THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH EMPHASIS ON THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS IN ONTARIO
April 2005
Prepared by:
Jane Sadler Richards, PhD, PAg Cordner Science RR2, 34050 Maguire Road Ailsa Craig, ON N0M 1A0
On behalf of:
Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Huron County Federation of Agriculture
Disclaimer:
The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations
S U M M A RY
At A Glance... April, 2005
Objectives: To report on the following: • the economic benefits of agricultural drainage • the reasons for enclosing drains • the economic, environmental and societal impacts of enclosing drains, which could be included in a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain • approaches or methods for evaluating the benefits and costs of enclosing open drains And, to prepare a database of information sources that could be used by various stakeholders regarding the enclosure of open drains
Who will use this information? • Anyone who needs information to help them develop a position statement related to discussions, applications, negotiations or hearings on the enclosure of an open drain. • Economists, scientists and water managers may use the information when developing a benefit-cost analysis of enclosing an open drain. • Economists, scientists and water managers may use the information when developing a method for establishing when it is appropriate or not appropriate to allow the enclosure of an open drain.
THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH EMPHASIS ON THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS IN ONTARIO Ontario farmers and governments continue to invest in drainage. In the last 5 years, $3.9 M to $11.1 M per year was spent on tile drainage and $10.8 M to $18.5 M per year was spent on municipal drainage. Farmers benefit from drainage through improved crop yields, ability to adopt higher value crops, timeliness of planting and harvesting, land improvement and reduced production costs. Since the 1980s, however, studies have indicated that the impacts of agricultural land management in conjunction with drainage systems are significant and, in many cases, detrimental to the health of aquatic ecosystems. This increased
awareness of the impacts of land management has caused concerns about many practices related to agricultural drainage. The Ausable BayDrainage systems include in-field and off-field parts field Conservation that together drain a watershed. Outlet drains may be Authority (ABCA) open or enclosed watercourses. was interested in understanding if the tion available to answer enclosure of open drains this question. in agricultural landscapes could affect the long-term The above document health of aquatic ecosysfocused on environtems and in what ways. A mental questions. This companion literature redocument focuses on view to this document economic and related entitled A Review of the social questions. The Enclosure of Watercourses sustainability of the in Agricultural Landagri-food sector relies on scapes and River Headmaintaining a balance water Functions (2004) between economic, envidetermined there was not ronmental and social enough scientific informaneeds.
REASONS FOR ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS 1. Similar construction costs 2. Increased field efficiency, decreased overlap of operations, decreased soil compaction 3. Improved safety by removing hazard of tractor rollover
4. Less intensive maintenance, potential hay crop and/or wildlife habitat 5. Removes need for regulatory compliance with setbacks and buffers, and/or mitigation against future changes in regulatory policies
6.
Increased land value
7.
Control of soil erosion from ditch banks and overland flow
Prepared by: J. Sadler Richards, Cordner Science On behalf of: Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition, Huron County Federation of Agriculture, and Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority
ii
PAGE 2
A T A G LANCE . ..
WHAT IS IMPACTED BY DRAIN ENCLOSURE? Agricultural land management and value:
•
Construction practices
•
Field efficiency and overlap of operations Government resources
•
Land value
•
Maintenance practices
•
Regulatory compliance and mitigation against future changes in attitudes, policies and regulations Safety
•
Soil erosion control
“An economic analysis could assess the net benefits or net costs of each impact for private
•
Headwater function re habitat and food web of ecosystem
•
Headwater function re hydrology of water
•
Headwater function re physical/ chemical characteristics of water
•
Government resources
•
Land value
landowners and society.
•
•
Natural land management and value:
However, placing a value on non-market goods and services is difficult. This is even harder when little is known about the ecological role of small agricultural drains.”
¤¤¤
RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
Prepare a factsheet outlining circumstances when a request to enclose an open drain could be denied and the associated appeal process
2.
Update the outline of a benefit-cost analysis under the Drainage Act
3.
Conduct research on the impact of enclosure on headwater functions in agricultural landscapes
4.
Determine if grassed waterways are commonly in place over enclosed drains
5.
Examine what incentives would encourage private landowners to maintain the ecological functions of drains
6.
Develop recommendations for best management practices for enclosed drains
Need to find information? Log on to to view or download a copy of the report or database of references.
You can search for keywords, authors, titles and much more following the easy instructions.
This project includes a database of more than 160 references. Some are cited in the report, but many
Also, read A Review of the Enclosure
more are listed in the database. The database is formatted as a worksheet in Microsoft Excel®.
of Watercourses in Agricultural Landscapes and River Headwater Functions if you need to understand how headwaters function.
Funding for this project was provided in part by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Agricultural Adaptation Council’s CanAdapt Program.
iii
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The sponsorship and interest of the Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition (HCFEC) in partnership with the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) and the Huron County Federation of Agriculture (HCFA) are gratefully acknowledged. Funds were provided through the Agricultural Adaptation Council and the Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition with in-kind support from the Huron County Federation of Agriculture and the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. Many thanks are extended to the Advisory Committee and their sponsoring organizations for their time and commitment to this project.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
iv
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AT A GLANCE ...................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................V LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... VI LIST OF TEXT BOXES ............................................................................................................VII 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE............................................................................................. 1
1.2
LAND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................. 1
1.3
IMPORTANCE OF DRAINAGE................................................................................................ 3
1.3.1
Private Landowner - Agriculture............................................................................................ 3
1.3.2
Society..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4
PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND USE OF THIS DOCUMENT................................................ 10
2
METHODS.......................................................................................................................... 11
3
TILE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................. 13
4
3.1
AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS................................................................................................. 13
3.2
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .................................................................................................. 15
OUTLET DRAINAGE AND THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS ....................... 17 4.1
REASONS FOR ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS ...................................................................... 17
4.2
IMPACTS OF ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS.......................................................................... 19
4.2.1
Agricultural Land Management And Value.......................................................................... 19
4.2.2
Natural Land Management And Value ................................................................................. 33
4.3
5
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 37
4.3.1
Private Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 38
4.3.2
Social Benefit-Cost Analysis................................................................................................. 41
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 43 5.1
FUTURE WORK ...................................................................................................................... 43
5.2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 44
APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................... 45
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
v
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
APPENDIX 2: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS....................................................... 46 APPENDIX 3: DETAILS OF SEARCH METHOD ................................................................ 51 APPENDIX 4: DETAILS OF DRAINAGE PROJECTS ........................................................ 53 APPENDIX 5: DATABASE OF INFORMATION SOURCES .............................................. 56 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 60
LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Area, length of tile and cost of tile drainage, 2001 to 2004, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004). ............................................................. 5 Table 1.2: Area, length and cost of municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004).............................. 6 Table 1.3: Range of costs per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004) ........................................... 7 Table 1.4: Cost of maintenance per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004).............................. 8 Table 4.1: Specifications and cost of work for three examples of drainage projects where an open ditch was enclosed in Huron County, Ontario .................................................... 20 Table 4.2: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with construction practices related to enclosing an open drain ..................................................................... 21 Table 4.3: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in field efficiency and overlap of field operations related to enclosing an open drain ......... 23 Table 4.4: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with government programs and services related to enclosing an open drain................................................ 24
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
vi
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Table 4.5: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in land value related to enclosing an open drain................................................................... 25 Table 4.6: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with maintenance related to enclosing an open drain .................................................................................... 27 Table 4.7: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with regulatory compliance and mitigation practices related to enclosing an open drain.......................... 30 Table 4.8: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with farm safety concerns related to enclosing an open drain ..................................................................... 31 Table 4.9: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with soil erosion control related to enclosing an open drain ........................................................................ 32
LIST OF TEXT BOXES Text Box 4.1: Definition of surface water, and requirements regarding buffer zones and depth to groundwater, Ontario Nutrient Management Act, 2002 ..................................... 28 Text Box 4.2: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Aatrex® Nine-0® .. 29 Text Box 4.3: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Ultim®................... 29 Text Box 4.4: Provision for preparing a benefit cost statement, Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17 ..................................................................................................... 38
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
vii
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE The agri-food sector is an important part of Canada. In the late 1800s more than 80% of Canada’s population was involved in agriculture. Today, approximately 15% of our population is employed in the agri-food sector, although less than 3% of the population actually farm (Coote & Gregorich 2000). Food costs approximately 14% of disposable income in Canada, which makes it one of the least expensive countries in the world (based on 1998 data) in which to buy food (Coote & Gregorich 2000). Also, a large proportion of our food is exported (43% in 1998), which contributes significantly to Canada’s trade balance (Coote & Gregorich 2000).
The importance of agriculture to Canada suggests that it is in everyone’s interest to develop policies and programs that will ensure the long-term existence or sustainability of the agri-food sector. In fact, the sustainability of Canada’s agri-food sector has been a topic of much discussion. In Canada, the Federal-Provincial Agriculture Committee on Environmental Sustainability suggested that “sustainable agri-food systems are those that are economically viable, and meet society’s need for safe and nutritious food, while conserving or enhancing Canada’s natural resources and the quality of the environment for future generations” (Environment Canada 1991). This definition includes three key words that form the basis of the sustainability concept: economics, environment, society.
1.2 LAND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Ontario has the largest area of cultivated, agricultural land with improved drainage in Canada (Coote & Gregorich 2000). In Ontario, systems designed to drain water from agricultural land include a combination of surface and subsurface drainage systems located within agricultural fields. Surface drainage removes water from the surface of agricultural fields. Surface drainage systems may include land smoothing or grading, field ditches, lateral ditches, grassed waterways, and open drains or channels that provide an outlet for the accumulated water (Ritter & Shirmohammadi 2001; Irwin 1997b).
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
1
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Subsurface drainage (often called tile drainage in Ontario) removes excess water from the plant root zone and lowers the water table (Ritter & Shirmohammadi 2001). The water table in agricultural fields is represented by the upper surface of groundwater, which is the line or level in the soil below which the soil is saturated with water (Brady & Weil 2002; Irwin 1997a). A perched water table is the surface or upper limit of a local zone of soil that is saturated with water that also is separated from the main body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone in the soil. A perched water table may be held above the main body of groundwater by an impermeable layer in the soil, usually clay (Brady & Weil 2002). Subsurface drainage systems use buried, perforated pipes or tiles that collect excess water and move it through the underground pipe system to main drains or channels that provide an outlet for the accumulated water (Coote & Gregorich 2000). An outlet drain or channel that is used to remove water from surface and/or subsurface drainage systems may consist of an existing natural watercourse, a man-made open ditch, a buried non-perforated pipe or, in some situations, a pumped outlet (Irwin 1997b).
In Ontario, surface and subsurface drainage systems in agricultural fields are the responsibility of the private landowner. Agricultural producers may apply for a fixed rate loan from the government under the Tile Drainage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) to assist them with the cost of installing a private subsurface or tile drainage system on their property (Vander Veen 2001). Today, most outlet drainage, which removes the water collected by the in-field drainage systems of one or more agricultural producers within a watershed, is managed under the Drainage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a). The outlet drain, called a municipal or petition drain, is the responsibility of the local municipality and private landowners within the watershed that the outlet drain services (Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004b). A municipal drain may be an open ditch or an enclosed ditch, which consists of a pipe buried underground and, in some cases, a grassed waterway on the surface of the soil above the buried pipe. Other types of outlet drains include private drains, mutual agreement drains and award drains. Evanitski (2000) provides an explanation of each type of outlet drain along with photographs. Although the provincial drainage program associated with the Tile Drainage Act and the
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
2
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Drainage Act changed significantly in 2004, grants and loans, along with related government services, are still available (Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004a).
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF DRAINAGE 1.3.1
PRIVATE LANDOWNER - AGRICULTURE
When the land in Ontario was first settled, farmers cleared the forests and began to produce food. According to Kelly (1975), after their property was cleared of forest (unless wetlands were involved), farmers considered developing land drainage systems to improve the productivity of their fields. The artificial drainage of land was encouraged in Ontario as early as the 1850s (Kelly 1975) and continues today through the Drainage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a) and the Tile Drainage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b). Several authors have documented the history of drainage in Ontario and North America (Todgham 2000; McLaughlin 1995; Ritter et al. 1993; McLaughlin 1992; Kelly 1975), which provides a basis for understanding why land drainage is so widespread and accepted within Ontario’s rural landscape.
Farmers continue to invest in tile drainage in agricultural fields in Ontario. For example, based on statistics from the provincial program associated with the Tile Drainage Act, the area tiled in the 1999/00 fiscal year was 19,352 ac and in the 2000/01 fiscal year was 21,521 (Vander Veen 2002). The area declined in the following three years from 14,434 ac in 2001/02 to 7,209 ac in 2003/04 (Table 1.1). The average cost per acre was $481 and $516/ac in 1999/00 and 2001/02, respectively (Vander Veen 2002). In the following three years, the average costs were $531/ac, $507/ac and $537/ac (Table 1.1). In 1999/2000 (the only year data were available), the average $/ft of tile drainage was $0.48 (Vander Veen 2002) or approximately $50 for every 100 ft of tile. From 1999 to 2004, the cost of tile drainage work in Ontario ranged from a high of $11.1 M in 2000/01 to a low of $3.9 M in 2003/04 (Vander Veen 2004; Vander Veen 2002). Tile drainage is an essential component of an effective land drainage system. Outlet drainage, without a connection to tile drainage in agricultural fields, does not provide an effective land drainage system for agricultural purposes (Irwin 1997b; McCaw 1984; Found et al. 1976).
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
3
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Within agricultural watersheds, farmers also continue to install and improve outlet drainage systems through the Drainage Act. In recent years, from 1994/95 to 2003/04, approximately $10 M to $18 M dollars were spent each year on municipal drainage work, at a unit cost between approximately $147 to $295 per hectare serviced per year (Table 1.2). Relative lengths of open and closed drains varied over the years. The length of open drain was generally greatest (55 to 66 % of total length), except in 1998/99 when approximately equal amounts of open and closed drain were involved (Table 1.2). The area serviced by these new or improved municipal drains varied from a low of 54,717 ha in 1996/97 to a high of 103,043 ha in 2001/02 (Table 1.2.).
Between 1994/95 and 2003/04, the cost of most projects (53 to 66 % of total number of projects/yr) ranged between $5 K and $50 K. Generally, less than 5% of projects cost >$200 K (Table 1.3). While the number of construction projects in Ontario ranged from a high of 340 in 1998/99 to a low of 167 in 2000/01 (Table 1.3), the number of maintenance projects each year was generally 10 times greater. For example, in 1994/95 approximately $6.4 M was spent across 2,317 projects in Ontario. In 2001/02 approximately $6.9 M was spent on 1,462 projects (Table 1.4).
From a local perspective, Dietrich and Wilson (1999), representing the municipalities of West Perth and Perth East within Perth County in Ontario, reported at the Ontario Drainage Engineers Conference in 1999 that approximately 750 municipal drains (~1800 km in length) had been constructed in their area under the Drainage Act. At the time of reporting, approximately 60% of these municipal drains (~1080 km) were open ditches (Dietrich & Wilson 1999).
1.3.2
SOCIETY
Society, represented by government, has indicated that land drainage to improve the agricultural production of food is important. Governments have invested in land drainage by providing significant financial support to encourage its adoption. Fixed rate loans,
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
4
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Table 1.1: Area, length of tile and cost of tile drainage, 2001 to 2004, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004).
TILE DRAINAGE ACT:
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/04
$7,675,206.29
$5,578,090
$3,875,107
$4,863,200
$3,617,000
$2,612,700
Area Tiled (acres)
14,434
11,007
7,209
Number of Projects
366
281
199
Average Cost Per Acre
$531
$507
$537
AGRICULTURAL TILE SALES SURVEY RESULTS
2001 (10 of 11 responded)
2002 (10 of 11 responded)
2003 (10 of 11 responded)
Total Tile Production (feet)
111,772,498
137,237,498
123,787,272
Total Cost of Work Done Total Amount of Loans
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
5
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Table 1.2: Area, length and cost of municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004)
TECHNICAL MUNICIPAL DRAIN STATISTICS IN ONTARIO FROM 1994/95 TO 2003/04
YEAR
SERVICED (HA)
OPEN (M)
CLOSED (M)
OPEN (%)
CLOSED (%)
TOTAL COST ($)
UNIT COST ($/HA)
1994/95
65,744
157,294
85,396
64.8
35.2
9,678,299
147.21
1995/96
70,247
156,647
87,194
64.2
35.8
12,197,539
173.64
1996/97
54,717
153,102
110,683
58.0
42.0
11,308,929
206.68
1997/98
56,017
236,660
190,688
55.4
44.6
16,541,361
295.29
1998/99
70,778
195,947
193,093
50.4
49.6
17,913,944
253.10
1999/2000
91,978
256,575
157,601
61.9
38.1
18,509,448
201.24
2000/2001
56,931
164,402
82,885
66.5
33.5
10,852,487
190.63
2001/02
103,043
216,700
140,479
60.7
39.3
16,148,203
156.71
2002/03
82,420
200,297
114,438
63.6
36.4
14,158,311
171.78
2003/04
61,475
218,346
109,945
66.5
33.5
17,971,739
292.34
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
6
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Table 1.3: Range of costs per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004)
RANGE OF MUNICIPAL DRAIN COSTS IN ONTARIO FROM 1994/95 TO 2003/04
YEAR
TOTAL NO. DRAINS
NO. OF DRAINS IN THE COST RANGE OF: (Note: Percentage Engineering for Cost Range shown from 2000/01 and forward) < $5,000
$5,000 < $50,000
$50,000< $75,000
$75,000 < $100,000
$100,000< $200,000
> $200,000
HIGHEST SINGLE COST ($)
1994/95
192
22
126
18
9
10
7
1,131,423
1995/96
197
17
129
15
10
16
10
1,421,643
1996/97
203
14
128
31
10
16
4
1,282,320
1997/98
253
5
134
43
25
35
11
734,236
1998/99
340
17
191
56
28
43
5
1999/00
266
17
160
33
30
29
10
1,445,160
2000/01
167
4 (37.0%)
94 (28.3%)
21 (23.0%)
15 (20.0%)
21 (24.1%)
12 (22.4%)
383,600
2001/02
250
6 (45.0%)
135 (27.2%)
37 (22.2%)
28 (21.5%)
32 (20.5%)
12 (24.3%)
2002/03
261
7 (30.1%)
135 (25.2%)
41 (22.6%)
24 (19.9%)
38 (22.4%)
5 (19.1%)
459,682
2003/04
228
132 (26.7%)
29 (23.8%)
21 (24.2%)
28 (20.4%)
13 (20.5%)
2,279,593
Notes:
2
5 (55.7%)
1
1
664,611
474,762
1. Interim Payment 2. Two projects were predominantly engineering, incorporating work with volunteer contributions
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
7
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Table 1.4: Cost of maintenance per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004)
MUNICIPAL DRAIN MAINTENANCE STATISTICS IN ONTARIO FROM 1994/95 TO 2003/04 YEAR
NO. OF PROJECTS
TOTAL COST ($)
1994/95
2,317
6,451,525
1995/96
2,310
6,921,187
1996/97
*1,748
5,452,568
1997/98
*1,720
6,510,455
1998/99
*1,602 (paid) + 76 (unpaid)
6,981,867
1999/2000
1,467
6,157,225
2000/2001
1,559
6,925,512
2001/02
1462
7,353,666
2002/03
1612
8,137,735
2003/04
1517
8,029,105
* Due to reduced municipal allocations, not all maintenance projects were reported.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
8
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
which are guaranteed by the province under the Tile Drainage Act, ranged from a high of $4.9 M in 2001/02 to a low of $3.9 M in 2003/04 (Table 1.1). Between 2001/02 and 2003/04 under the Drainage Act, provincial grants ranged from $2.5 to $2.9 M for outlet drainage work, from $3.6 to $4.1 M for engineering services and from $2.8 to 3.4 M for drainage superintendents (Vander Veen 2004). Since the 1980s, however, studies have indicated that the impacts of agricultural land management in conjunction with drainage systems are significant and, in many cases, detrimental to the health of aquatic ecosystems (Rudy 2004; Skaggs et al. 1994a; Fleming 1990). This increased awareness of the impacts of land management has caused concerns about many practices related to agricultural drainage. For example, the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) recently raised a question about the rate of enclosure of open drainage ditches within agricultural watersheds in their Fish Habitat Plan (Veliz 2001):
Transformation from open, surface drains to closed, tiled drains is occurring in the ABCA jurisdiction. However, the extent to which this activity has occurred is unknown. Therefore, drain closures between 1975 and 1999 were examined in one sub-basin, the Nairn Creek sub-basin. The total length of open watercourses in 1975 was determined from the 1975 enlargements (1:5 000) of aerial photographs (1:20 000). The length of closed, tiled drains in 1999 was determined from the 1999 (1: 15 000) aerial photographs. (The length of the watercourse that no longer appeared was assumed to be the amount of the watercourses that was closed and tiled.) The amount of watercourse closed and tiled in 1999 is expressed as a per cent of the total length of open, surface drains (1975). The findings from this preliminary survey suggested that 14 % of open watercourses in this sub-basin had been transformed to closed, tiled drains. The ABCA was interested in understanding if the enclosure of open drains could affect the long-term health of aquatic ecosystems in agricultural landscapes and in what ways. A literature review determined there was not enough scientific information available to answer this question (Sadler Richards 2004). However, the review identified several questions that should be considered. Also, the review provided an overview of the functions of headwaters since many watercourses (including outlet drains) in agricultural landscapes meet the definition of headwaters. The following statement suggests that
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
9
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
improving our understanding of the impacts of enclosure of open drains on the long-term health of aquatic ecosystems in agricultural landscapes is important:
There is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and longterm benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life – and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. (Baron et al. 2002)
In the Handbook of Drainage Principles, Irwin (1997) made the connection between land drainage and broader water management issues and strategies that focus on the quality, quantity and use of water within a watershed (also called a catchment). Sellers (1993) provided a simplified decision procedure as a recommended starting point for clarifying the information needs related to making water management decisions, which, as suggested by Irwin (1997), should include a land drainage component: 1. Determine study area’s water needs (quantity and quality), present and future 2. Identify all alternatives 3. Estimate all costs for each alternative considered 4. Eliminate alternatives based on costs, political, technological and other reasons 5. Evaluate the environmental impacts of the remaining alternatives 6. Select the alternative that is most cost-effective on an economic and environmental basis 7. Install monitoring procedures to insure that the alternative selected is implemented correctly and that the results are as anticipated
1.4 PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND USE OF THIS DOCUMENT The purpose of this work is to review available information and develop a searchable database of references on the economic importance of drainage to agricultural production
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
10
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
in Ontario. Special emphasis was placed on information about the economic effects of replacing open drains with enclosed tile.
The following objectives were identified: 1. To prepare a document that includes the following topics: a) the economic benefits of agricultural drainage; b) the reasons for enclosing drains; c) the economic, environmental and societal impacts of enclosing drains, which could be included in a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain d) approaches or methods for evaluating the benefits and costs of enclosing open drains 2. To prepare a database of information sources that could be used by various stakeholders regarding the enclosure of open drains
It is anticipated that this document and related database will be used in several ways: 1. Stakeholders may use the review/database to obtain information to assist them in developing a position statement related to multi-party discussions, applications, negotiations or hearings on tile drainage or the enclosure of an open drain. 2. Economists, scientists and water managers may use the review/database to assist in the development of a benefit-cost analysis of enclosing an open drain. 3. Economists, scientists and water managers may use the review/database to assist in the development of a method for establishing when it is appropriate or not appropriate to allow the enclosure of an open drain. Complementary information also may be obtained from the companion document A Review of the Enclosure of Watercourses in Agricultural Landscapes and River Headwater Functions (Sadler Richards 2004).
2 METHODS Terms of reference were provided as an initial guide for this work (Appendix 1). Further direction for this review was provided by the Advisory Committee (Appendix 2), which included:
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
11
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Name TomProut/Alec Scott
Don Lobb Jane Sadler Richards Paul McCallum Mari Veliz Norm Smith Pat Down Bob Down
Sid Vander Veen
Affiliation Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario (LICO) Cordner Science LICO ABCA Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Huron County Federation of Agriculture (HCFA) Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition (HCFEC) Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF)
Phone
Email
519 235 2610
[email protected]
905 838 2721
[email protected]
519 293 1190 519 527-1633 519 235 2610
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
519 383 1815
[email protected]
519 235 2557
[email protected]
519 235 2557
[email protected]
519 826 3552
[email protected]
The committee agreed that a wide range of information sources beyond the scientific literature would be required to satisfy the objectives of the work. These could include for example non-government, government and extension documents and web pages, in addition to personal communications with knowledgeable persons.
References for this literature review were obtained as follows: 1. Several sources were used to provide reference material including: committee members/other contacts; university and organizational libraries; non government, government and organizational documents and web sites; literature databases; personal communications with knowledgeable persons. 2. A list of key words was developed by the author. 3. Key words were combined in a wide assortment of search strings using Boolean logic. 4. Internet links were established with specific libraries and retrieved references were entered into a database in Reference Manager® software. 5. The attrition of references during the review process was as follows: Titles Reviewed
~4800
Titles/Abstracts Retrieved
~500
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
12
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
References Cited in Searchable Database
169
References Obtained
~115
References Cited in Report
80
Additional details are provided in Appendix 3.
3 TILE DRAINAGE 3.1 AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS A significant amount of information indicating the net benefits of tile drainage on agricultural lands was published during the 1970s and early 1980s (Jorjani 1982; Irwin 1981; Irwin 1979; Colwell 1978; Wendte et al. 1978; Neenan et al. 1978; Found et al. 1976; Fife & Bornstein 1973). Irwin (1981; Author’s note: publication date was estimated since the document was undated) published a comprehensive report for Ontario entitled On-Farm Drainage Benefit. The reader is advised to review this document for detailed information and data related to the effect of tile drainage on soil, farm management, crop yield, livestock farming, land use and land value (Irwin 1981). Irwin (1981) divided the benefits of tile drainage into four categories. First, land use changes may result from improved drainage. Land may be cultivated that previously was too wet to work, which could allow the conversion of wooded or low areas to agricultural production or the use of pasture or ‘wild’ land for crop production. Second, land may be used more intensively due to increased crop yields, increased fertilizer use, improved crop rotations and improved crop quality resulting from tile drainage. Third, production costs may be reduced due to improved drainage. The time to cover the field is reduced and may result in the use of smaller, energy efficient tractors. Tractors are stuck less in wet spots in the field and there is less need for replanting crops, which also reduces the use of commercial fertilizer. Finally, improved drainage allows the farmer to improve resource allocation on his farm. By minimizing the number of wet areas or wet fields on his farm, he has greater flexibility in crop placement amongst his fields and may even be able to change his type of farming operation (Irwin 1981).
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
13
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Jorjani (1982) reviewed the literature related to the general agricultural economic aspects of tile drainage. He noted that the literature generally fell within one of two categories. The first category included references that indicated the general benefits that farmers experienced when using tile drainage systems during crop production. The second category included references that analyzed the benefit-cost relationships of tile drainage (Jorjani 1982). In summary, Jorjani (1982) noted from his review of the literature the following list of major benefits: improved crop yield; ability to adopt higher value crops; timeliness of planting and harvesting; and land improvement. Although tile drainage does benefit crop production, it is important to know whether the benefits obtained within a given field are greater than the cost of installing the tile drainage system under the specified conditions. Jorjani (1982) concluded that in most of the cases he reviewed, the benefits of tile drainage were far greater that the costs.
In his own work, Jorjani (1982) conducted a microanalysis of the economic feasibility of tile drainage based on the profitability of tile drainage at the farm level. He noted that a macroanalysis would be required if all economic benefits derived by the farmer and society were included in a study. Jorjani (1982) concluded that, based on the data available to him, an investment in tile drainage by a farmer was viable over a 40 year period. The inclusion of tax savings, however, increased the internal rates of return for farmers and effectively shortened the length of time over which a tile drainage investment was viable. The rates of return were greater for those farmers with higher taxable incomes.
A survey to determine the benefits of drainage as expressed by landowners was conducted in 1974 in Ontario (Irwin 1979). A sample of 100 farms was randomly selected from the list of drainage plan surveys conducted in 1968 in Ontario and held in government archives. It was assumed that a lapse of approximately eight years between the installation of the drainage system and the survey would allow the farmer enough time to comment on his experiences before and after the drainage system was installed in his field(s). Eighty-one farmers responded to the survey with the following results:
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
14
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Reported Outcome (% of Respondents) Before Drainage After Drainage Flooding incidence 84 10 Seeding delays 99 10 Harvest difficulties or losses 64 4 Yield increase 90 Changed cropping patterns 60 Satisfied with investment 94 Factor
(Irwin 1979).
Additional references, which include specific information along with tables and figures showing data, are listed in the searchable database that accompanies this document.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Environmental issues related to tile drainage were summarized by Sadler Richards (2004) from the findings of three reviews of this topic: At least three reviews of the impacts of agricultural drainage were published during the last decade (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming 2001; Skaggs et al. 1994a). Skaggs et al. (1994) determined that agricultural drainage can impact receiving waters, first, when lands are converted to agricultural production and, second, when drainage systems on existing agricultural lands are improved, generally by increasing the intensity of the subsurface components of the drainage systems. These workers noted that it was difficult to separate the environmental impacts of changes in land use from changes due to natural vs. artificial drainage. Their review showed that the conversion of natural landscapes to agricultural production generally increased peak runoff rates, sediment losses and nutrient losses, although exceptions occurred. Conversion to agricultural production was often criticized for causing loss of and negative impacts on wildlife habitats along with declines in the natural ability of the landscape to filter or cleanse water (Skaggs et al. 1994). In contrast, improved subsurface drainage in agricultural landscapes generally decreased peak outflow rate and sediment loss. The loss of some pollutants increased (e.g. nitrates and soluble salts) while the loss of others
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
15
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
decreased (e.g. phosphorus and organic-nitrogen) (Skaggs et al. 1994). Exceptions to these findings occurred in the literature.
Fraser and Fleming (2001) also concluded from their review of the environmental benefits of tile drainage (i.e. focused on in-field systems) that peak flow volumes were decreased in watercourses associated with artificially drained land, that total runoff of water was spread out more over time and that surface runoff may be reduced. However, the volume of annual total runoff was greater in watersheds with tile drainage than in watersheds with only surface drainage systems. In agricultural landscapes, the presence of tile drainage generally decreased surface soil erosion, which decreased the load of sediment, some nutrients (e.g. phosphorus, potassium) and some pesticides (e.g. atrazine) entering nearby watercourses (Fraser & Fleming 2001). This review of the literature showed that, similar to the findings reported earlier by Skaggs et al. (1994), nitrate-nitrogen losses from tile drained fields tended to be greater compared to non tile drained fields (Fraser & Fleming 2001).
A review of positive and negative environmental impacts related to agricultural drains was provided recently by Rudy (2004). Many findings were similar to Skaggs et al. (1994) and Fraser and Fleming (2001) and are not repeated here. As described by Skaggs et al. (1994), improved subsurface drainage occurs on a regular basis within agricultural landscapes. Rudy (2004) noted that in some circumstances agricultural drainage will increase, not decrease, peak flows. For example, increasing the frequency of subsurface tile drains within a field, e.g. from 60 ft to 30 ft spacing, increased total water flow by 50%. Enlarging, straightening and cleaning debris from surface channels (i.e. open drains or channelized streams) also increased the peak flow by 100-200% at the watershed outlet. However, the literature reviewed by Rudy (2004) showed that subsurface drainage systems had no effect on volume of water flowing downstream. This was attributed to the increased water storage capacity of land with subsurface drainage systems, which spreads out the effects of peak flows from storms.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
16
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Additional references, which include specific information along with tables and figures showing data, are listed in the searchable database that accompanies this document.
4 OUTLET DRAINAGE AND THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS 4.1 REASONS FOR ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS In Ontario, new municipal drains may be designed as open or enclosed ditches. However, municipal drains that include open drains may be enclosed some time after construction when the drain is reviewed in response to a private landowner petition for maintenance or upgrading to accommodate additional water. The petition triggers a well-defined process, coordinated by the municipality, for determining the agricultural need and specifications for the work, in addition to whether the work complies with existing environmental regulations and policies (Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004b). Stakeholders, including landowners, municipal council, an engineer appointed by the municipal council, OMAF, the local conservation authority and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, may or may not agree with the need or advisability of the requested work.
Specifically, enclosure of an open drain may be requested by the person who initiated the petition for work, by a landowner who, having received notification of a petition, may decide that this would be an appropriate time to request enclosure, or by the engineer developing the work plan. In all cases, the person requesting or suggesting the enclosure generally does so for one or more of the following reasons: 1. Similar construction costs between open and enclosed structures, depending on the needs of the site; 2. Increased field efficiency with fewer headlands and decreased overlap of field operations such as tilling, planting, spraying, and harvesting, which all lead to less soil compaction; 3. Increased land value;
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
17
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
4. Less intensive maintenance requirements after construction of the enclosed drain plus the installation of a grassed waterway over the enclosed drain could produce a potential hay crop and/or provide habitat for birds and small mammals; 5. Removal of the need for regulatory compliance with specified setbacks and buffers adjacent to open surface water and/or mitigation against future changes in regulatory policies; 6. Improved safety by removing the hazard of tractor rollover, which may occur if the operator comes too close to an open ditch; and 7. Control of soil erosion from ditch banks and overland flow. (Drain Economics Advisory Committee 2004) More information on each of the above is provided in section 4.2.
The literature search identified one reference from 20 years ago that discussed the reasons for enclosing open drains. In 1985, a discussion on Tile Drain vs Open Ditch during a workshop at the Ontario Drainage Engineers Conference was reported in the conference proceedings (Spriet 1985). The main question was, “How does the engineer determine whether a drain should be a tile or open drain?” It was not clear whether the discussion focused on the design of new municipal drains or the review of existing drains in response to a petition for maintenance and/or upgrading of a drain. Items 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 from above were discussed during the workshop. Additional comments included: •
What is the cost-benefit ratio before and after government grant? Construction may be based on what the farmer can afford and the farmer decides on the benefits. If a well-constructed open drain is made, with conservation measures in place, then the cost will approach that of a buried tile.
•
The landowner can influence the design especially with regard to costs. If the landowner wants it enclosed, the feeling was that the landowner should pay for most of the extra cost.
•
Open drains mean there is a loss of land for the actual drain and decreased productivity where the spoil is deposited along the bank.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
18
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
•
There are not many benefits [to a farmer] to having an open ditch except that the ditch does carry a lot of water. Also, an open ditch may be useful in intercepting water from nearby areas e.g. a woodlot.
•
The drainage report should explain why a drain is open or closed. In the end, the engineer decides if a drain can be properly designed as either open or closed. (Spriet 1985)
4.2 IMPACTS OF ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS The enclosure of open drains may have impacts that occur across a range of spatial scales (i.e. from microscopic levels to large areas of land) and temporal scales (i.e. a few seconds or minutes to thousands of years). Impacts may be categorized as economic, environmental and/or social, which are the three basic ideals in the concept of sustainability. However, for the purposes of this report, impacts were divided into two sub sections representing the dual interests of maintaining viable food production and ecosystem health. The impacts discussed in the following sections may be included in an analysis of benefits and costs related to the enclosure of an open drain. However, the information on its own does not represent a benefit-cost analysis. 4.2.1
AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND VALUE
4.2.1.1 Construction practices What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on construction practices? The enclosure of an open drain requires the construction of a system of properly sized, buried pipe along with a grassed waterway on the soil surface above the pipe, which includes different tasks than those used to maintain or improve an open drain. Under the Drainage Act, enclosure of an open drain requires an engineer’s report in addition to construction materials, equipment and labour that are provided by a licensed contractor.
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on construction practices? The costs associated with the enclosure of an open drain vary depending on the specifications of the project. Three examples of construction practices related to the enclosure of an open drain in Huron County, Ontario (e.g. Miller-Alton Municipal Drain, J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
19
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
2001; Drain “B” of the Pepper Municipal Drain, 2002; “A” Drain of the Canada Company Municipal Drain, 2003) were identified from provincial government files (Table 4.1; Appendix 4) (W.E.Kelley and Associates Limited 2003; W.E.Kelley and Associates Limited 2002; Maitland Engineering 2001). For these three examples from Huron County, the cost of enclosure ranged from $97/m to $114/m of linear drain, whereas in two of the examples, the cost of maintenance and/or upgrading work on an existing open drain ranged from approximately $25/m to $85/m of linear drain (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Specifications and cost of work for three examples of drainage projects where an open ditch was enclosed in Huron County, Ontario Drain
Miller-Alton Municipal Drain 2001 240 653 1260 1913
Area assessed (ha) Open (m) Closed (m) Total (m) Work Construction $97,397 Allowances $16,010 Engineering $53,163 Bridges, Culverts $ Interest Charges $6,641 Other Costs $4,452 $177,663 Actual Total Cost ($) $151,000 Estimated Total Cost * ($) Cost per m of Ditch $/m for open ditch $85/m** maintenance and/or upgrading $/m for open ditch $97/m enclosure Cost Allocation Private landowners $125,609 (71%) Society per government $52,054 (29%) grant * Details of cost estimate in Appendix 4 ** Clean out, new construction, fill old ditch *** Ditch bottom clean out only
Drain “B”, Pepper Municipal Drain 2002 110 0 342 342
“A” Drain of the Canada Company Municipal Drain 2003 85 279 303 582
$26,970 $2,520 $8,500 $ $ $1,064 $39,054 $39,000
$26,070 $2,580 $8,700 $ $342 $1,243 $38,935 $41,000
Not applicable
~ $25/m***
$114/m
~$112/m
$27,640 (71%)
$26,215 (67%)
$11,410 (29%)
$12,720 (33%)
What factors and data sources related to construction practices could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
20
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.2) in response to the above question.
Table 4.2: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with construction practices related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources OMAF or municipality files Use of government services, infrastructure and regarding administration of the grant or loan programs to initiate and implement Drainage Act the construction phase of drain enclosure Purchase of goods and services required to enclose Engineer reports as required the drain i.e. materials, equipment, labour under the Drainage Act Change in the potential for soil erosion on adjacent On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature and project fields and stream banks, and sedimentation in the database watercourse during the construction phase Change in terrestrial and aquatic habitats and food On-site survey and analysis webs during the construction phase Scientific literature
4.2.1.2 Field Efficiency And Overlap Of Field Operations What impacts does the enclosure of an open drain have on field efficiency and the overlap of field operations? When producing crops, it is important to maximize the efficiency of operations (e.g. tillage, planting, spraying, harvesting) in the field. Small, irregularly shaped fields require more time per acre to work and often result in areas of the field receiving twice the planned inputs due to overlap of operations (Schoney 1988; Buckingham 1984). For example, the diagram of proposed work for Drain “B” Pepper Municipal Drain 2002 (Appendix 4) shows a rectangular field where one corner of the field was previously cut off from the rest of the field by the existence of an open drain (i.e. Drain “B”) that farm machinery could not travel across. This effectively created two irregularly shaped fields, one large and one small, which required more working time per acre than one regular, rectangular shaped field (Buckingham 1984).
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on field efficiency and the overlap of field operations?
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
21
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Field efficiency (%) is determined by comparing effective field capacity (the actual amount of work done in the field) with theoretical field capacity (the amount of work that would have been done if no time was lost) (Buckingham 1984). Factors that cause time to be lost and therefore affect field efficiency include machine capacity and performance, operating speed, and time spent in operation (Buckingham 1984).
When a portion of a field is cut off or truncated from the remainder of the field or farm by an open drain or, as in many cases, a new highway, there is often an economic impact associated with the change. Economic losses can be divided into direct costs due to the detachment of the land from the rest of the farm and indirect costs due to the changes in how the rest of the farm is managed (Schoney 1988). In general, direct costs include reduced field efficiency and increased variable costs due to the overlap of field operations (Schoney 1988). Field efficiency is affected when field size and shape are decreased, which affects machinery performance due to extra turning time, loss of time in overtaking a field run, extra time and costs incurred in finishing out a field and, finally, added time from making left hand turns in acute corners and picking up the field run (Schoney 1988; Buckingham 1984; Breece et al. 1975). Increased overlap of field operations results in areas of the field being covered twice or more during tillage or with inputs such as seed, fertilizer and pesticides. Increased traffic also may lead to increased soil compaction (Gasser et al. 1993). Indirect costs are attributed mainly to increased travel time to access the parcel of land that has been cut off. These costs are associated with each field operation, for example, tillage, seeding and harvest. When timeliness is important, as it is at seeding time, there is an extra cost associated with travel time delays in accessing fields (Schoney 1988). Schoney (1998) provided example calculations of direct and indirect financial losses per acre given several different time frames.
In the Pepper Drain example discussed earlier in this section, a grassed waterway constructed above the enclosed tile drain would allow equipment to cross easily (Gasser et al. 1993) and would thus join the two fields together so that the land could be managed more efficiently as one unit.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
22
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
What factors and data sources related to field efficiency and overlap of field operations could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.3) in response to the above question.
Table 4.3: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in field efficiency and overlap of field operations related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources (Schoney 1988) for formulas, see project database Field efficiency On-site survey and farm machinery handbooks to fill in variables On-site survey and farm machinery handbooks to fill in Overlap of operations variables On-site survey Soil compaction Scientific literature Inputs e.g. fuel, fertilizers, On-site info, Ont. pubs and farm machinery handbooks pesticides to fill in variables Producer stress On-site survey and analysis
4.2.1.3 Government Resources What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on government resources? A request to enclose an open drain requires government involvement in the process and thus usees government resources. The Drainage Act and the Tile Drainage Act require input, to varying degrees, from representatives at the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government (Vander Veen 2001; Evanitski 2000; Irwin 1989). Although the provincial drainage program associated with these acts changed significantly in 2004, grants and loans, along with related government services are still available (Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004a). (Also, see section 4.2.2.1.)
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on government resources? No references were identified that addressed how the enclosure of open drains affects the provision of government programs and services.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
23
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
What factors and data sources related to government resources could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.4) in response to the above question.
Table 4.4: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with government programs and services related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources Case study analysis Provision of government services Government program evaluation Provision of government grants Case study analysis and loans Government program evaluation
4.2.1.4 Land Value What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on agricultural land value? Land values are often similarly assigned to open ditch areas and woodlot areas when appraisals are completed on farmland in southwestern Ontario (Charlton 2004). The appraised land value of a previously open ditch area could increase markedly if the open drainage ditch is enclosed. Cultivated land values are traditionally assigned to grassed waterway areas, regardless of whether the grassed waterway covers an enclosed municipal drain or a private tile (Charlton 2004). This assignment of value is not necessarily transferable onto large areas of lowlands or flood land areas. These grassed waterways are very important in lessening the effect of soil erosion through water runoff. Additionally, the functional use of the field increases as a whole since field tillage and harvesting equipment can now move more easily from one area to another within the farm enterprise. Landowners should seek advisement from their local municipal drainage official in regard to enclosing open drainage ditching. Through this partnership, all the options available to the landowner will be explored (Charlton 2004).
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on agricultural land value? No references were identified that addressed how the presence of an enclosed drain affects the land value of a farm. However, to obtain information on the current value of
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
24
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
agricultural land in a specific area and most locations in Canada, visit the Farm Credit Corporation (FCC) website , choose ‘Online Services’ and then choose ‘Farmland Values Online’. If more information is necessary, contact local lending institutions that carry agricultural accounts.
What factors and data sources related to land value could be considered during a benefitcost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.5) in response to the above question.
Table 4.5: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in land value related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources On-site survey and analysis Case study analysis Area of affected land Farm Credit Corporation (FCC) website On-site survey and analysis Case study analysis Location of property Farm Credit Corporation (FCC) website Producer satisfaction On-site survey and analysis
4.2.1.5 Maintenance Practices What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on maintenance practices on a drain? Maintenance practices differ between open and enclosed drains. An open drain requires maintenance on a periodic basis to ensure that it continues to efficiently remove water from surrounding land (Evanitski 2000). Maintenance practices include the removal of sediment, plants, shrubs and other vegetation from the ditch. Also, it may include increasing the width and depth of the drain (Evanitski 2000). The spoiled material that is removed from the open drain may be placed on the bank of the open drain or hauled away to another location. Under the Drainage Act, drain maintenance involves all stakeholders including the municipality, engineer, contractor, landowners, conservation J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
25
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
authority and possibly Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Evanitski 2000; Thames River Implementation Committee 1982). A grassed waterway established over an enclosed drain, however, requires a maintenance program that focuses on the vegetation in the waterway. Activities include, for example, reseeding bare or eroded spots, prevention of livestock grazing and avoidance of regular vehicle traffic in the waterway (Stone 1994). The grass in the waterway should be cut two or three times during the growing season to thicken the sod which helps to maintain the integrity of the waterway (Stone 1994). The cut grass may be harvested for hay depending on the needs of the landowner or the presence of a local market (Stone 1994).
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on maintenance practices on the drain? No references were identified that addressed in detail how the enclosure of an open drain would affect the maintenance practices for an outlet drain. However, information on related costs is available. In the example “A” Drain of the Canada Company Municipal Drain 2003 (Table 4.1; Appendix 4) the cost of removing material from the bottom of the drain was approximately $25/m of linear drain. A more extensive maintenance and upgrading work plan on the Miller-Alton Municipal Drain 2001, which included cleaning a portion of the drain along with filling in and relocating a portion of the drain, cost approximately $85/m of linear drain (Table 4.1; Appendix 4). Alternatively, the key maintenance practice for maintaining a grassed waterway is mowing two or three times per year. The custom rate for stalk chopping, which uses machinery similar to that used for mowing, was approximately $10/ac in a survey area that included Huron County in 2003 (Fletcher 2004).
What factors and data sources related to maintenance practices for outlet drains could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.6) in response to the above question.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
26
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Table 4.6: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with maintenance related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources OMAF drainage project files Time and labour Custom rates for harvesting forage OMAF drainage project files Equipment use Custom rates for harvesting forage Outcome comparison: hay crop vs. spoil On-site survey and analysis material from ditch bottom Terrestrial and aquatic habitats Scientific literature and project database Terrestrial and aquatic populations Scientific literature and project database
4.2.1.6 Regulatory Compliance And Mitigation Against Future Changes In Attitudes, Policies And Regulations What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on regulatory compliance and mitigation practices by agricultural landowners? Government regulations restrict the application of farm inputs (e.g. fertilizer and pesticides) near surface water. Under the Ontario Nutrient Management Act, open ditches represent artificial channels that may carry water continuously or intermittently during the year (Text Box 4.1). This means that farm managers must take extra care to ensure that farm management practices near surface water comply with regulations. Under the Ontario Nutrient Management Act, water flowing over a grassed waterway, however, is not considered surface water (Text Box 4.1). When a grassed waterway is constructed over an enclosed drain, the regulatory requirements of the Nutrient Management Act do not apply and farm managers do not have to allocate resources to ensure regulatory compliance.
In Canada, persons applying pesticides are required to follow label instructions for each pesticide product. Requirements for buffer zones or setbacks between areas where pesticide products are applied and surface waters are clearly stated (Text Boxes 4.2 and 4.3). When an open drain is enclosed, these requirements do not apply and farm managers do not have to allocate resources to ensure regulatory compliance.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
27
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Text Box 4.1: Definition of surface water, and requirements regarding buffer zones and depth to groundwater, Ontario Nutrient Management Act, 2002 Nutrient Management Act, 2002 ONTARIO REGULATION 267/03 Amended to O. Reg. 294/04 Definitions and general Surface water 2. (1) In this Regulation, "surface water" means, subject to subsection (2), (a) a natural or artificial channel that carries water continuously throughout the year, or intermittently, and does not have established vegetation within the bed of the channel except vegetation dominated by plant communities that require or prefer the continuous presence of water or continuously saturated soil for their survival, (b) a lake, reservoir, pond or sinkhole, or (c) a wetland, such as a swamp, marsh, bog or fen, but not land that is being used for agricultural purposes that no longer exhibits wetland characteristics, if the wetland, (i) is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has the water close to the surface of the ground, and (ii) has hydric soils and vegetation dominated by hydrophytic or water-tolerant plants. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 2 (1); O. Reg. 447/03, s. 2 (1). (2) The following are not surface water for the purposes of this Regulation: 1. Grassed waterways. 2. Temporary channels for surface drainage, such as furrows or shallow channels that can be tilled and driven through. 3. Rock chutes and spillways. 4. Roadside ditches that do not contain a continuous or intermittent stream. 5. Temporarily ponded areas that are normally farmed. 6. Artificial bodies of water intended for the storage, treatment or recirculation of runoff from farm-animal yards, manure storage facilities and sites and outdoor confinement areas. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 2 (2); O. Reg. 447/03, s. 2 (2). And; Adjacent Surface Water Requirement for vegetated buffer zone 44. (1) No person shall apply nutrients to a field that contains or is adjacent to surface water unless there is a vegetated buffer zone in the field that is adjacent to the surface water and that lies between the surface water and where the nutrients are applied. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (1). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the application of nutrients to a field that is composed of organic soils. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (2). (3) No person shall apply nutrients within the vegetated buffer zone except for an amount of commercial fertilizer that is reasonable to establish or maintain the vegetation of the buffer zone. O. Reg. 447/03, s. 21. (3.1) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person shall be deemed to apply commercial fertilizer to establish or maintain the vegetation of a vegetated buffer zone if the person applies the fertilizer, (a) in accordance with a determination, made using the Sampling and Analysis Protocol, of the concentration in the soil of the vegetated buffer zone for each of the following parameters: available phosphorus, available potassium and soil pH; (b) in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as set out in the computer program described in clause (a) of the definition of "NMAN" in subsection 1 (1); and (c) in a manner so that the agronomic balance does not exceed zero. O. Reg. 447/03, s. 21. (4) No person shall apply materials containing nitrogen and phosphorous to any part of the field, whether or not within the vegetated buffer zone, that is within 13 metres from the top of the nearest bank of the surface water. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (4). (5) Despite subsection (4), a person may apply commercial fertilizers or agricultural source material within the 13 metres from the top of the nearest bank of the surface water if the application is done in accordance with this Regulation and is done, (a) by injection or placement in a band below the soil surface; (b) so that the materials applied are incorporated within 24 hours of application; (c) to land covered with a living crop; or (d) to land with crop residue covering at least 30 per cent of the soil, as determined in accordance with the Nutrient Management Protocol. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (5). Application of non-agricultural source materials 45. Despite section 40, whether or not this Regulation requires an operation to have a nutrient management plan, no person shall apply non-agricultural source materials to a field that contains or is adjacent to surface water, if the application is closer than 20 metres from the top of the nearest bank of the surface water. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 45. Minimum depth to groundwater 46. No person shall apply prescribed materials to land unless there is at least 30 centimetres of unsaturated soil condition at the surface of the land at the time of application. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 46. (Government of Ontario 2002)
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
28
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Text Box 4.2: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Aatrex® Nine-0®
Text Box 4.3: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Ultim®
For Aatrex® Nine-0® (Guarantee: Atrazine 88.2%, Related triazines 1.8%) AAtrex® Nine-0® herbicide provides selective control of broadleaf weeds and wild oats in corn and certain broadleaf weeds in blueberries.
For Ultim® (Guarantee: Rimsulfuron 12.5%, Nicosulfuron 12.5%) ULTIM® Herbicide is a dry flowable granular formulation to be mixed in water and applied postemergence to field corn in Eastern Canada for control of quackgrass, annual grasses, and redroot pigweed.
Label directions related to buffer zones: This product should not be mixed/loaded within 30 meters of any wells, lakes, streams, ponds or sink holes in order to avoid the potential of well or surface water contamination. Do not use this product within 10 meters of the above mentioned water sources. Avoid contamination of food and feed, domestic or irrigation water supplies, lakes, streams and ponds.
Label directions related to buffer zones: Overspray or drift to important wildlife habitats such as ponds, wetlands, streams, woodlots and shelterbelts should be avoided. Leave a 10 metre buffer zone between the last spray swath and bodies of water or wetlands. Leave a 5 metre buffer zone between the last spray swath and the terrestrial habitats listed above.
(Syngenta Crop Protection Canada 2004)
(Dupont Canada Inc. 2004)
Although no supporting documents were identified, uncertainty about future changes in attitudes, policies and regulations will cause stakeholders to take actions that may offset or diminish the impacts of potential changes. These actions, whether justified or not over time, divert resources that could be used elsewhere. For example, if agricultural landowners believe that the enclosure of open drains may not be allowed in the future, they may allocate resources to deal with this concern before attitudes, policies and regulations change significantly.
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on regulatory compliance and mitigation practices by agricultural producers? A recent study by the George Morris Centre (GMC) identified the financial costs of compliance with the Ontario Nutrient Management Act. The resulting report was not available at the time of publication of this document. It is anticipated, however, that the GMC report will include the cost of maintaining adequate buffers along open drains.
What factors and data sources related to regulatory compliance and mitigation practices could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
29
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.7) in response to the above question.
Table 4.7: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with regulatory compliance and mitigation practices related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources On-site survey and analysis Record management as evidence of due Unpublished report by George Morris diligence Centre (GMC), Guelph, ON Contact Cher Brethour, (519) 822-3929 *
Set aside of productive land for setbacks and buffers Alternative management needs per buffer adjacent to open drain and grassed waterway above enclosed drain Potential penalties for non compliance Off-site movement of nutrients, pesticides and soil Producer stress
See GMC report OMAF drainage project files Custom rates for harvesting forage or mowing Federal/provincial legislation and regulations On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature and project database On-site survey and analysis
* At the time of publication of this document, release of a report prepared by the George Morris Centre in 2004 on the farm financial impacts of Ontario’s nutrient management legislation was pending.
4.2.1.7 Safety What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on farm safety? Fatalities due to tractor rollovers into open ditches have occurred on farms in Ontario (Zronick 2004). Although published statistics do not indicate the reasons for tractor rollovers, Zronick (2004) estimated that 10 fatalities have occurred in the last 20 years due to this on-farm hazard. Also, it should be noted that only fatalities are reported to the Ontario Farm Safety Association, while related near misses and incidents are not reported (Zronick 2004). Traveling too close to an open drain with unstable and undercut banks was identified in the early 1980s as a hazard that could result in machinery overturns and possible injury (Thames River Implementation Committee 1982).
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on farm safety?
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
30
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
No references were identified that addressed in detail how the enclosure of an open drain would affect farm safety. However, information indicating that significant costs are related to farm safety in general is available. The Canada Safety Council reported that every year approximately 130 farm-related deaths occur in Canada. Each year approximately 1,200 people are hospitalized and 50,000 people seek medical attention or lose time at work due to farm-related injuries (Canada Safety Council 2002). In the United States, the National Safety Council estimated, based on 1994 data, that farm work-related deaths cost $858 M US and non-fatal disabling farm work injuries cost approximately $3.5 B US per year. This was averaged out at approximately $2 K US per farm in 1994 (Shutske 1995). Farm fatalities continue on an annual basis. In 2003 in the United States, the combined occupations of farming, fishing, and forestry had the highest rate of fatalities (27.9 fatalities per 100,000 workers) followed by transportation and material moving occupations (16.9 per 100,000) and construction and extraction occupations (12.7 per 100,000) (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004).
What factors and data sources related to farm safety could be considered during a benefitcost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.8) in response to the above question.
Table 4.8: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with farm safety concerns related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources On-site survey and analysis Farm safety associations/Statistics Canada Labour and equipment
Producer trauma and death
www.statcan.ca
Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada www.awcbc.org Scientific literature and project database On-site survey and analysis Farm safety associations/Statistics Canada www.statcan.ca
Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada www.awcbc.org Scientific literature and project database
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
31
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
4.2.1.8 Soil Erosion Control What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on soil erosion control? A search for references related to the enclosure of open drains and soil erosion in agricultural landscapes did not yield any relevant documents. Example documents on best management practices for controlling soil erosion adjacent to drains or for controlling bank erosion in open drains and sedimentation during construction or maintenance of open drains were identified (Rudy 2004; Evanitski 2000; Dorner 2000; Dissart 1998; Maaskant et al. 1994; Thames River Implementation Committee 1982).
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on soil erosion control? A search for references related to the enclosure of open drains and soil erosion in agricultural landscapes did not yield any relevant documents. Example documents that include information on the economics of best management practices for controlling soil erosion adjacent to drains or for controlling bank erosion in open drains were identified (Colombo et al. 2003; Dissart 1998; Thames River Implementation Committee 1982)
What factors and data sources related to soil erosion control could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data sources (Table 4.9) in response to the above question.
Table 4.9: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with soil erosion control related to enclosing an open drain Factors Data Sources On-site survey and analysis Soil productivity Scientific literature and project database On-site survey and analysis Rate of erosion and sedimentation Scientific literature On-site survey and analysis Producer stress/satisfaction Scientific literature
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
32
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
4.2.2
NATURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND VALUE
4.2.2.1 Government Resources What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on government resources? A request to enclose an open drain would require government involvement in the process and thus would use government resources. The Drainage Act and the Tile Drainage Act require input, to varying degrees, from representatives at the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government (Vander Veen 2001; Evanitski 2000; Irwin 1989). Although the provincial drainage program associated with these acts changed significantly in 2004, grants and loans, along with related government services are still available (Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004a).
Any proposed work on an existing open municipal drain, including enclosure, must be reviewed by the local conservation authority. The conservation authority (or Ministry of Natural Resources in the absence of a local conservation authority) determines the importance of the drain as fish habitat based on the Drain Review Protocol developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Smith 2002; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1998; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1986). If the municipal drain is deemed important, then further discussions are required, which would necessitate the allocation of additional government resources to follow through on the request.
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on government resources? No references were identified that addressed how the enclosure of open drains affects the provision of government programs and services.
What factors and data sources related to government resources could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? See section 4.2.1.3 for details. 4.2.2.2 Headwater Function - Habitat and Food Web What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on the habitat and food web function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes? J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
33
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
The impact of enclosure of an open drain on the habitat and food web function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes, as indicated by two factors including biological diversity and food supply/organic matter cycling, is not known (Sadler Richards 2004). Several research questions were identified by Sadler Richards (2004) in an effort to focus attention on this gap in the literature. Although references specifically related to the enclosure of open drains were not identified, there are significant bodies of literature related to the impact of land use (e.g. forest, wetland, agriculture, urban) on headwater functions (Center for Watershed Protection 2003; Meyer et al. 2003; Sponseller et al. 2001; Allan et al. 1997) and the impact of agricultural land management in conjunction with land drainage systems on water quality and quantity (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming 2001; Skaggs et al. 1994). This information could be used to assist in the development of hypotheses and appropriate research study designs.
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on the habitat and food web function of headwaters? A wide search for any references, including economic impacts, related to the enclosure of open drains and the habitat and food web function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes did not yield any relevant documents (Sadler Richards 2004).
What factors and data sources related to the habitat and food web function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? Identification of the environmental impacts of enclosing open drains should assist in the identification of the economic impacts of enclosure. This information could be used to help develop a list of factors and data sources that could be considered during a benefitcost analysis. However, many environmental goods and services do not have a market value. Section 4.3 includes information on the valuation of non-market goods and services.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
34
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
4.2.2.3 Headwater Function - Hydrologic What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on the hydrologic function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes? The impact of enclosure of an open drain on the hydrologic function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes, as indicated by three factors including flood control, sediment management and water supply, is not known (Sadler Richards 2004). Several research questions were identified by Sadler Richards (2004) in an effort to focus attention on this gap in the literature. Although references specifically related to the enclosure of open drains were not identified, there are significant bodies of literature related to the impact of land use (e.g. forest, wetland, agriculture, urban) on headwater functions (Center for Watershed Protection 2003; Meyer et al. 2003; Sponseller et al. 2001; Allan et al. 1997) and the impact of agricultural land management in conjunction with land drainage systems on water quality and quantity (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming 2001; Skaggs et al. 1994). This information could be used to assist in the development of hypotheses and appropriate research study designs.
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on the hydrologic function of headwaters? A wide search for any references, including economic impacts, related to the enclosure of open drains and the hydrologic function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes did not yield any relevant documents (Sadler Richards 2004).
What factors and data sources related to the hydrologic function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? Identification of the environmental impacts of enclosing open drains should assist in the identification of the economic impacts of enclosure. This information could be used to help develop a list of factors and data sources that could be considered during a benefitcost analysis. However, many environmental goods and services do not have a market value. Section 4.3 includes information on the valuation of non-market goods and services.
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
35
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
4.2.2.4 Land Value What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on agricultural land value? Land values are often similarly assigned to open ditch areas and woodlot areas when appraisals are completed on farmland in southwestern Ontario (Charlton 2004). The appraised land value of a previously open ditch area could increase markedly if the open drainage ditch is enclosed (Charlton 2004). See section 4.2.1.4 for more details.
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on agricultural land value? No references were identified that addressed how the enclosure of open drains affects the land value of a farm. However, to obtain information on the current value of agricultural land in a specific area and most locations in Canada, visit the Farm Credit Corporation (FCC) website , choose ‘Online Services’ and then choose ‘Farmland Values Online’. If more information is necessary, contact local lending institutions that carry agricultural accounts.
What factors and data sources related to land value could be considered during a benefitcost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? See section 4.2.1.4 for details. 4.2.2.5 Headwater Function - Physico-Chemical What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on the physico-chemical function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes? The impact of enclosure of an open drain on the physico-chemical function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes, as indicated by two factors including nutrient cycling and the physical condition of the watercourse, is not known (Sadler Richards 2004). Several research questions were identified by Sadler Richards (2004) in an effort to focus attention on this gap in the literature. Although references specifically related to the enclosure of open drains were not identified, there are significant bodies of literature related to the impact of land use (e.g. forest, wetland, agriculture, urban) on headwater functions (Center for Watershed Protection 2003; Meyer et al. 2003; Sponseller et al. 2001; Allan et al. 1997) and the impact of agricultural land management in conjunction
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
36
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
with land drainage systems on water quality and quantity (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming 2001; Skaggs et al. 1994). This information could be used to assist in the development of hypotheses and appropriate research study designs.
What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on the physico-chemical function of headwaters? A wide search for any references, including economic impacts, related to the enclosure of open drains and the physico-chemical function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes did not yield any relevant documents (Sadler Richards 2004).
What factors and data sources related to the physico-chemical function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain? Identification of the environmental impacts of enclosing open drains should assist in the identification of the economic impacts of enclosure. This information could be used to help develop a list of factors and data sources that could be considered during a benefitcost analysis. However, many environmental goods and services do not have a market value. Section 4.3 includes information on the valuation of non-market goods and services.
4.3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS The net benefits and net costs due to the impacts of enclosing open drains may be reported from two different perspectives. First, private benefits and costs may accrue to the individual stakeholder, which is generally the landowner. Second, social benefits and costs may accrue to society, i.e. the larger population, which may be represented by the government (van Vuuren & Roy 1993; McCaw 1984). Jorjani (1982) referred to these two different perspectives using an analytical definition. Microanalysis focuses on private landowner interests whereas macroanalysis includes societal interests.
The traditional economic approach to benefit-cost analysis focuses on those goods and services where a market value can be determined. Environmental benefits and costs,
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
37
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
however, result from goods and services that are not sold in conventional markets (Crutchfield et al. 1995). There are several techniques available to help place a ‘value’ on non-market goods and services (Olewiler 2004; Crutchfield et al. 1995). 4.3.1
PRIVATE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
A provision for preparing a benefit-cost statement of an outlet drainage project is included in the Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17 as indicated below:
Text Box 4.4: Provision for preparing a benefit cost statement, Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17 Benefit cost statement 7. (1) The council of any local municipality to which notice was given under subsection 5(1) or the Minister may send to the council of the initiating municipality within thirty days a notice that a benefit cost statement is required and the cost of preparing such statement shall be paid by the party who required it. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, s. 7 (1). Idem (2) The council of the initiating municipality may obtain a benefit cost statement on its own initiative, the cost of which shall be paid by the municipality from its general funds. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, s. 7 (2). (Government of Ontario 1990a)
A recent example of a benefit-cost analysis of an outlet drainage project in Ontario was not identified during this review. The following comments, provided by Irwin (1975), outline the content of a benefit-cost analysis, but may require updating to reflect current knowledge and practice. Irwin’s (1975) explanation of the process involved mainly an assessment of private benefits and costs, with some limited attention given to social benefits and costs. Irwin (1975) suggested that the objectives or purposes of a drainage project must be identified first. As the number of objectives increases conflicts between objectives may occur. Irwin (1975) indicated that each project should be evaluated on the basis of the following questions: • • • • • •
Is there a need for drainage improvement? Is there a flood water problem? Is there a sediment or erosion problem? Will idle land become productive? Are there potentials for intensive or changed land use? Are there recreational, fish or wildlife developments?
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
38
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
Also, Irwin (1975) suggested that the following basic data are required when preparing a benefit-cost statement: • Soils data for the affected area, e.g., drainage class, capability class; • Land use, i.e., present and anticipated with and without drainage • Crop yields, i.e., present and anticipated with and without drainage • Current water table and expected impacts due to drainage • Estimates of anticipated outcomes should be based on the same timeframes and include a factor to account for the adoption of technological advancements that could occur if the project was not in place. • Production data are required that indicate changes in production and costs associated with the project, which are translated into a change in net agricultural income. Irwin (1975) went on to identify benefits and costs, which include economic, environmental and societal components, as follows: Benefits: • Increase in agricultural income with the project less any costs associated with the increase, and • Other benefits, not evaluated in monetary terms, such as, improvements in wildlife habitat and production, and • Reduction in health hazards Agricultural benefits may be realized through: • Land use changes including conversion of other lands to agriculture and change of current agricultural use to higher income agricultural production • More intensive use of land including realization of higher crop yields, better crop rotation, improved crop quality • Reduced production costs due to improved soil conditions including reduced equipment size, labour (time) per acre, incidence of equipment getting stuck in wet fields, risk and need for replanting • Restoration or maintenance of former productivity where flooding or excessive wetness has caused an area to be abandoned or shifted to low income agricultural production. The drop in income could be assessed as a type of flood damage. • Improved resource allocation since the conversion of wet areas to nonwet area may allow shifts in production management strategies Non-agricultural benefits may be realized through: • Flood prevention on non-agricultural lands, which may increase land values or land rental income
J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science
39
Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005
•
Flood prevention may improve management of municipal road systems
Costs: • Project costs as estimated in the engineer’s report • Associated costs include on-farm capital costs and farm production costs that are related to the implementation of the drainage project. These may include: on-farm surface and sub-surface drains, land clearing, buildings and equipment plus associated annual maintenance costs. • Induced costs which include damage to fish and wildlife habitat and production or an increase in damages due to flooding if higher valued crops are produced due to the project. Found et al. (1976) divided the impacts of outlet drainage into three categories: agricultural, environmental and non-agricultural land uses. Benefit-cost ratios were calculated, at the local level, for 37 outlet drains in seven representative townships in Ontario. Found et al. (1976) noted that the ratios varied significantly across the province and even within townships, with some outcomes favorable and others not. For example, in Mersea Township in southwestern Ontario, the overall benefit-cost ratio was >1.0 (i.e. benefits were greater than costs), even though two of the seven drain projects in the township had benefit-cost ratios of
