A third of a billion dollars would be needed each year to put a set of pollution reduction processes on farm land to see an improvement in the state’s water quality, according to a recent report published by Iowa State’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development.

“It would cost about $300 million a year to put this set of practices extensively on the landscape,” said Cathy Kling, professor of economics and division head of the center’s resource and environmental policy division.

The practices, which include installing buffers, grassed waterways, conservation tillage, terracing and setting aside more land not to be farmed, are aimed at reducing pollution in the state’s water resources.

The study addressed pollution consisting of excess nitrates, phosphorous and sediment found in water that have come from agricultural practices.

“This is all agricultural non-point pollution through erosion into lakes and streams,” Kling said.

“People put fertilizer and nutrients on the ground and it erodes into the state’s lakes and rivers.”

Non-point pollution is defined as chemicals and nutrients that are added to farm fields and are dangerous if too many are applied because they run off into water.

“The pollution overfeeds the ecosystem, nutrients are put on farm fields to make stuff grow. It sounds like a good thing, but it is not,” Kling said. “It makes things grow to the detriment of everything else.”

She also said non-point pollution is difficult to monitor and control.

“Non-point pollution makes it difficult to see where it’s coming from, if you have a smokestack you can see where the air pollution is coming from,” Kling said.

“With non-point pollution it is not that easy, it comes from sediment removed from farm fields.”

Silvia Secchi, associate scientist at the center, said water pollution is not completely agriculture-related, and it is important to realize it does not all come from farmers.

“Partly it comes from agriculture crop and/or livestock,” she said.

“Some of it is septic systems, especially little towns that don’t clean their water.”

Kling said there could be a reduction of 30 to 40 percent of the excess sediment and phosphorous through implementation of the practices. She said nitrate level reductions would be less significant.

Kling said the objective of the study was to be able to give the public and the United States Environmental Protection Agency information about how much it would cost to implement “significant” water quality management.

“We were trying to get at cost and benefits of doing something like this,” she said.

Who would pay for the implementation was not addressed in the study.

“[It could] potentially be paid by farmers or subsidies by the state, environmental groups may chip in,” she said.

“There are lots of different ways to pay for it, and we did not address that part of it.”

Secchi said there are already programs that help farmers pay for voluntary land management practices.

Some of these programs include initiatives at the state and federal level.

“As part of the farm bill, there are conservation payments that help farmers pay for some of the techniques,” Secchi said.

“There are nutrient management plans so they use less fertilizer.”