This is the Inbornment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty and
mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burley.
Coming up, the Great Lakes are the greatest freshwater reservoirs in the world, but the
wetlands around them are disappearing and this is hurting the lakes themselves. Continuing
our series on the origins of life, we examine the moon for clues. Some scientists think
the moon is older than the Earth. We look at the next generation of recycling. It's
the toothbrush made of recycled plastic that you send back to the manufacturer when it's
worn out. And on the Earth calendar, farmers in New England are boiling the last saparons
as the maple syrup season comes to an end. It's part of the Great American Harvest. These
stories and more coming up on the Inbornment Show.
You're listening to the Inbornment Show and I'm Peter Burley. Over the years, we've
heard a lot about protecting the Great Lakes. Invasive aquatic life like the Lampery Eel
and Zebra Muscle, which found their way into the lakes from elsewhere, have had a significant
impact on plants and fish that are native to the area. In an earlier time, pollution almost
killed Lake Eerie. But now, one of the greatest threats to the Great Lakes is not occurring
in the water, but on the shorelines. It's the destruction of the wetlands that nurture
the fish, cleanse the water, and provide habitat for the birds. The Inbornment Show's Stephen
Westcott reports,
You probably already know that the five Great Lakes border the United States and Canada,
but can you name all five? Maybe your school teacher gave you the acronym Homes to help.
It is here on Ontario, Michigan, Eerie, and Superior. The Great Lakes make up the largest
freshwater supply in the world, and at one time, they were filled with productive wetland
areas. But over the years, these diverse ecosystems have been diminishing, both in size and quality.
David Jude is a research scientist with the Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences
at the University of Michigan.
First of all, we've had a tremendous decline in wetlands, and of course, everybody has
heard about the fact that, for example, I think in Lake Eerie, it's said that 10% of
the original wetlands are now remaining, and of those 10%, virtually all of those are
degraded in some way or another. And there's one old woman creek estuary, for example,
which is a national estuary and is protected. That's the only one that's really left that
has a natural connection with Lake Eerie, and that has sort of been a trend throughout
the Great Lakes.
Wetland areas are the most productive ecosystems in the entire Great Lakes. Thousands of plants
and animals reside in these areas year round, and migrating species use them as rest stops
during their annual trips. Water levels fluctuate from year to year in wetlands, which helps
new plant species emerge. The Great Lakes marshes are therefore constantly changing, which
helps promote biodiversity and the fragile web of life. But a number of factors are contributing
to the loss of wetland areas.
In western Lake Eerie in particular, where historically there were vast areas of wetland,
an area called the Great Black Swamp. Most of that has been turned into agricultural land
through drainage efforts, if taking place over the last century or so.
That's Dr. Doug Wilcox, a researcher with the US Geological Survey's Great Lakes Science
Center and Ann Arbor, Michigan. He has studied the Great Lakes almost all of his life.
Dr. Wilcox says housing developments placed in former wetland areas are also contributing
to their loss in the Great Lakes. He says concrete walls, constructed to help protect developed
areas, are a problem because they stop floodwaters and tides from entering areas that promote
plant and animal diversity.
Wilcox says pollution is also taking its toll on wetlands.
There are also problems in wetlands related to some discharges.
So to be nutrient discharges, both point source and nonpoint source discharges coming off
from agricultural lands, for instance, or lawns that have fertilizer added to them.
To some extent, there are still permitted industrial discharges to various extent.
Many of the sewage treatment plants have discharges following treatment, discharges that end up
going into river systems that have wetlands that they don't stream end of it right along the lake.
Another problem facing wetland areas, and at least one of the Great Lakes, is the lack of rising or falling levels.
Dr. Wilcox says since the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway,
the waterway that connects Lake Ontario to the Atlantic Ocean, water levels in Lake Ontario have been regulated.
Lake Ontario, since they began regulating lake levels, has not had any really low lake level periods.
For the most part, they've been able to regulate out the high lake levels and end up with a very regular lake level curve.
The problem that it's created on the upper end of the higher elevations that never get flooded out,
cattails and some of the other plants, shrubs, including a number of upland plants have been able to invade those areas.
And on the low end, where the sediments have never been exposed, there are dense stands of a handful of submerged aquatic plants
that can create problems for boaters and other things.
Dr. Wilcox says the lack of fluctuating water levels in Lake Ontario's wetlands has caused a decline in biological diversity.
Meanwhile, there are laws that are supposed to protect wetland areas from development and other forces,
but too often debates occur over what constitutes such an area.
Again, David Jude with the Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences.
There is one particular classification system, I'll call it a gentleman named Collardin, published it, but it's a generalized one.
And I think we need to really improve our understanding of Great Lakes wetlands and help with this regulatory issue and help with rehabilitating some of these areas.
We need to better be able to classify them so that we know what we're talking about, the developers and the DNRs
and any other officials that are involved with this.
In addition to the biodiversity issue surrounding wetland loss is the economic effects.
Many fish rely on wetland areas to spawn or prey on fish that live near these regions.
Without these ecosystems, sport fishing industries can suffer, which means a loss in tourism dollars and jobs.
The important questions now are how to maintain the wetland areas that remain in the Great Lakes
and create more areas so the balance of nature exists for future generations.
For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen Westcott.
In our continuing series on the Origins of Life, we talked to two scientists about how the moon was formed.
The early history of our planet and its moon is researched for clues about the conditions which led to the appearance of life.
John Jones, a planetary scientist at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, says no one knows how the moon was formed, but there are various theories.
One of the current popular hypotheses among scientists these days is that a large planet about the size of Mars hit the Earth and the resulting collision throughout debris and gas and dust and molten rock and that that's calculated to later form the moon.
John says there are other concepts as well.
Other possibilities are a capture that a moon came by and fell into the Earth's gravitational attraction and stayed.
This is very, very difficult and that's probably not what happened.
Another possibility is that the Earth as it was growing, the moon grew too alongside it and that's perhaps more plausible.
While John's readily admits he does not know how the moon was formed, he is skeptical about the idea that the moon was broken off the Earth as a result of a strike by another object.
He says such a collision would create a huge amount of energy that would have melted and vaporized some of the Earth.
The main reason that I don't believe it personally is because I see no evidence in the terrestrial rocks themselves, the rocks that come from deep within our planet that they have really experienced this kind of melting event.
John says that learning how the moon was formed can help determine the origins of life on Earth.
You can see that these two different scenarios are very different starting points for understanding life.
In one case, if there was a giant impact and you've basically sterilized the whole planet, melted it and vaporized it by this impact, life has had to overcome that.
On the other hand, if it did not happen that way in the Earth accreted and grew more quiescently, then perhaps it was easier for life to get started.
There are materials on the Earth that are not found on the moon, presumably because volcanic and igneous events on the moon have destroyed them.
He also says there is evidence of the decay of certain substances found in lunar rocks which differs from that which is found on Earth.
The upshot of all this is that because we see these anomalies in the moon and don't see them in the Earth, it makes it appears though the moon is actually older than the Earth.
Especially for a giant impact model where you would say, gee, probably the Earth and Moon really formed at the same time, this is difficult.
One explanation is that the Earth and the Moon grew simultaneously.
It would be possible in the co-acretion model that I mentioned earlier where the moon grew next to the Earth as the Earth was growing.
It would be itself. It would be possible in that scenario to have the moon do its thing nearby but somewhat independently.
Scientists are still debating whether a collision on Earth created the Moon.
But there is a little doubt that once formed, the Moon has been bombarded by space debris which produced its puck-marked surface.
Dr. Graham Ryder is that scientists at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas.
Well, if the inference we make from the Apollo samples is correct, that most of these impact melts that we find at 3.85 billion years old or 3.9, a very short period of time, then virtually everything you see when you look at the face of the Moon in the Highlands was formed at that time.
And prior to that, maybe it looked somewhat different than that. Maybe it looked much less puck-marked than we see it now.
But everything you see apart from the dark plains on the Moon which were later filled with lava, everything you see was formed in that very, very short period.
And the Earth must have had the same sort of impacting if these are in a solar system population.
And therefore would have been very highly crunched too. On the Earth, however, the work tides, there was an ocean and these would have had some effect on eroding those craters away moderately fast.
While experts believe there was a time 65 million years ago when a meteorite struck the Earth and changed things so dramatically that the dinosaurs went extinct, Dr. Ryder says the impact of a bombardment's 3.9 to 3.8 billion years ago, which are still evident on the Moon and which struck the Earth as well may not have slowed the origin of life on Earth.
So there are some positive aspects. It could be that life to even originate and then to develop might have needed a warmer water than we have right now.
The water that we have in the oceans at the present time is not that hard and maybe life needed it to be warmer and maybe this impacting actually had a positive aspect to it that it in fact provided the conditions for the origin of life.
Rather than continuing annihilated it, it may have done both, but it may have been absolutely necessary for all we know.
It may just be another example where random impacts of one sort of another have been so important in building the planets and everything that's happened to them ever since.
The New York City University of Albany, the Rensler Polytechnic Institute, and the College of St. Rose.
The Environment Show is a national production which is made possible by the W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The W.A.W.A.
The Environment Show would like to hear from you?
Write us a letter, 318 Central Avenue, Albany, New York, 122-06.
That's the Environment Show at 318 Central Avenue, Albany, Nework, 122-06.
in New York 1-2-2-06.
Email is green at wamc.org.
I'm Linda Anderson and this is Ear to the Ground with stories about people affecting
change in the environment.
This week, brushing up on recycling.
A toothbrush probably won't save the planet, but a toothbrush made out of recycled plastics
may be a step in the right direction.
At least, Eric Hudson thinks so.
He's president and founder of a company called Recycling.
Started in 1994 in Somerville, Massachusetts, he says the company's mission is to deliver
consumers products made from recycled materials.
There's a lot of recycling going on in the United States and levels were increasing up to
30 to 40% of consumers in several states.
But there weren't a lot of products made from those materials that people were recycling.
And I think as people are making that effort, they're out there also saying, well, I really
should be able to find something out there that is made from my effort, is made from the
materials that we recycle.
The toothbrush called the preserve has a handle made from recycled polypropylene plastic.
Commerciality, this plastic is found in such items as bottle caps and yogurt containers.
In the recycling world, that's a number five on the bottom of a container.
Hudson says it was chosen because of its strength and flexibility.
Unfortunately, he says polypropylene is not as readily available as other plastics, like
PET, a number one on the bottom of a container, or HDPE, a number two commonly used in making
gallon milk jugs.
So Hudson says they always need to keep an eye out for a source of materials, which vary
with each production run.
And we go out to the sourcing companies and go through the materials that they've got,
but most commonly, at least for our last run, we used about 60% what they are called wafer
chip containers.
They're from computer companies and it is an uncolored plastic container that a production
line needs to take a chip out of and then toss that container aside.
It needs to be totally sterile and it's a nice chunk of plastic that's holding these chips,
but it needs to be contained in this very durable sterile container for that production line.
And the companies like, let's say, DEX for the world, are recycling though, rather
than tossing the landfill and we're able to use them.
Another source recycling has used Hudson says is ketchup bottles.
The toothbrush bristles, however, though fully recyclable, are not made from recycled material.
Instead, they are made from virgin nylon.
Although there are natural bristles in the market made from boars, hair, or other natural
fibers, Hudson says in his research, nylon was found to be softer and less likely to
harbor bacteria.
Hudson says that toothbrushes and their packaging account for more than 100 million pounds
of waste annually in the United States.
So, recycling invites you to send your preserved toothbrush back.
Like companies in, let's say, Germany and Europe that want to think of a product from birth
to death, we develop this product and the packaging and we want to say, okay, we can do
something with it when it's done.
You don't have to throw it in the landfill.
So what we've done is included a postage paid mailer with each sale and consumers are
able to, when they're finished with their brush, if they're not, you know, sort of scrubbing
their bathroom floor for a while, which most people like to continue using their toothbrushes,
we add some to send it back to us with their packaging, which is a reusable canister.
It comes back to recycling and we grind it up and we turn it into a feed material for recycled
plastic lumber products.
The toothbrushes offered in blue, red and green are also specially designed with a backward
sloping handle designed to make it easy to brush in the motion most recommended by dentists.
Presently the preserved toothbrushes offered in supermarkets and natural food stores around
the country.
Although not common, making new goods out of recycled materials is nothing new.
For example, Patagonia has been making a fleece from recycled soda bottles.
However, the more companies doing it, the better.
Eric Hudson hopes his business encourages consumers to participate in the recycling loop,
and maybe even encourage them to brush between meals.
With ear to the ground, I'm Linda Anderson.
And now it's time for the Earth calendar.
Right now, the season for collecting sap from maple trees is coming to a close in New
Hampshire.
It's part of the Great American Harvest.
All in Christy is owner of Christy's maple farm and Lancaster, located at the foot of
Mount Washington in the White Mountains.
He collects sap from some 11,000 maple trees on his property.
Sap is obtained by drilling a small hole in the cambium layer of the tree in the spring
of the year when the tree is taking its energy that is stored in the roots, converted it
to sugar and feeding bud formation on the tree.
We've got a narrow window of opportunity from when the tree wakes up out of its dormancy
and creates this flow of sap which is feeding and giving energy to bud formation on the
tree.
Once the buds burst on the tree, our season is over.
Christy says warmer days and freezing nights of early spring help the sap flow up from
the tree's roots.
To produce enough sap for commercial purposes, he says a maple tree needs to be at least
40 years old.
When most people think of collecting sap, they picture sap dripping from spouts or taps
that have been drilled into the trees.
Buckets that hang on the taps collect the sap as it drips.
While many farmers still obtain sap this way, Collins says things have changed in recent
years.
In the modern world, we are presently using a plastic tubing system.
This is an interconnected system of a small diameter 5-16th tubing that goes from tree
to tree and then dumps into bigger main lines and heads to the bottom of the hill.
That's probably one of the greatest innovations in the maple industry in past years has been
the advent of tubing.
Alan Christie says what used to take a dozen men all day to collect sap from his maple
trees now is the work of one man.
Another innovation in sap collection is a vacuum system which lowers atmospheric pressure
at the tap, allowing the sap to flow for long periods of time.
The sap is brought to the sugar house where it is boiled.
Boiling the sap evaporates most of the water, leaving the sweet maple syrup.
Again, Colin Christie.
Presently at Christie's Maple Farm we are using a steam powered evaporator.
We have a regular evaporator pan and the difference in the steam pan over a conventional one is
instead of a fire being under the pan, whether it be wood, gas or oil.
We are using a high pressure steam boiler, producing steam and running it through coils
in the bottom of our pans.
This allows for evaporation to happen at a very efficient rate and also keeps the sap
from getting too warm and there is no chances of scorching it.
Christie says it takes about 40 gallons of sap to produce one gallon of syrup because
the sap itself is only 2 percent sugar.
Maple syrup is a year round business at Christie's.
Colin markets his product through the farm market, mail order and on the internet.
Besides bottled maple syrup, he produces other maple products like candies, coated
peanuts, granulated sugar and maple cream which he says is great on bagels.
But Christie says he has his own favorite way of enjoying maple syrup.
I like to take a little shot before I go to bed.
As Americans we are plagued by obesity, much of which is caused by eating too much sugar.
Suppose maple syrup which we make ourselves becomes our only source of sweetening.
At the time you boil 40 gallons of sap for a single gallon of syrup, you would consume
it more sparingly.
And since many of us have neither the maple trees nor the patience for the long slow
boil, it would take sugar out of our diets entirely.
It sounds like a sweet way to lose weight.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
Still ahead.
In the first half hour we brushed our teeth with toothbrushes made of recycled plastic.
Now IBM tells us they make computers out of the stuff.
We talk green about saving one of America's most important natural resources, farmland.
Once it's mauled, it's gone forever.
A green tip on dandelions you're lawn and spring line.
And the dense fog on a river in Vermont makes the oarsmen focus on what is directly before
him.
Concentration on the immediate sets him up to consider the unknown ahead.
Stay with us.
Many of us have computers, but we probably never stop to think what happens to our PC when
we trade it in or set it out along the curb for the sanitation worker to pick up when it's
become outdated.
For years now, environmentalists have expressed concerns about old computers not being recycled
and ending up in landfills.
The plastic shells from monitors and CPUs take up valuable space.
And now, a major computer manufacturer is taking steps to change this.
Steps that the rest of the industry may follow.
Stephen Westcott has a story.
IBM is now selling what it says as the world's first personal computer made with 100% recycled
plastic resin.
It's called the IntelliStation E-Pro.
Ander Wadaira, senior engineer at IBM, says the plastic comes from several sources.
And one of the sources is the obsolete computers.
And then the second source is what we call sprues and runners.
That is the byproduct when they are molding parts.
And also, it can come from the war bottles which you see in offices they are made from
polycarbonate resin.
Wadaira says the plastics also come from recycled window panes.
A total of three and a half pounds of plastic are used to make the shell for the IntelliStations
CPU or central processing unit.
In addition, he says IBM is designing a keyboard and monitor built from recycled materials.
But IBM doesn't do the recycling itself.
The company contracts with a recycling firm that buys and grinds up the old plastic.
According to Wadaira.
Then if there is a need to, they will reformulate them to our engineering specifications.
Which our requirements in terms of mechanical performance, thermal performance, flammability
performance, then they sell it to us.
And we do not have any molding in IBM Corporation.
But what we do is to ask our molders to buy those materials and then use them to produce
parts for IBM Corporation.
Today, more and more communities are recycling plastic bottles, bowls and containers of all
shapes and sizes.
You would think with so much plastic resin being reused, it would be easy for computer
manufacturers to find the right materials.
But Ender Wadaira says it isn't that simple.
He says finding materials that meet all the requirements needed to make a sturdy, reliable
computer is just one reason why manufacturers haven't used recycled plastics more in
production.
Number one is to get the proper resin to meet your requirements.
And we have very very stringent requirements which include that the material must perform.
That's one requirement.
Number two, long term reliability.
It has to have long term reliability.
Number three, safety.
That we do not compromise safety.
It has to have the proper flammability and then number four cost also.
Very important.
It may sound strange to some folks, but using recycled materials like plastic can actually
cost more than using original materials.
In the case of computer companies, the added cost of using recycled plastics could increase
the cost of the PC and put the company at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
Ender Wadaira says the plastics used to make the Intelli Station did not force the company
to raise the price and says the company is actually saving 20% on one of the parts of
the CPU shell.
In terms of applications, IBM spokesman Ray Gorman says the computer is designed for
high performance graphics.
Hollywood studio animators, for example, would use this or people doing mechanical designs
such as designing automobiles.
That sort of thing.
So anybody who is involved in digital content creation or mechanical computer-aided design
those sorts of activities.
So really high definition intensive graphics.
The Intelli Station E-Pro is one of several Windows-based workstations and commercial PCs
by IBM that feature Intel's new Pentium 3 microprocessor.
The Intelli Station sells for around $2,100.
For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen Westcott.
We're at Talking Green and I'm Peter Burley.
America is losing its farmland.
The last agricultural census shows that we lost 14 million acres in the five-year period
from 92 to 97.
And in rapidly growing states like California, the rate is particularly high, also disturbing
because those are some of our most productive lands.
So American agriculture being the most effective food production system in the world is in
the balance and the question is, are we doing enough to save farmland, the essential building
block of our food supply?
I have three very knowledgeable guests with me today.
They bring expertise from various perspectives.
Joan Comanor is director of the Resource Conservation and Community Development Division
of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
She's in Washington.
Ralph Grossi is president of the American Farmland Trust.
That's a private nonprofit organization which is dedicated to preserving American farmland.
He too is in Washington.
And Henry Rodigritz is attorney for the Department of Environmental Advocacy in the California
Farm Bureau.
That is an organization which represents the interests of farmers and ranchers.
So Joan Comanor from the federal side of things, let's start with you.
How bad is this situation and is the loss continuing as we've seen it in the past?
Yes, I think it is a major concern for everyone.
According to our information, since 1960, we've averaged a loss of 1.5 million acres of
farmland a year.
That means loss being that it was converted to other uses.
It's very much on the national radar screen.
And let me stop you right there when you say converted to other uses.
What is the most prevalent form of use that steals our farmland if they could put it that
way?
I would think the most prevalent use is as the city continues to expand.
The farmland is converted to shopping malls, housing developments, roadways, all of the
other components of our city living.
Indeed we're simply mulling our farmlands to death.
Ralph Crossy from the farmland Trust, your organization is dedicated to stopping this trend.
What are some of the things that you folks are doing?
Well, Peter, we're working on a number of fronts at the American farmland Trust.
First, of course, we're trying to make sure we understand the issue and where it's happening.
For example, over the last 10 years, about half a million acres of prime and unique farmland
has been lost per year to urban sprawl.
And that's the very best.
So analysis and making sure people understand the problem.
And then providing tools and techniques for local communities and state governments to
address the problem because this is an issue that has to be addressed at the local level.
And finally, at the federal level, trying to get the federal house in order.
There are too many things the federal government does right now that subsidize sprawl, which
makes it even more difficult to promote conservation.
We'll get back to that in a moment.
And Henry Rodigritz from the California Farm Bureau, how do your members see this?
And let me just ask clarify that in a moment.
I've been to any number of meetings with Farm Bureau folks who talk about the need to preserve
farmland, but then when you talk about restrictions on their land that might stop it from being
used in some other way, many farmers oppose that.
Where do your people come out?
Well, I think that that is a concern of agriculture.
We need to emphasize the fact that agriculture is a business.
It is not simply open space.
And any of these programs to curtail the continued urban sprawl that's gobbling up our farmland
needs to take into consideration the fact that we have to work with these viable agricultural
enterprises and whatever a plan we come up with.
I think that California agrarians are prepared to put some encumbrances on their land in order
to keep some viable agricultural enterprises, but they're not enamored with this interpretuity
concept.
We need to have reasonable ways in which folks can exit from these encumbrances on their
land.
In fact, it's no longer possible to have a viable agricultural enterprise.
But let me ask you a question about that.
Obviously, if I've got a business that involves a factory or something like that and it becomes
no longer viable, I can dump the factory and build another one someday.
When you dump the farmland, when that becomes mauled, it's gone forever.
So doesn't that put a different spin on this whole question of protection and where we're
going?
Well, it most certainly does because you've got 3% of the farmland in America in California,
which is producing, for example, 55% of the nation's supply of vegetables, fruits and nuts.
We cannot afford to lose that.
But at the same time, in keeping with the free enterprise and protection of private property
rights, we have to reconcile these concerns.
And I don't have a ready answer at this point in time and need it as California agriculture,
but we're sure working on it.
Now let's get back to a question that Ralph raised about things that the federal government
is doing while it professes to and does provide a lot of aid for farmers.
It also does things that chew up farmland.
I'm thinking about indirect or economic things like inheritance tax, which can make it
pretty tough to pass farms back and forth and subsidizing a sprawl and so on.
Is your agency, Joan, focused on any of this?
Are you an advocate in the circles of the Beltway to try to change some of these governmental
programs?
We certainly try to bring those points of view to the table as policies are being discussed.
I do have responsibility on the positive things through the farmland protection program
that was part of the 1996 Farm Bill.
We partner with state or local governments because we certainly agree that these decisions
are local as well as individual.
But whether there's a willing farmer or rancher or forest landowner who wants to invest
in future generations to have that farm space still there, we partner with state and local
governments and will provide some financial assistance to help purchase conservation easements
on the land.
We certainly want to make sure that those investments are strategic in nature.
That is, we're not going to preserve the last farm that's already in the center of town,
but on the outskirts where it's still strategic to have local decisions on keeping open
space and rural uses intact, then that's where we want to help be a financial partner and
we can also provide conservation assistance to the individual landowners on good conservation
practices so they are maintaining the help of their farmland at the same time keeping
at an open space.
Ralph, Joan mentioned the word conservation easement for our listeners who may not be familiar
with that concept.
Run it by us quickly and also tell us a little bit about what you guys are doing at the
farmland trust as it relates to conservation easements.
Glad to, Peter.
The conservation easement is simply a contract between the landowner and a government agency
or a nonprofit group that then is attached to the deed of the property which restricts
certain uses in the future.
So the easements that we promote in the farmland protection program at USDA promotes simply
remove the right to subdivide the property in the future.
So it's a contract between the landowner and the public for some consideration.
It might be a tax benefit deduction on your income tax or a state taxes or it might be
for cash as programs like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and California now have to buy the conservation
easement.
But it's essentially the legal framework for an agreement between the landowner and the
public.
And yes, they are in perpetuity although in some states that provide for the review of
these easements in 25 or 30 years to be assured that they continue to meet the goals.
Now are your organization promoting easement programs around the country?
Is this an area of growth for you?
We're very much promoting.
In fact, our organization is expanding rapidly to meet the needs and demands for these kinds
of programs.
We'll be opening five new offices this year because of the demand at the local level
for these kinds of programs to provide communities with use of conservation easements which are
the tool that go with purchase of development rights.
Many of your listeners may have heard that term.
When you purchase the development rights, in effect, you put a conservation easement on
the land.
But that's something we're very much involved in, not just in helping the community develop
the program and design it for them.
But in making sure the incentives are generous from the federal and state level.
Now, Henry, California has got the most probably productive and profitable agricultural economy
in the country.
We like to play that.
It also has $17 billion economy.
It is also the home of places like Silicon Valley.
My guess is that if you've got an acre of ground that can be growing some of that great
California produce or growing microwave chips or the chips win.
How does, given the situation in California, how does the farm economy possibly survive
on its best land, given the kind of competition that is up against?
Well, that's the million dollar question because along with this precious land resource
we have in California, which is really unique in order to make it productive, we need water.
And without that water component, you can't make that land productive.
And the Los Angeles area consumes a great quantity of California water.
We're looking at a $500 billion economy in the Los Angeles area.
And we're looking at a $27 billion agricultural economy.
So you just look at it from the pure economic point of view, who is going to win out?
So you raised an interesting issue.
You're saying that not only do you have to protect the land, but if the land doesn't have
water naturally, which is true in other parts of the country, if you don't protect the water
as well, you're not going to keep the farm economy going.
That's right.
And so that's part of the whole question of protection of farmland beyond just the acreage.
And many of your listeners may appreciate the fact that California is a Mediterranean climate.
We have no rain from about the first of May through November.
California's agriculture productivity comes because we have plumbed the state.
We move water from one end of the state to the other and exist in that that is unmatched
in the history of the world.
And yet the critics say that agriculture is incredibly wasteful.
You're still spraying, spray irrigation and things like that that I use to much water.
Typically you just cannot bear out the fact that California is consumption of water in
the agricultural sector is becoming less efficient.
It is in fact becoming much more efficient.
Grip irrigation, sprinkler systems, we are using less water now than we were 10 years
ago and that will continue to decline.
But the answer to the water problems in California is not conservation fully.
That's just one of the cards we need to increase our storage capacity.
We're getting a little bit off.
Just a few seconds each, the most important thing that has to be done next to preserve farmland.
Joan Kamner from USDA, what's the highest thing in the agenda?
I would say it's a higher degree of awareness and local decision making and commitment
about what's important to the local communities.
Okay, Ralph Grassey.
Well it's probably too punged.
Peter, one is government has to reassess all of the programs that are now inducing the
kind of behavior on the land that's taking place, the sprawling development and strip away
those that are incentives to that kind of sprawl.
And secondly, we have to put in place a series of incentives to private landowners from
federal matching dollars to tax considerations at the federal, state and local level to help
local communities protect the land because ultimately it's a community level decision.
Great.
Henry Rodigritz from California.
I have to parrot what Joan is saying.
We have to erase the awareness level and particularly directed to California.
We have to erase the awareness level nationally and within this state what an incredibly important
resource we have in California.
It feeds this country.
It feeds the world.
Okay.
Well we've been speaking about saving America's farmland, what needs to be done and of course
how rapidly that has to happen.
My guests have been Joan Kamenor from one of the divisions of the US Department of Agriculture.
Ralph Grossy from the American Farmland Trust, a private organization devoted to protecting
farmland and Henry Rodigritz from the California Farm Bureau.
We're interested in your thoughts.
Give us a call.
Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
We've been talking green and I'm Peter Burleigh.
You can reach us through our website it's www.enn.com slash ENVSHOW.
You can answer our questionnaire, send us a message or listen to the environment show
on your PC.
This is Green Tips.
Tips on how you can save the world in your everyday life.
Spring is here which means many homeowners are getting uncontrollable impulses to dump
herbicides all over their lawns to kill dandelions.
Resists the temptation.
An organic lawn care guide says the best way to get rid of dandelions does not involve weed
killers at all.
Dandelions love soil with a pH of 7.5.
They thrive in soil that is alkaline.
If the soil is made more acidic, which can be done by spreading gardeners' sulfur, a
substance which is organically benign, dandelions suffer and grass does better.
If you lower the pH to about 6.5 the grass has the advantage and can squeeze out the dandelion.
Client lime which is alkaline to a lawn covered with dandelions probably will make things worse.
A professional soil test from your local extension office is recommended.
There is another advantage to organic dandelion control.
If it doesn't work, the dandelion is able to fulfill the purpose for which God put it
in the lawn to start with.
And that's to be the source of salad and homemade dandelion wine.
This is our green tip for this week.
We all have places that are special to us, for some of the city street, for others it's
deep in the wilderness.
For author Craig Lambert, it's a river in Vermont where fog seduces him to row into chaos.
In this portrait of place, Lambert reads from his new book titled Mind Over Water, Lessons
of Life from the Art of Rowling.
On a Sunday morning in October, I am about to row another three mile head race.
The green mountain head in Putney, Vermont is a small race limited to single and double
skulls.
Its entry form lists only two rules.
Bow balls required no swearing.
Near the space for age it admonishes.
No cheating.
This race is famous for its regional prizes, maple syrup for first place, bag of apples
for second, cider for third.
Despite the light touch, the green mountain attracts a strong field of scholars, a field
that I choose to weaken slightly by joining it.
In Putney, the Connecticut rivers high banks rise steeply like cathedral walls and closing
us.
No vaulted ceiling but a sky, misted over now by a morning haze that the sun warms from
the other side.
Already, we feel the rays, even if we do not yet see the light.
The protection of the high banks means glassy flat water, ideal conditions.
As I skull away from the tiny dock, the river feels like syrup against the orblades.
I look upstream.
Between the wooded banks, plumes of mist rise majestically from the river surface.
It is a vognary and seen.
I can almost hear the opening bars of Tahnhouser.
Beautiful as it is, the mist also suggests the kind of temptation or dissonance must have
encountered.
Since fog veils the upstream course, seducing us, perhaps to row into chaos, collision,
or onto rocks.
Yet the morning fog is both curse and blessing.
It confines us to the present moment because we cannot see ahead.
So we must simply do an excellent job of being on course right now and trust that the
future will take care of itself.
The pursuit of long-term goals can resemble climbing a mountain in a dense fog.
Imagine climbing through a fog so thick that you cannot see beyond your next step.
You have no idea how much farther there is to go.
After these conditions, the key is simply to make each step a sound one and to keep going.
Never cease moving upward because your next step may be the one that places you on the
summit.
During the race, the sun finally burns off the mist and we have a spectacular regatta on
a superb New England fall day.
I record a good time, but the day is successful for another reason.
Rowing through that mist taught me something.
Whenever I go out to row and come back having learned something on the water, that has been
a successful trip.
The river gods have surely blessed me because so far all my trips have been successful.
That was author Craig Lambert, reading from his book titled Mind Over Water, Lessons
on Life from the Art of Roin.
It's published by Houghton Miffler.
The show is made possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the William Bingham Foundation,
the Turner Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund and Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible
of the Collector Carhovy, www.hemmings.com.
Be good to the earth and join us next week for the En Barnard Show.
