Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)

2. I think that NYC has had good success with its voluntary watershed protections.

Reply to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:41 PM

Nov 2014

Last edited Sun Nov 23, 2014, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

While I am all about mandatory actions against big corporate entities, farmers are a different story. Most respond to incentives quite well. The USDA NRCS has a good history of incentivizing conservation practices.

If mandatory actions are the only way to protect water, then sure, they are worth it. But incentives and voluntary actions could be less expensive, have greater buy-in from farmers, and even be more effective over the long haul. While cost share programs and the like do have a cost, so does hiring inspectors and the legal battles that follow.

-app

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Thanks Industrialized agriculure-Des Moines Struggling With Nitrates in Water [View all] RiverLover Nov 2014 OP

Irony has come home once again. Wellstone ruled Nov 2014 #1

Interesting stuff! Thanks~ nt RiverLover Nov 2014 #3

I think that NYC has had good success with its voluntary watershed protections. appal_jack Nov 2014 #2

"so does hiring inspectors and the legal battles that follow." RiverLover Nov 2014 #4

Surely Joni will make 'em squeal. GeorgeGist Nov 2014 #5

Or not. progressoid Nov 2014 #6