ground Water: Proposed Pes-ticide Strategy, Office of Pesticides and ToxicSubstances, December 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AgriculturalChemicals in Ground Water: Summary Min-utes fiom the 1987 Pesticide Strategy Work-shop, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,October 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Workshops onAssessment andManagement ofDrinking WaterContamination, Office of Drinking Water, EPA/600/M-86/026, March 1987.

Jenny Decker is a first year law student and chairper-son of the UC Davis Environmental Law Society.She has worked for the EPA as an EnvironmentalProtection Specialist and currently works as a civilinvestigator for that organization.

Courtney Delaney From "RE:SOURCES"