By ANN ALLEN
Indiana Correspondent

WARSAW, Ind. — Bob Eddleman, of the State Soil Conservation Board (SSCB), and Jim Lake, a district supervisor specializing in program development for the Indiana State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), went to Warsaw on Sept. 25 for what the SSCB labeled a “listening session” to receive input on concerns to be addressed with future Clean Water Indiana (CWI) funds.

They went home with an earful from what they described as the best attended of five meetings throughout the state, also held in Winslow, Greensburg, Indianapolis and Rensselaer.

As explained by Jeanie Keating, manager of media relations for the ISDA, the purpose of CWI in IC 14-32-8-5 is to provide financial assistance to Soil and Water Conservation Districts, land occupiers and conservation groups and to implement conservation practices to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution through education, technical assistance, training and cost-sharing programs.

Clean Water Indiana funds are administered by the Indiana Agriculture Department’s Division of Soil Conservation, subject to the direction of the SSCB.

Attending the Warsaw session were representatives of a number of area districts, each of whom had concerns, including changing priorities in specifications, rules and standards; partnerships; the relationship between SSCB and IDEM and DNR; new funding opportunities including tours, urban and small farms that don’t fit the farm bill; need for a dedicated fund to support positions; concentrated livestock (primarily Amish) farms along ditches and streams; E. coli issues; and septic system concerns.

The latter promoted the question, “Is cattle poop as toxic as human?” and the reply that no one knows enough.

“Farms were built along streams,” said one man, “and this was good. It afforded a water supply, but what used to be a farm is now a tract with 14 houses.”

Another noted that Amish farmers who previously worked at factory jobs but had been laid off during the recession had retreated to their farms with six horses, 10 cows and a bunch of pigs and chickens, all of which they said polluted the streams.

Other concerns included nutrient overload from ditches, the need for more wetlands, drainage issues, stream bank erosion and water quantity issues.

On the flip side were suggestions and needs. These included a need to streamline CWI to be more user-friendly, need for more flexibility to move funds, need for SSCB to reexamine CWI and the state staff in order to work closer with districts and to look at other programs, trying to find funding opportunities being missed, need for more DSS-type people to coordinate and, perhaps the gravest of all, uncertainty as to what resource people do.

“We aren’t seeing them throughout the district,” one man complained.

Other suggestions/needs included additional funding, DSS and RS focused on watersheds for more district involvement, need to increase leveraging, need for more staff to get programming through, more training within districts, staff funding, district capacity, districts partnering with each other, DSS staffing spread too thin, a question whether CWI monies should be spent on grants or staffing, need for district restructuring, more support of enforcement measures and another big question: “Why don’t some districts use what they have?”

Eddleman and Lake said results of the listening sessions will be tabulated to determine the next steps the CWI needs to take.
Anyone unable to attend the listening sessions, who wishes to provide comments, can contact the SSCB by e-mail at kgenty@isda.in.gov or by writing to: Indiana State Department of Agriculture, Attn: State Soil Conservation Board, 101 West Ohio St., Suite 1200, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

Published on Sept. 30, 2009