RESEARCH EDITORIAL

ment of Engineering Professional Development doi:10.2489/jswc.68.4.337 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Carl Evensen is a specialist in the De- partment of Natural Resources and Environmental Management at the University of Hawaii, Hono- lulu, Hawaii; Kitt Farrell-Poe is a water quality Advancing water resource management extension specialist and professor in the Agricul- tural and Biosystems Engineering Department at in agricultural, rural, and urbanizing the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Cass Gardner is a professor at Florida A&M University, watersheds: Why land-grant Tallahassee, Florida; Wendy Graham is the Carl S. Swisher eminent scholar in Water Resources in the Department of Agricultural and Biological universities matter Engineering at the University of Florida and di- rector of the University of Florida Water Institute, A.J. Gold, D. Parker, R.M. Waskom, J. Dobrowolski, M. O’Neill, P.M. Groffman, K. Addy, M. Barber, Gainesville, Florida; Joe Harrison is an animal S. Batie, B. Benham, M. Bianchi, T. Blewett, C. Evensen, K. Farrell-Poe, C. Gardner, W. Graham, scientist and extension specialist at Washington

J. Harrison, T. Harter, J. Kushner, R. Lowrance, J. Lund, R. Mahler, M. McClaran, M. McFarland, State University, Pullman, Washington; Thomas Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

D. Osmond, J. Pritchett, L. Prokopy, C. Rock, A. Shober, M. Silitonga, D. Swackhamer, J. Thurston, Harter is an extension groundwater hydrologist at Journal of Soil and Water Conservation D. Todey, R. Turco, G. Vellidis, and L. Wright Morton the University of California Davis, Davis, Califor- nia; Jennifer Kushner is an evaluation specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Federally funded university water pro- safety, agricultural water use, and groundwa- Wisconsin; Richard Lowrance is a research ecol- grams have had limited success in halting ter management. These four grand challenge ogist at the USDA Agricultural Research Service, the degradation of water resources in agri- areas were distilled from a listing of over 50 Tifton, Georgia; Jay Lund is a professor and di- rector of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the cultural, rural, and urbanizing watersheds important issues related to agricultural water University of California Davis, Davis, California; for the past five decades. USDA-funded resource management identified at a work- Bob Mahler is a professor in the Environmental university water programs have advanced shop of university and government water Science Program at the University of Idaho, Mos- our understanding of watershed processes scientists in November of 2011. Our over- cow, Idaho; Mitch McClaran is a professor in the and the development of best management School of Natural Resources and the Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; practices (BMPs; e.g., conservation tillage, 68(4):337-348 Arthur J. Gold is a professor in the Department Mark McFarland is a professor and extension nutrient management, alternative and inno- of Natural Resources Science at the University specialist at Texas A&M University, College Sta- vative septic systems, and riparian buffers) to of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. Doug tion, Texas; Deanna Osmond is a professor in mitigate environmental risks from anthropo- Parker is the director of the California Institute the Department of Soil Science at North Carolina genic activities, in particular from agriculture, for Water Resources at the University of Califor- State University, Raleigh, North Carolina; James to our water resources; yet water degradation nia, Oakland, California. Reagan M. Waskom Pritchett is an associate professor in the Depart- www.swcs.org persists and has worsened in many water- is the director of the Colorado Water Institute/ ment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Water Center at Colorado State University, Fort Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado; sheds (Howarth et al. 2000; Mueller and Collins, Colorado. Jim Dobrowolski is a national Linda Prokopy is an associate professor in the Spahr 2006). The National Research Council program leader at USDA National Institute of Food Department of Forestry and Natural Resources (2012) stresses the need for sustainable agri- and Agriculture, Washington, DC. Mike O’Neill is at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana; cultural practices to reduce changes in flow an associate dean and associate director at the Channah Rock is a water quality specialist and regimes and water quality. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension assistant professor at the University of Arizona, In this research editorial, we make four System, Storrs, Connecticut. Peter M. Groffman Maricopa, Arizona; Amy Shober is an assistant is a microbial ecologist a the Cary Institute of Eco- points relative to solving water resource professor and extension specialist in the Depart- system Studies, Millbrook, New York. Kelly Addy ment of Plant and Soil Sciences at the University issues: (1) they are complex problems and is a research associate in the College of Environ- of Delaware, Newark, Delaware; Maifan Silitonga difficult to solve; (2) some progress has been ment and Life Sciences at the University of Rhode is an associate professor at Kentucky State Uni- made on solving these issues; (3) exter- Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. Michael Barber versity, Frankfort, Kentucky; Deborah Swack- nal nonstationary drivers such as land use is a professor in the Department of Civil and En- hamer is a professor at the University of Minne- changes, climate change and variability, and vironmental Engineering, Washington State Uni- sota, St. Paul, Minnesota; Jeannette Thurston is shifts in markets, policies, and regulations versity, Pullman, Washington; Sandra Batie is a national program leader for the USDA National In- professor emeritus in the Department of Agricul- stitute of Food and Agriculture, Washington, DC; warrant constant vigilance to assure that tural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan Dennis Todey is an extension state climatolo- presumed improvements are being attained; State University, East Lansing, Michigan; Brian gist at South Dakota State University, Brook- and (4) we are poised to make substantial Benham is an associate professor and extension ings, South Dakota; Ron Turco is a professor of progress on these challenges over the next specialist in the Department of Biological Sys- agronomy at Purdue University, West Lafayette, 10 to 20 years if critical steps are taken. tems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Indiana; George Vellidis is a professor in the Our discussion is framed by identifying Blacksburg, Virginia; Mary Bianchi is a horticul- Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Univer- tural farm advisor at the University of California sity of Georgia, Tifton, Georgia; and Lois Wright and describing four grand challenges that Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo, Califor- Morton is a professor in the Department of we face in agricultural, rural, and urbaniz- nia; Tom Blewett is a professor in the Depart- Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. ing watersheds: nutrient management, food

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 337 arching premise is that the combination of sustained declines in lung cancer deaths have tionary drivers that add complexity and risk capacity in university-led research, extension, occurred in some states. These declines are to traditional approaches of managing agri- and education has the potential to enhance attributed in part to investments and coopera- cultural, rural, and urbanizing watersheds conservation planning, technical assistance, tion between researchers, educators, voluntary (Kiang et al. 2011). World population is and research programs of the public and pri- organizations, and policy makers and include projected to grow from the current 7 billion vate sectors at the national, state, and local outreach that is culturally appropriate, engages to 9 to 10 billion by 2050 with demands for level and to galvanize significant progress on community organizations, and targets high- agricultural food production nearly doubling these challenges. The availability and focus of risk populations (Bonnie et al. 2007). Here, within this period. external funding will influence that progress we argue that the types of outreach and coop- Additional food, feed, fiber, and (bio) by directing university investment in aca- eration that contribute to smoking declines fuels will need to be produced and will demic programs, faculty, and outreach. are in hand for water resource issues and that thus necessarily lead to expansion and How critical are these water problems? we will see marked improvements in the sta- continued intensification of agriculture. James R. Clapper, director of National tus of water resources and societal benefits Simultaneously, metropolitan areas in the Intelligence, in his 2012 statement of world- if these tools can be integrated and applied United States have grown at unprecedented wide threat assessment noted, over large areas. These marked improvements rates, creating extensive urban, urbanizing, Depleted and degraded groundwater can require the focus and strengths of academia, and ex-urban landscapes from farmlands, Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

threaten food security and thereby risk government agencies, and the private sec- wetlands, forests, and deserts. Some water- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation internal, social disruption, which in turn, tor—in concert with stakeholder groups. sheds will experience more intensive can lead to political disruption. When Universities, particularly land-grant univer- urbanization (e.g., 10% to 30% of land area), water available for agriculture is insuffi- sities, have extensive outreach capacity in putting enormous pressures on limited water cient, agricultural workers lose their jobs watersheds across America. They can access a supplies, increasing the risk of serious con- and fewer crops are grown. As a result, spectrum of disciplines and expertise that is flicts, and demanding a focus on solutions there is a strong correlation between water needed to solve these complex problems and for mixed-use watersheds (Marcum 2006). available for agriculture and national GDP contribute to the work of sister agencies, the Obvious sources of conflicts between urban in countries with high levels of agricul- private sector, and stakeholder organizations and agricultural lands arise from competition tural employment. (Clapper 2012) (see tables 1 and 2 for examples). for finite water supplies, differing valuation Distinctions between “wicked” and “tame” In the next sections, we describe the four of ecosystem services by water and land problems have been made (Rittel and Webber grand challenges related to water resources in resources, and impairment of drinking water

1973; Batie 2008). Wicked problems are hard agricultural, rural, and urbanizing watersheds resources at the urban-agricultural interface. 68(4):337-348 to define, affect stakeholders in different and point the way to addressing these prob- However, urbanizing rural landscapes also ways, and therefore have no clear solutions. lems with integrated programs of research, impact watershed systems in ways that mod- Water resource issues in agricultural, rural, extension, and education. We see these four ify the functions of agricultural BMPs. They and urbanizing watersheds are often wicked grand challenges in the context of exter- alter nutrient cycling, modify landforms problems—they are complex and have led nal, nonstationary drivers that impact water and drainage networks, and perturb hydro- www.swcs.org to a series of persistent negative outcomes: resource management in these watersheds. logic systems (Alberti 2005). Sustaining and unsustainable use of water resources, wide- We also advocate for four key approaches that restoring water resources in agricultural, spread impairment of water quality, failure to must be integrated to help us move closer to rural, and urbanizing watersheds requires a

meet specific water quality goals across het- solutions for these grand challenges (figure 1). holistic approach that includes consideration erogeneous spatial and temporal landscapes, In describing the four grand challenges, of impacts that emerge from the pockets and continued use of farming practices known to we attempt to provide a brief description fingers of urbanization or intensive agricul- contribute excess nutrients or other pollut- of the current situation and significance of ture that now characterize many areas once ants, and economic stress for producers. the problem. We identify critical gaps in our considered as rural. For example, intense The persistent nature of water resource current knowledge of the challenge and offer runoff flow rates generated by upstream problems in agricultural, rural, and urbanizing potential actions appropriate for univer- urban development can deepen stream chan- watersheds causes environmental scientists and sities and their partners or stakeholders that nels, thereby lowering riparian water tables managers to question current approaches to can result in marked improvements in the and diminishing the nitrogen (N) abatement these problems. Yet it is important to remem- management, quality, and quantity of our functions of riparian buffer zones for agricul- ber that the persistence of complex problems nation’s waters. tural lands (Groffman et al. 2003). Another does not necessarily mean that the actions example is when offsite impacts from new, taken are improper; it often just indicates that Nonstationarity as a Driver for unsewered residential developments negate the problem is hard to solve and takes time far Water Management watershed improvements expected from beyond the typical extramural grant period. Land use changes (e.g., urbanization, investments in agricultural water pollution For example, despite decades of education, changes in the extent or intensity of agri- abatement practices (Gold et al. 1990). tax disincentives, and regulations to reduce cultural activity, and alterations within a Water management has long sought to smoking, more than 1,000 people per day drainage network); climate change and vari- reduce the impacts of temporal variations still die from cigarette use (US Department of ability; and shifts in markets, policies, and in weather patterns through advances in Health and Human Services 2010). However, regulations create a dynamic set of nonsta- irrigation, conservation practices, cropping

338 JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Table 1 Examples of university-led integrated research and extension projects. Institutions Initiative involved/Web site Goal Impacts and outcomes Coalbed Montana State The goal of the CBM–Regional Through research and outreach efforts, project partners have Methane University, Univer- Geographic Initiative is to guide ● educated landowners on the impacts of oil and gas development, split es- (CBM)– sity of Wyoming, landowners and agencies dealing tate issues, and surface owner rights; Regional and Colorado with domestic energy development ● developed a Land & Water Inventory Guide for Landowners in Areas of CBM Geographic State University with minimal water quality impacts Development and a public television documentary: Prairies and Pipelines; Initiative http://www. in the Northern Plains and Moun- ● worked with the state of Montana, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and the US Envi- region8water.org tains Region. ronmental Protection Agency to adopt numeric surface water quality standards and water management regulations specifically dealing with CBM-produced water; ● established narrative water quality standards with Wyoming regulators; ● promulgated rules and permitting protocols specific to CBM-produced water with Colorado regulatory agencies; and ● modified CBM water discharge permit processes of Wyoming and Montana Environmental Quality departments to protect existing beneficial water uses.

Nitrate in University of The goal of the Nitrate in Drinking Activities have established Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Drinking California, Davis Water program is to minimize nitrate ● a report to the legislature, “Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water;” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

Water http://groundwa- (NO3) contamination problems in ● forums on farmers' efforts, exploring additional solutions to protect ground- ternitrate.ucdavis. California. University of California water quality and engaging the agricultural community on what additional edu University of researchers have established a research and education is needed from University of California; California, broad, interdisciplinary assessment ● executive level interagency and stakeholder workgroup at the

Agriculture and of NO3 sources, groundwater NO3 governor’s office; Natural Resources status, and drinking water solu- ● development and implementation of regulatory framework and monitoring

http://ucanr.edu/ tions. Researchers and extension programs for agricultural NO3 and salt discharges to groundwater and surface News/Healthy_ agents are working with growers on water; and crops,_safe_water fertilizer management, irrigation ● research projects to develop best management practices protective of efficiency, and other farming prac- groundwater quality. tices to protect groundwater; with 68(4):337-348 regulatory and stakeholder agencies on developing regulatory and grant programs; and with communities on improved drinking water solutions. www.swcs.org Livestock University of Geor- The goal of the LPELC is to improve Through research and outreach efforts, the project’s partners have and Poultry gia, Washington and protect water quality by con- ● collaborated with several projects and programs to increase animal agricul- Environ- State University, necting researchers, regulators, ex- ture access to research-based information; mental and University of tension, and educators with animal ● developed an extension community of practice; Learning Nebraska http:// producers and their advisors. ● undertaken extensive social media outreach and monthly webcasts (>40 Center www.extension. archived webcasts)—participants in these webcasts have influenced over (LPELC) org/animal_ma- 180,000 producers per year; and nure_manage- ● created a newsletter with subscribers (over 1,500) who shared (April 2008 ment survey) that LPELC resources contribute to significant or moderate improve- ments in application of emerging technologies (65%), to increased value from manure utilization (57%), to policy development (49%), and to advice for animal producers (69%).

Rio Grande Texas A&M Uni- The goal of the RGBI is to imple- Through research and outreach efforts, the project’s partners have Basin Initia- versity and New ment strategies for meeting water ● conducted an economic assessment of citrus irrigation strategies; tive (RGBI) Mexico State demands in the Rio Grande Basin. ● provided educational programs on rainwater harvesting that have led to University http:// Researchers and Extension agents new demonstrations and home installations; riogrande.tamu. worked with local irrigation districts, ● helped irrigation districts install 42 km (26 mi) of synthetic canal lining materials; edu/ agricultural producers, homeown- ● tracked long-term effectiveness and durability of canal lining materials; and ers, and regional agencies to meet ● demonstrated that grass carp has reduced or eliminated submerged present and future water demands aquatic vegetation from irrigation canals, with estimated savings of more through water conservation and effi- than US$500,000 y–1. cient irrigation measures. Table Continued

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 339 Table 1 continued Examples of university-led integrated research and extension projects. Institutions Initiative involved/Web site Goal Impacts and outcomes

Heartland Kansas State The Heartland Manure Manage- Through research and outreach efforts, the project’s partners have Manure University, Iowa ment initiative’s primary goal is to ● engaged the regulatory community in both integration of science Management State University, incorporate land-grant university and review of implementation policies for the nutrient management Program University of Mis- research with extension client- plan component of the concentrated animal feeding operation rule; souri-Columbia, focused priorities into a manure ● developed a narrative approach placing methodologies and proto- and University of nutrient management plan frame- cols in a strategic and annual outline to serve both regulatory pur- Nebraska-Lincoln work to protect water quality that poses and a farm’s operational management—which was included in http://www.heart- will allow livestock operations to the final revised concentrated animal feeding operation rule; and landwq.iastate. comply with regulatory mandates ● developed an online narrative National Pollutant Discharge Elimi- edu/ManureMan- for environmental manure manage- nation System Nutrient Plan, which the US Environmental Protection agement ment while also remaining flexible Agency used as a training model for the “EPA Permit Writers and and profitable. Inspectors Training.” Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

systems, flood plain mapping, and water among the four grand challenges are likely all parts of the nation—from regionally sig- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation table management. New insights into the to mask progress toward solutions. Improving nificant waters, like the Chesapeake Bay, the extent and patterns of climate change and our understanding of the interactions among Gulf of Mexico, or the California Central climate variability—in a nonstationary cli- the drivers and the grand challenges is criti- Valley aquifer system, to local freshwater mate—demand renewed attention to the cal to moving society closer to solutions for ponds. In recognition of the environmental policies and practices that can reduce risks to these complex water problems and is central consequences of excess nutrients, the United water availability and nonpoint source water to evaluating progress on these challenges. Nations Environmental Program has ini- pollution (Brown et al. 2010; Kiang et al. tiated the Global Partnership for Nutrient 2011). The Executive Summary of the 2008 Grand Challenge 1: Nutrients and Management with a strong focus on rural and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Water Quality agricultural lands. With global populations Report states, “Current water management Situation and Significance. Increased fertilizer expected to increase by almost 33% by 2050 practices may not be robust enough to cope use and improved crop varieties that can bet- (UN DESA 2010), the United States and all

with the impacts of climate change on water ter utilize nutrients are strongly linked to the agricultural nations are faced with the chal- 68(4):337-348 supply, reliability, flood risk, health, agricul- huge gains in food production that the world lenge of increasing food production while ture, energy, and aquatic ecosystems” (Bates has witnessed over the past 50 years (Tilman reducing losses of N and P to ground and sur- 2008). Agricultural producers, rural com- et al. 2002). However, the increases in fertil- face waters. As with other agricultural water munities, and policy makers require insights izer applications have come with unintended challenges, substantial progress depends upon that highlight water-related risks from an consequences, with pronounced elevations developing a system of interlocking initia- www.swcs.org uncertain future and provide approaches in N and phosphorus (P) concentrations in tives based on deep knowledge of hydrology, that can build resilience and adaptability into streams and groundwater in areas where agri- nutrient cycling, cropping systems, human watershed management (Delgado et al. 2011; culture is a substantial land use (Dubrovsky et behavior, economics, and policy to provide

Lal et al. 2011). al. 2010). These excess nutrients increase algal tractable solutions for the diverse array of Meeting environmental goals, while con- biomass in freshwater and estuaries, leading rural and agricultural conditions. tinuing to enhance economic growth in to anthropogenic eutrophication character- Knowledge Gaps. Groffman et al. (2010) agriculture, will require an increased focus on ized by loss of fisheries and spawning habitats, argue that we need to “connect the dots” the roles of policy and economics on water “dead zones” of oxygen-depleted bottom between “sources,” areas with a high likeli- resource management. Government policies waters, and harmful algal blooms (Conley et hood of nutrient losses at the field edge or (e.g., regulatory authorities, conservation al. 2009; Howarth et al. 2000). Phosphorus- bottom of the root zone, and “sinks,” areas programs, and price supports) and economics induced blue-green algae blooms—and the within watersheds that remove nutrients (e.g., shifting markets and prices) exert con- associated public health threat from their such as wetlands, lakes, and riparian zones. siderable influence on farmers’ and ranchers’ neurotoxins—are increasingly found within The effort requires research, assessment, and decisions to participate in government pro- local ponds in the agricultural regions of the management at the watershed, farm, and grams or adopt conservation practices to Midwest (Graham et al. 2004). Croplands are field scales. protect or enhance water resources. These also the leading cause of groundwater pol- Actions and Outcomes. At the watershed

influences often lead to conflicting man- lution from nitrate-N (NO3-N), a drinking scale, we suggest that nutrient management agement options for producers (Green and water contaminant (Nolan et al. 2002), and efforts start with strategic targeting of high Hamilton 2000; Schaible 2000). can be sources of air quality degradation nutrient-delivery agricultural lands and Each of the four grand challenges high- and greenhouse gases (Cowling et al. 1998; unsewered developments through water- lighted in this paper have unique responses Sutton et al. 2012). shed-scale analyses. The outcomes of new to these drivers. However, interactions Curtailing nutrient losses from agricultural research, development, and extension efforts among the drivers and complex responses lands is a hallmark of watershed initiatives in must include the following:

340 JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION • Increasing the capacity of county agents, on plant nutrition warrant recalibration (Nguyen-The and Carlin 2000), applica- conservationists, and farmers to prioritize of soil test recommendations to optimize tion of fungicides/pesticides (Herwaldt and source controls to critical areas with high yields while reducing offsite nutrient losses. Ackers 1997), cooling system water (CDC risks of nutrient delivery to groundwater • Understanding and incorporating meth- 1999), washwater (Beuchat 1996), and har- and surface waters (Kellogg et al. 2010) ods of communication and factors that vesting waters (Morris 2011). Contaminated • Developing and using more accurate trigger—and sustain—behavioral change. water can also come in contact with food or and usable models based on high reso- • Researching and promoting decision water supplies through heavy rain or snow lution geospatial data that tailor results support tools, through apps or online melt events which produce runoff from to the unique and varied climate, crop- models. We are on the verge of empow- contaminated land (Thurston-Enriquez et ping systems, soils, and watershed features ering large numbers of farmers with al. 2005). Animal drinking water troughs in that characterize America’s rural lands real-time, spatially explicit management confined animal facilities can serve as long- (Delgado and Berry 2008) recommendations that incorporate the term reservoirs of zoonotic pathogens and a • Committing to long-term, controlled effects of planting date, crop variety, source of infection to livestock, as has been watershed experiments—at scales that recent weather, fertilization regimes, shown for Escherichia coli O157:H7 (LeJeune permit scientists to unravel the many cropping history, and spatial pattern of et al. 2001). Additionally, some on-farm prac- factors, including climate variability, that soils and hydrology. tices noted to be important in addressing Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

affect the fate and transport of nutri- Regional and interregional scale solutions the nutrient management grand challenges, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation ents from source and sink locations—to may be required to address nutrient imbal- including wetlands, riparian zones, and veg- generate accurate watershed models ances between crop production regions and etated buffers, have the potential to attract At the farm scale, nutrient management regions with extensive animal production. wildlife and increase fecal contamination must be integrated with water management These will require research and extension on in adjacent crops (Lowell et al. 2010). The to link sources with sinks for the economic policies, economics, and market development transient nature of water along with inef- benefit of the entire farm enterprise. Farm- in addition to the technology surround- fective sampling strategies makes identifying scale research and extension should contain ing stabilization and transport of manure. water as a source of foodborne contaminants the following elements: Correcting these imbalances warrants cre- extremely difficult. Studies to identify con- • Considering crop selection, water reuse, ative interregional solutions that may entail taminants transmitted by water are needed management of buffers for multiple envi- the development of nutrient markets that along with understanding their fate within ronmental benefits, and reintegration of reconnect animal production regions with the food chain.

animal and plant production through crop production regions. The development Actions and Outcomes. The intersection 68(4):337-348 manure management and water- of social indicators among stakeholders may of water quality protection and safe food shed-based nutrient budgets. also help in regional resource management supply maintenance is a complex problem • Developing and implementing on-farm programs (Genskow and Prokopy 2010). that involves a myriad of economic, social, BMPs where management, cropping management, environmental, legal, and systems, drainage, or other field condi- Grand Challenge 2: Food Safety and Water policy issues. Many research programs are www.swcs.org tions generate high risks of edge-of-field Situation and Significance. Foodborne focused on foodborne contaminants in food; losses. Examples include riparian zones, pathogens and other contaminants lead to this research should be augmented by the controlled drainage, carbon (C) biore- an estimated 47 million illnesses and 3,000 following work:

actors, or constructed wetlands that can deaths each year in the United States (Scallan • Studying the impacts of water quality capture and remove nutrients before they et al. 2011a). Of the 31 known foodborne management practices on potential fecal enter downstream waters. pathogens, at least 26 can be transmitted via contamination from domestic and wild • Incorporating these practices into holis- water and are responsible for 9.4 million ill- animals, pathogen persistence in irrigation tic farm management programs that nesses and 1,351 deaths within the United tailwater, sediments from irrigation, and tailor and optimize on-farm water and States (Scallan et al. 2011b). In order to sediment control structures. For example, nutrient management based on site reduce foodborne illness while maintaining vegetable growers report finding them- conditions and enhance functional and economic and environmental sustainability, selves in an untenable position—pressured sustained practice adoption. government, academia, industry, and other to minimize the use of on-farm practices At the field scale, research and extension stakeholders need to work together to that promote water quality in order to are needed to generate marked improve- develop solutions that ensure food safety and address concerns of food safety profes- ments in nutrient use efficiency, including promote healthy environments. sionals (Lowell et al. 2010). the following: Knowledge Gaps. There continues to be • Considering comanagement approaches • Understanding and assessing interactions substantial gaps in knowledge, including (Lowell et al. 2010) that rely on manage- among cropping systems, weather, and basic information on the occurrence, fate, ment practices, such as buried bioreactors site characteristics to optimize produc- and public health impacts of waterborne (Schipper et al. 2010), to minimize ani- tion while reducing nutrient loss (Li et contaminants within the food chain, includ- mal vectors of microbial hazards and still al. 2007; Delgado et al. 2001). The effects ing pathogens, pesticides, and nutrients. afford water quality protection. of advancements in crop genetics, cropping Examples of water suspected as a source of • Examining the occurrence, fate, and systems, and geospatial field management food contamination include irrigation water transmission of waterborne contaminants.

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 341 Table 2 Example conservation issues and university response efforts and outcomes. Project Situation University response On-the-ground results Neuse Edu- Due to massive fish kills, harmful algal blooms, A group of cooperative extension specialists and agents Results from pretraining cation Team: and public perception of declining water quality, based at North Carolina State University formed the and posttraining evalua- enhancing the North Carolina Environmental Management Neuse Education Team to bring science-based informa- tions of farmers indicated farmer Commission implemented the Neuse Rules to tion to inform farmer decisions in reducing farm-level that there was an improve- adoption reduce annual nitrogen (N) loading to the Neuse N losses to the Neuse River Basin. A comprehensive ment in the understanding of nutrient River by 30%. As agricultural land uses contrib- nutrient management training program targeting farm- of nutrient management management uted approximately half of the N loading to the ers and agribusiness professionals was created and and pollution issues. to decrease Neuse River, agriculture was targeted heavily by delivered by the Neuse Education Team in response Through farmer use of watershed ni- the Neuse Rules. Any farmers applying nutrients to stakeholder assessments. In addition, the Neuse NLEW, research deficits trogen losses to 20 ha (50 ac) or more had to either use a certi- Education Team, with their close ties to university sci- were identified which (summarized fied nutrient management plan or attend nutrient entists, led the development and application of the N spurred additional re- from Osmond management training. In addition, farmers were tracking tool, the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet search projects to address et al. 2010) required to use an N tracking and accounting (NLEW) (Osmond et al. 2001a, 2001b). Local farmers edge-of-field N losses, tool—a tool that had yet to be developed at the used NLEW to track nutrient management implementa- and improvements were initiation of the Neuse Rules. While a suite of tion and N controls. made to the NLEW tool best management practices have been docu- itself to improve N credits Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation mented by scientists to reduce farm losses of (Smith et al. 2006). One N, there was a communication gap between the conclusion drawn from the scientists and the farmers on how to best select Neuse Education Team and implement the appropriate strategies at the was that real changes individual farm level and generate a certified nu- in environmental quality trient management plan. require a comprehensive effort of education, regula- tion, and incentives.

Alternative In the continental United States, approximately In the past 15 years, an array of innovative and alternative The Centers bring al- and innova- 25% of households rely on onsite wastewater treatment systems have been developed and tested by ternative wastewater tive septic treatment systems, commonly referred to as university researchers and the public and private sectors. treatment systems to systems: septic systems. The siting, design, and perfor- A varied set of design configurations are now widely used the attention of com- 68(4):337-348 economic mance of these systems are most often the to reduce environmental and public health risks (Amador munities, professionals, vitality and responsibility of officials who manage public and et al. 2008; Oakley et al. 2010). In water-limited locations, and regulators. Thou- environmen- environmental health in rural and urbanizing grey water (household wastewater exclusive of toilet waste) sands of professionals

tal health for counties (Joubert et al. 2004). Poorly function- effluent is treated and applied as irrigation to supplemen- have been trained and www.swcs.org rural America ing septic systems generate pathogens and tal landscape irrigation (Waskom and Kallenger 2009). certified, consequently nutrients that degrade lakes, estuaries, and However, these new designs alone do not solve the applying their knowledge drinking water aquifers. Failing systems threaten water quality problems of onsite wastewater treatment. and skills at the local public and environmental health and can University Cooperative Extension programs across the level. Local wastewater

constrain economic development in nonurban nation have developed a coordinated education and management plans were counties. In certain settings, such as seasonal training program to assure that the adoption of these developed and local ordi- shoreline developments or aquifer recharge new technologies moves forward in an informed fashion. nances changed. These zones, even well-maintained conventional septic University-based Onsite Wastewater Training Centers efforts are reflected systems fail to provide adequate protection for have been established that serve as regional hubs to both regionally and na- receiving waters (Postma et al. 1992). extend the technologies and required management to tionally by the improve- stakeholders. These Centers showcase best available ment and protection of practice wastewater treatment designs appropriate for water quality from waste- the range of geological and environmental conditions water contamination. in their region. The Centers develop and deliver state- of-the-art educational curricula, including workshops, hands-on practical training sessions, and technical manuals to thousands of locally based wastewater practitioners, policy makers, and the public on septic system issues. The extension network works closely with public health officials to improve their design standards and provides targeted training to the private sector that prepare them for those certifications and licensing tests now required of those engaged in the business. Table Continued

342 JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Table 2 continued Example conservation issues and university response efforts and outcomes. Project Situation University response On-the-ground results University Population growth and climate variability University-led research is underway to determine the best Research has enhanced action on are putting increasing pressure on lim- methods to optimize agricultural water use and to better un- our ability to improve agricultural ited water resources. While agriculture derstand how to market agricultural water to other uses, both agricultural water conser- water con- accounts for over 70% of the water without compromising agricultural profitability and production vation, and its translation servation used in the United States, it is also esti- in the long run. Current research partnerships with municipal to agricultural decision mated that agricultural water shortages water providers, corporate partners, nongovernmental organi- makers has increased the have cost US agriculture US$4 billion zations, and USDA are developing decision tools and analyzing adoption of these strate- y–1 (WEF 2009). Water demands from various institutional arrangements to optimize water markets gies. To date, over 5,600 urban growth and increases in crop con- and short-term lease arrangements. Additional university part- bibliographic records have sumptive use must be accommodated nerships with USDA Agricultural Research Service are develop- been added to the Agricul- by timely improvements in agricultural ing advances in irrigation application, evapotranspiration and tural Water Conservation water delivery, management practices, soil moisture measurement, and remote sensing to provide the Clearinghouse, the library and technology (Strzepeck et al. 1999). technological bases for enhancing water productivity. The USDA has been searched by National Institute of Food and Agriculture Northern Plains and over 24,000 users since it Mountains Regional Water Team (land-grant university-based) was unveiled in 2008, and developed the Agricultural Water Conservation Clearinghouse participation continues Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (AWCC 2013) to translate research-based information and tools to grow. Since the fall of for water managers, irrigators, and policy makers in order to 2009, over 550 individu- increase understanding and adoption of agricultural water con- als have completed and servation and protection. passed the self-study The Northern Plains and Mountains Regional Water Team modules. Over 89% of has also focused on increasing the knowledge level of private CCAs completing post consultants, certified professional agronomists and soil sci- module surveys indicated entists, and agency personnel that influence grower decision they would utilize knowl- making. University water quality specialists authored and pub- edge gained from the lished a series of online, self-study modules for the American series while advising their Society of Agronomy Certified Crop Advisor Recertification and farming clients.

Proficiency Program. 68(4):337-348

• Quantifying levels of uncertainty the Food and Drug Administration will domestic use will crowd out any growth in surrounding the potential for food- be issuing a number of rules, including a agricultural water use (WEF 2011). borne contamination. Lack of certainty preventative controls rule in food facil- Water quality impairments of receiv- regarding benefits of water quality ities, a foreign supplier verification rule, ing waters further constrain agriculture. www.swcs.org practices also presents challenges and a national produce safety rule. Freshwater ecosystems, already impaired in (Lowell and Bianchi 2011). • Establishing transdisciplinary research many basins, will be increasingly threatened University extension scientists have an and extension teams that address both according to climate projections, requir- opportunity to situate themselves as extenders food safety and water quality protection ing more water for environmental flows. of new knowledge, intermediaries, and cata- will help to solve the complex and inter- Stewarding threatened and endangered spe- lysts between the practice-based and transissue related issues that impact the safety of cies can disrupt agricultural diversions at communities involved in food safety, food the nation’s food supply. Gathering and critical times during the cropping season safety certification, and water resources man- communicating interdisciplinary-based when producers are most at risk. We must agement. Extension scientists can inform information will help communities make grow more food with less water and reduce stakeholders on these important issues in order balanced and informed decisions. the environmental impact of agriculture to elaborate and expand partially shared under- on downstream watersheds and ecosystems standings and projects. Additional research and Grand Challenge 3: Optimizing Water for (Postel et al. 1996; Tilman et al. 2002). extension work that would be valuable to food Food and the Environment The full promise of biotechnology and safety includes the following: Situation and Significance. Water for food genomic innovation for water efficiency • Understanding how to communicate production will only continue to grow in has been slow to develop, while our water the risks, uncertainty, and legal impli- global importance over time (Tilman et al. problems require immediate attention. Many cations to stakeholders. Engaging or 2002). Scarce water already limits agricul- technological advances needed for water creating communities eager for research tural productivity and threatens the economy optimization in agriculture are already in that informs them about food safety risks as population growth and attendant needs hand, for example, more efficient irrigation (Bartley and Smith 2010). for new sources of energy pressure finite systems; soil, water, and evapotranspiration • Helping landowners navigate new food supplies (de Fraiture et al. 2008). The World monitoring and information systems; water safety rules. For example, under the Economic Forum predicts increased demand reuse; and cropping systems that have been 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act, for water through 2030 by industrial and designed to capture and optimize precipi-

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 343 Figure 1 External drivers, grand challenges, and key university-based approaches needed to make significant progress on agricultural water problems. consumptive uses, including for crop production, allied economic activity in the watershed, instream flow values, Land use Climate Markets, recreation, and aesthetic values. changes (change and policies, and • Increasing the use of wastewater recy-

drivers variability) regulations cling for irrigation of both urbanized

Nonstationary landscapes and adjacent agriculture (Dobrowolski et al. 2008). Recycled water offers a drought-resistant, novel irrigation source with water quality dependent on current and future treat- Nutrient Food Agricultural Groundwater ment technologies. The current challenge management safety water use management Grand for research is to understand the effects of

challenges continued application of recycled water on soil health, crop bioaccumulation, and food safety (Anderson et al. 2010). Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

University extension can help develop, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation test, and implement the outreach meth- Watershed/aquifer Risk and Interdisciplinary Evaluation and odologies that promote behavior change scale uncertainty teams synthesis and acceptance of recycled water use (Robinson et al. 2005). approaches • Increasing the adoption of BMPs by Common university Common university stakeholders by identifying and over- coming barriers to behavior change and implementation. tation efficiency. It is often the institutional flow, socioeconomic, and institutional Agriculture is an important economic (i.e., surface vs. groundwater extraction information. These newer models articu- engine for the United States that can provide rights), economic, and social norms that con- late tradeoffs in agricultural productivity, much needed ecosystem services, but we

strain adoption. ecosystem services and economic activity must optimize water use and protection in 68(4):337-348 Knowledge Gaps. In simple terms, opti- of proposed sharing mechanisms. They an integrated approach that simultaneously mizing agricultural water use involves incorporate groundwater and surface considers the environment, urban demands, growing more food while reducing agri- water systems into a seamless model of and agriculture. A portfolio of solutions and culture’s environmental and water quality the watershed/basin. Models can evolve tools are needed and effort must be directed footprint. Agricultural water management into adaptive management tools for at concrete outcomes with measurable www.swcs.org must address competing demands from stakeholders and communication tools impacts by intertwining scientific disciplines urban development, energy, and ecosystem for educators (Meinke et al. 2009). and agencies in watersheds. services, while also addressing water quality • Defining the knowledge gaps for

sustainability. What is new in this approach agricultural system resilience in a par- Grand Challenge 4: The Importance of is the coupling of agriculture and the envi- ticipatory process with an assortment of Groundwater to Agricultural Lands and ronment as an integrated system, rather than stakeholders and policymakers. Through Rural Communities separating these sectors as distinct problems this process, dialogue will be facilitated Situation and Significance. In 2000, the US or disciplines. A much greater focus on creat- among stakeholders, and tradeoffs asso- Geological Survey estimated groundwater ing integrated data and information systems ciated with water resource policy will withdrawals in the United States to be 1,544 to support decision making is needed, along be effectively communicated. billion L d–1 (408 billion gal day–1), repre- with understanding of cross-sector tradeoffs. • Exploring and evaluating approaches senting a nearly 15% increase over the 1985 The following actions and outcomes rep- to manage water optimally within both estimate with agricultural uses account- resent areas of critical investment. rain-fed and irrigated landscapes while ing for over 60% of the demand (Hutson Actions and Outcomes. To enhance the reducing environmental water quality et al. 2000). Thus, the social, cultural, and resilience and productive capacity of water, impacts. Water use efficiency, productiv- economic viabilities of rural communities agricultural systems need to be adapted to ity, and effective drainage are highlighted across the United States are directly linked an uncertain and nonstationary world with in this task. to the availability of safe and affordable water evolving food preferences. University-led To develop mechanisms and institutions resources from both groundwater and sur- actions for increasing resilience and adaptive for sharing amongst agriculture, urban, and face water supplies. While both are tightly capacity can include the following: environmental water, university research and linked components of the hydrologic water • Assessing available water resource data outreach can provide insights and tools for balance, groundwater and surface water have and integrating these data into existing • Quantifying agricultural water value historically been thought of as distinctive models with important environmental in its myriad of consumptive and non- sources in terms of public perception and

344 JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION legal framework (Winter et al. 1998). Unlike tools, and agricultural practices are needed health. In particular, university extension can surface water supplies where flooding, deple- to reduce expenses while providing reliable contribute by tion, and contamination problems are readily prediction of groundwater/surface water • Developing extension activities for apparent, groundwater problems may take responses to management decisions (Barber private well owners aimed at locating, years or decades to manifest themselves into et al. 2009). Research and outreach must testing, and fixing private wells recognizable concerns (Custodio 2003). recognize that groundwater is a significant • Engaging the community and state water This trend has historically led to a relaxed component of the overall water balance of management agencies in aquifer-specific attitude regarding groundwater even though nearly any watershed. It can serve as the basis studies and advancing the use of user- systematic depletion of aquifers, such as the for additional studies that recognize critical friendly tools that allow stakeholder and High Plains Aquifer in the central United groundwater quantity and quality research decision maker evaluation of alternatives States, has long been documented (Emerson needs that must be addressed to optimally while also considering the economic 1984; Sophocleous 2010). However, through manage water resources. implications of groundwater quantity and national and regional assessments like the US Actions and Outcomes. Investments in quality conservation Geological Survey National Water Quality both physical and cyber infrastructure are Assessment Program, there is a growing needed to improve measurement of aquifer Common University-Based Approaches: recognition of problems associated with fall- properties as well as the storing and sharing Revisiting the Solutions Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

ing groundwater tables, increased drinking of data. Coupled with applied groundwater The challenges described in this document Journal of Soil and Water Conservation water contamination, and irrigation water research, education, and outreach, this infor- are not new to agricultural research, educa- salinization. Also, a better understanding of mation will enable development of new tools tion, and extension. In fact, a considerable the linkage between groundwater and sur- capable of addressing water availability and amount of literature exists on each of these face water resources has motivated a search reliability. University research focused on topics. However, to accelerate positive for cost-effective solutions (Hunter 2008; the groundwater challenge should include changes on agricultural water resource man- Vecchia et al. 2009; Feaga et al. 2010; Liao the following: agement, we have identified the following et al. 2012). • Inventorying groundwater quantity and four key approaches that must be incorpo- As farmers look for new ways to increase quality that produces a consistent national rated in future university programs: agricultural production to feed a growing database of aquifer information in an eas- • Focus problem solving and practices for population while minimizing the risks asso- ily retrievable web-based archive system, stakeholders at watershed or aquifer scales ciated with climate variability and adverse such as the National Science Foundation- • Incorporate risk and uncertainty into impacts on the environment, additional strains sponsored Consortium of Universities for decision support strategies 68(4):337-348 are being placed on groundwater (Scibek and the Advancement of Hydrologic Science • Engage interdisciplinary teams that can Allen 2006; Waskom et al. 2006). In many Inc., Hydrologic Information System. couple insights from natural sciences, areas, pressure on groundwater stocks are Databases across aquifers and watersheds engineering, and social sciences with increasing as rural and urbanizing landscapes should be integrated. advances in behavioral change, incentives, undergo increased development (Konikow • Analyzing the role of agricultural landscapes policies, and communication www.swcs.org and Kendy 2005; Levi and Sperry 2007). in groundwater recharge and conjunctive • Evaluate progress, synthesize find- Knowledge Gaps. Effectively managing water management. Transparent infor- ings, communicate solutions, and adapt groundwater requires better understanding mation about local, regional, and national approaches to implementation that are of recharge, contaminant fate and trans- groundwater use should be made available. based on feedback loops port, and interaction between groundwater • Assessing groundwater science at Focus Problem Solving and Practices at and streams (Alley et al. 2002) as well as appropriate and diverse scales while char- Watershed or Aquifer Scales. Within every improved communication of unbiased infor- acterizing and mapping aquifer properties, watershed and farm enterprise, solutions mation to the public and decision makers such as depth, flowpaths, and travel times. must be tailored to the unique local blend (Kemper 2003; Mahler et al. 2005). Our • Improving life cycle protocols includ- of climate, soils, hydrology, cropping sys- demands for both precision and accuracy ing groundwater emissions and leaching tems, land uses, markets, and cultural norms. require improved techniques for quantifying from agricultural BMPs, developing new Solutions to water challenges must be sen- impacts of groundwater withdrawals at the techniques for irrigation that minimize sible to targeted stakeholders (Khosla et al. watershed scale and a better understanding ecosystem and water quality impacts, and 2002). Recent developments in modeling of the complex interactions between land formulating mitigation strategies imple- and geographic information systems have use, groundwater quantity, groundwater mentable at a range of scales. transformed our ability to link actions at the quality, and groundwater/surface water by Involvement of university extension will farm-sized scale with those at the watershed stakeholders, decision makers, and scientists foster improved community-based decision or aquifer scale. Results from the USDA (Akbar et al. 2011). This need is difficult to making with respect to the use of ground- Conservation Effects Assessment Project address in rural communities due to the costs water resources across agricultural, rural, and watershed-scale studies show that water associated with the data collection, mod- urbanizing landscapes that allows for opti- quality benefits of conservation could be eling, and interpretation that characterize mum and sustainable economic development substantially improved by targeting practices thorough subsurface investigation programs. while protecting human and ecosystem to those locations that pose the highest risk Improved monitoring techniques, assessment to critical receiving waters (Jha et al. 2010).

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 345 Incorporate Risk and Uncertainty into engaged in water management can stimulate of these problems. Universities can provide Decision Support Strategies. Uncertainty in a range of important outcomes: knowledge expertise and capacity that will complement agricultural water management commonly is is generated through research relevant to end and improve the outcomes from the work addressed in modeling approaches and often users; knowledge is shared, adapted, tested, of sister agencies, the private sector, and translates to risk for producers—as forgone applied, and expanded in real contexts; uni- stakeholder organizations. Bold, concerted income or increased costs without returns. versity curricula evolve and are kept current; investments are required by extramural Improvements in models can reduce or quan- and the next generation of professionals are granting agencies to galvanize approaches tify the sources of uncertainty and thereby trained in interdisciplinary problem solving that generate meaningful improvements in offer increased confidence in risk-mitigation for their field. our nation’s waters. Field- and farm-based tools for decision makers and producers. In Evaluate Progress, Synthesize Findings, activities must be viewed from a watershed order to continue advances in modeling Communicate Solutions, and Adapt context that incorporates decision support and decision support systems, there must be Approaches. A recent report from the tools, addresses human dimensions, and improved data standards, sharing, and inter- National Research Council (2012) recom- engages in evaluations that inform pro- pretation to enhance consistency in the mends that water management initiatives gram development. At the heart of these results produced by models. Recent studies in include sustained, interactive engagement approaches lies a firmer understanding of food safety highlight the need for risk-based with stakeholders and have flexibility to communication strategies, behavior change, Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

approaches to address trade-offs between soil adapt to changing conditions. This level local realities, and community involvement. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation and water conservation practices, such as veg- of engagement requires a commitment of Funding opportunities that engage the etated buffers, and the potential for pathogen time and personnel that honors the value expertise and capacity of land-grant exten- transmission from waterborne or mammalian of reevaluation and adjustment to improve sion programs and social science research vectors to vegetable crops. long-term outcomes. In complex situations with stakeholders are an essential element of Engage Interdisciplinary Teams. of high uncertainty (i.e., wicked problems) a efforts that seek to confront the challenges of Historically we have invested considerable robust evaluation strategy can promote man- water management in agricultural, rural, and resources in understanding the physical and agement that adapts to changing conditions urbanizing watersheds. biological dimensions of water resource and drivers. University extension programs management and neglected investment in that embody long-term, place-based stake- Acknowledgements understanding human behavior. However, holder interactions are a natural vehicle to This material is based upon work supported by the National the leadership of experts versed in social engage in regular and consistent investi- Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA. Any opinions,

sciences, e.g., economics, planning, and gations of the progress towards outcomes findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this 68(4):337-348 behavioral and communication sciences, of watershed-based practices and policies publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily is essential if we are to motivate behavior promoted by agencies, researchers, and the reflect the view of the USDA. Partial support came from change and policies that lead to improved private sector. Aggregating the benefits of National Science Foundation Grant DEB 1027188. environmental outcomes and enhanced food watershed-scale efforts is not an easy task and security. A research prioritization study in requires careful formulation of measurable— References www.swcs.org the United Kingdom concluded that multi- and meaningful—outcomes. Akbar, T.A., H. Lin, and J. DeGroote. 2011. Development disciplinary approaches and improved dialog and evaluation of GIS-based ArcPRZM-3 system and communication between researchers, Conclusions for spatial modeling of groundwater vulnerability to

policy makers, and the public are critical Water shortages and water quality prob- pesticide contamination. Computers and Geosciences elements of sustainable water management lems are prevalent in agricultural watersheds 37:822-839. strategies (Brown et al. 2010). By engag- across the United States and internation- Alberti, M. 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem ing the social sciences, we can more fully ally, jeopardizing our ability to meet global function. International Regional Science Review understand both market-driven and non- food needs. Metropolitan areas are growing 28:168-192. market-driven approaches to behavior at unprecedented rates, creating extensive Alley, W.M., R.W. Healy, J.W. LaBaugh, and T.E. Reilly. change. Interdisciplinary approaches are urban, urbanizing, and ex-urban landscapes; 2002. Flow and storage in groundwater systems. Science required that focus on constraints to adop- putting enormous pressures on limited 296:1985–1990. tion of new practices and the factors that can water supplies; and increasing the risk of Amador, J.A., D.A. Potts, E.L. Patenaude, and J.H. Gorres. motivate changes in behavior or policies. conflicts. We identify four grand challenges 2008. Effects of depth on domestic wastewater renovation The depth and breadth of university-based that, if unsolved, will significantly reduce in intermittently aerated leach field mesocosms. Journal social science expertise represents a unique future agricultural sustainability and pro- of Hydrologic Engineering 13:729-734. but largely untapped asset that can comple- ductivity. These challenges—nutrient Anderson P., N. Denslow, J.E. Drewes, A. Oliveri, D. Schlenk, ment programs beyond universities, such as management, food safety, agricultural water and S.A. Snyder. 2010. Monitoring Strategies for the producer assistance programs of USDA use, and groundwater management—must Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs) in Recycled agencies and the private sector. Federal be approached in new ways if we are to Water. A report for the State of California – State Water programs can stimulate strategic hires in move towards solving these problems. Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA: State Water extension, research, and learning areas by We believe that universities, in particular Resources Control Board. targeting extramural funding for this type land-grant universities, are strategically posi- AWCC (Agricultural Water Conservation Clearinghouse). of work. Expanding the portfolio of experts tioned to move society closer to solutions 2013. Agricultural Water Conservation Clearinghouse.

346 JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Fort Collins, CO: USDA National Institute of Food and Custodio, E. 2003. Aquifer overexploitation: What does it 2003. Down by the riverside: Urban riparian ecology. Agriculture, Northern Plains and Mountains Regional mean? Hydrogeology Journal 10:254-277. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:315–321. Water Program. http://agwaterconservation.colostate. de Fraiture, C., M. Giordano, and Y. Liao. 2008. Biofuels and Groffman P.M., A.J. Gold, L. Duriancik, and R.R. Lowrance. edu/Default.aspx. implications for agricultural water use: Blue impacts of 2010. From connecting the dots to threading the Barber, M.E., A. Hossain, J. Covert, and G. Gregory. 2009. green energy. Water Policy10:67–81. needle: The challenges ahead in managing agricultural Augmentation of seasonal low stream flows by artificial Delgado, J.A., and J.K. Berry. 2008. Chapter 1: Advances in landscapes for environmental quality. In Managing recharge in the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer precision conservation. In Advances in Agronomy, vol. Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality II: of Idaho and Washington, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 98, ed. D.L. Sparks, 1–44. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Achieving More Effective Conservation, eds. P. Nowak 17:1459-1470, doi: 10.1007/s10040-009-0467-6. Elsevier Academic Press. and M. Schnepf, 1-12. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Bartley, T., and S.N. Smith. 2010. Communities of practice Delgado, J.A.,P.M. Groffman, M.A. Nearing, T. Goddard, Conservation Society. as cause and consequence of transnational governance: D. Reicosky, R. Lai, N. R. Kitchen, C.W. Rice, D. Herwaldt, B.L., and M.L. Ackers. 1997. An outbreak in 1996 The evolution of social and environmental certification. Towery, and P. Salon. 2011. Conservation practices to of cyclosporiasis associated with imported raspberries. In Transnational Communities: Shaping Global mitigate and adapt to climate change. Journal of Soil and The Cyclospora Working Group. New England Journal Economic Governance, eds. M.L. Djelic and S. Quack. Water Conservation 66(4):118A-129A, doi:10.2489/ of Medicine 336:1546-56. New York: Cambridge University Press. jswc.66.4.118A. Howarth, R.W., D.M. Anderson, T.M. Church, H. Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J.P. Palutikof, Delgado, J.A., R.J. Ristau, M.A. Dillon, H.R. Duke, A. Greening, C.S. Hopkinson, W.C. Huber, N. Marcus, Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. eds. 2008. Climate Change and Water. Technical paper Stuebe, R.F. Follett, M.J. Shaffer, R.R. Riggenbach, R.T. R.J. Naiman, K. Segerson, A. Sharpley, and W.J. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sparks, A. Thompson, L.M. Kawanabe, A. Kunugi, and Wiseman. 2000. Clean coastal waters: Understanding IPCC Secretariat. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on K. Thompson. 2001. Use of innovative tools to increase and reducing the effects of nutrient pollution. Climate Change. nitrogen use efficiency and protect environmental Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Batie, S.S. 2008. Wicked problems and applied economics. quality in crop rotations. Communications in Soil Hunter, W.J. 2008. Remediation of drinking water for rural American Journal of Agriculture Economics Science and Plant Analysis 32:1321-1354 populations. In Nitrogen in the Environment: Sources, 90:1176-1191. Dobrowolski, J., M. O’Neill, L. Duriancik, and J. Throwe, eds. Problems, and Management, Second edition, eds. J.L. Hatfield Beuchat, L.R. 1996. Pathogenic microorganisms associated 2008. Opportunities and challenges in agricultural water and R.F. Follett. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier. with fresh produce. Journal of Food Protection reuse: Final report. Washington, DC: USDA Cooperative Hutson, S.S, N.L. Barber, F.J. Kenny, K.S. Linsey, D.S. Lumia, 59:204-16. State Research, Education, and Extension Service. and M.A. Maupin. 2000. Estimated use of water in the Bonnie R.J., K. Stratton, and R.B. Wallace. 2007. Ending Dubrovsky, N.M., K.R. Burow, G.M. Clark, J.M. Gronberg, United States in 2000. USGS Circular 1268. Denver, the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation. P.A. Hamilton, K.J. Hitt, D.K. Mueller, M.D. Munn, CO: US Geological Survey.

Washing¬ton: National Academies Press. B.T. Nolan, L.J. Puckett, M.G. Rupert, T.M. Short, N.E. Jha, M.K., K.E. Schilling, P.W. Gassman, and C.F. Wolter. 68(4):337-348 Brown, L.E., G. Mitchell, J. Holden, A. Folkard, N. Wright, Spahr, L.A. Sprague, and W.G. Wilber. 2010. The quality 2010. Targeting land-use change for nitrate-nitrogen N. Beharry-Borg, G. Berry, B. Brierley, P. Chapman, of our Nation’s waters: Nutrients in the Nation’s streams load reductions in an agricultural watershed. Journal S.J. Clarke, M. Dobson, E. Dollar, M. Fletcher, J. Foster, and groundwater, 1992–2004. USGS Circular 1350. of Soil and Water Conservation 65(6):342-352, A. Hanlon, S. Hildon, P. Hiley, P. Hillis, J. Hoseason, K. Emerson, J. 1984. Modeling resource depletion impacts- doi:10.2489/jswc.65.6.342. www.swcs.org Johnston, P. Kay, A. McDonald, A. Parrott, A. Powell, the Ogallalla aquifer study. Socio-Economic Planning Joubert, L., P. Hickey, D.Q. Kellogg, and A. Gold. 2004. R.J. Slack, A. Sleigh, C. Spray, K. Tapley, R. Underhill, Sciences 18:343-351. Wastewater Planning Handbook: Mapping onsite and C. Woulds. 2010. Priority water research questions Feaga, J.B., J.S. Selker, R.P. Dick, and D.D. Hemphill. 2010. treatment needs, pollution risks and management as determined by UK practitioners and policy makers. Long-term nitrate leaching under vegetable production options using GIS. National Decentralized Water

Science of the Total Environment 409:256-266. with cover crops in the Pacific Northwest. Soil Science Resources Capacity Development Project. St. Louis, CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1999. Society of America 74:186-195. MO: Washington University. Outbreak of Salmonella serotype Muenchen infections Genskow, K., and L.S. Prokopy. 2010. Lessons learned in Kellogg, D.Q., A.J. Gold, S. Cox, K. Addy, and P.V. associated with unpasteurized orange juice – United developing social indicators for regional water quality August. 2010. A geospatial approach for assessing States and Canada, July 1999. Morbidity and Mortality management. Society and Natural Resources 23:83-91. denitrification sinks within lower-order catchments. Weekly Report 48:582-585. Gold, A.J., W.R. DeRagon, W.M. Sullivan, and Ecological Engineering. 36:1596-160. Clapper, J.R. 2012. Unclassified statement for the record on J.L. Lemunyon. 1990. Nitrate-nitrogen losses to Kemper, K.E. 2003. Groundwater: From development to the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence groundwater from rural and suburban land uses. Journal management. Hydrogeology Journal 12(1):3-5, doi: Community for the Senate Select Committee on of Soil and Water Conservation 45:305-310. 10.1007/s10040-003-0305-1. Intelligence, January 31, 2012, 39. Graham, J.L., J.R. Jones, S.B. Jones, J.A. Downing, and T.E. Khosla, R., K.Fleming, J.A. Delgado, T.M. Shaver, and D.G. Conley, D.J., H.W. Paerl, R.W. Howarth, D.F. Boesch, S.P. Clevenger. 2004. Environmental factors influencing Westfall. 2002. Use of site-specific management zones to Seitzinger, K.E. Havens, C. Lancelot, and G.E. Likens. microcystin distribution and concentration in improve nitrogen management for precision agriculture. 2009. Controlling eutrophication: Nitrogen and the Midwestern United States. Water Research Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57:513-518. phosphorus. Science 323:1014-1015. 38:4395-4404. Kiang, J.E., J.R. Olsen, and R. M. Waskom. 2011. Introduction Cowling, E.B., J.W. Erisman, S.M. Smeulders, S.C. Holman Green, G., and J. Hamilton, 2000. Water allocation, transfers to the featured collection on nonstationarity, hydrologic and B.M. Nicholson. 1998. Optimizing air quality and conservation: Links between policy and hydrology. frequency analysis, and water management. Journal of management in Europe and North America: Justification Water Resource Development 16:197-208. the American Water Resources Association 47:433-435. for integrated management of both oxidized and Groffman, P.M., D.J. Bain, L.E. Band, K.T. Belt, G.S. Brush, Konikow, L.F., and E. Kendy. 2005. Groundwater depletion: reduced forms of nitrogen. Environmental Pollution J.M. Grove, R.V. Pouyat, I.C. Yesilonis, and W.C. Zipperer. A global problem. Hydrogeology Journal 13:317-320. 102:599-608.

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 347 Lal, R., J.A. Delgado, P.M. Groffman, N. Millar, C. Dell, and ground waters in the conterminous United States. levels. Water Resources Research 42:W11405, A. Rotz. 2011. Management to mitigate and adapt to Environmental Science and Technology 36:2138-2145. doi:10.1029/2005WR004742. climate change. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Oakley, S. M., A.J. Gold, and A. J. Oczkowski. 2010. Nitrogen Smith, T.A., D. Osmond, and J.W. Gilliam. 2006. Riparian 66(4):276-285, doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.276. control through decentralized wastewater treatment: buffer width and nitrate removal in a lagoon-effluent LeJeune, J.T., T.E. Bessr, and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Cattle Process performance and alternative management irrigated agricultural area. Journal of Soil and Water water troughs as reservoirs of Escherichia coli O157. strategies. Ecological Engineering 36:1520-1531 Conservation 61:273-281. Applied Environment and Microbiology 67:3053-57. Osmond, D.L., N.M. Nadkarni, C.T. Driscoll, E. Andrews, Sophocleous, M. 2010. Review: Groundwater management Levi, D., and K. Sperry. 2007. Agriculture at the urban A.J. Gold, S.R. Broussard Allred, A.R. Berkowitz, M.W. practices, challenges, and innovations in the High interface: Attitudes of new rural residents. Focus: Klemens, T.L. Loecke, M.A. McGarry, K. Schwarz, Plains aquifer, USA: Lessons and recommended actions. Journal of the City and Regional Planning Department M.L. Washington, and P.M. Groffman. 2010. The role Hydrogeology Journal 18:559–575. 4: Article 9. of interface organizations in science communication Strzepek, K., D. Major, C. Rosenzwieig, A. Iglesias, D.Yates, Li, X.X., C.S. Hu, J.A. Delgado, Y.M. Zhang, and Z.Y. and understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the A. Holt, and D. Hillel. 1999. New methods of modeling Ouyang. 2007. Increased nitrogen use efficiencies as a key Environment 8:306-313. water availability for agriculture under climate change: mitigation alternative to reduce nitrate leaching in North Osmond, D.L, N.N. Ranells, S.C. Hodges, R. Hansard, L. The US Cornbelt. Journal of the American Water China Plain Agriculture. Water Management 89:137–147. Xu, T.E. Jones, and S.H. Pratt. 2001a. Tracking nitrogen Resources Association 35:1639-1655. Liao, L.X., C.T. Green, B.A. Bekins, and J.K. Bohlke. loading reductions from agricultural sources: NLEW. Sutton, M.A., S. Reis, G. Billen, P. Cellier, J.W. Erisman, Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. 2012. Factors controlling nitrate fluxes in groundwater In Proceedings of the International Conference on A.R. Mosier, E. Nemitz, J. Sprent, H. van Grinsven, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation in agricultural areas. Water Resources Research 38: Agricultural Effects on Ground and Surface Waters, M. Voss, C. Beier, and U. Skiba. 2012. Nitrogen and W00L09, doi: 10.1029/2011WR011008. Wageningen, The Netherlands, October 1-4, 2000. global change. Biosciences 9:1691-1693. Lowell, K., and M. Bianchi. 2011. Food safety and surface IAHS Publication 273. Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., J.E. Gilley, and B. Eghball. 2005. water quality. In Pesticide Mitigation Strategies for Osmond, D.L., L. Xu, N.N. Rannels, S.C. Hodges, R. Microbial quality of runoff following land application Surface Water Quality, eds. K. Goh, B. Brian, T.L. Potter, Hansard, L. Xu, T.E. Jones, and S.H. Pratt. 2001b. of cattle manure and swine slurry. Journal of Water and and J. Gan. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Nitrogen loss estimation worksheet (NLEW): An Health 3:157-171. Lowell, K., J. Langholz, and D. Stuart. 2010. Safe and agricultural nitrogen loading reduction tracking tool. In Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Sustainable: Co-Managing for Food Safety and Optimizing nitrogen management in food and energy Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive Ecological Health in California’s Central Coast Region. reduction and environmental protection: Proceedings production practices. Nature 418:671-677. San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC: The Nature of the 2nd International Nitrogen Conference on UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Conservancy of California and the Georgetown Science and Policy. Scientific World 1. Social Affairs). 2010. World Population Prospects: The

University Produce Safety Project. Postel, S.L., G.C. Daily, and P.R. Ehrlich. 1996. Human 2010 Revision. New York: Population Division of the 68(4):337-348 Mahler, R.L., R. Simmons, and F. Sorensen. 2005. Public appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science Department of Economic and Social Affairs. perceptions and actions towards sustainable groundwater 271:785–788. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. management in the Pacific Northwest region, USA. Postma, F.B., A.J. Gold, and G.W. Loomis. 1992. Nutrient and How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and International Journal of Water Resources Development microbial movement from seasonally used septic systems. Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A www.swcs.org 21:465-472. Journal of Environmental Health 55:5 10. Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Public Marcum, K.B. 2006. Use of saline and non-potable water Rittel, H.W.J., and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General. in the turfgrass industry: Constraints and developments. general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4:155-159. Vecchia, A.V., R.J. Gilliom, D.J. Sullivan, D.L. Lorenz, and Agricultural Water Management 80:132-146. Robinson, K.G., C.H. Robinson, and S.A. Hawkins. 2005. J.D. Martin. 2009. Trends in concentrations and use of

Meinke, H., S.M. Howden, P.C. Struik, R. Nelson, D. Assessment of public perception regarding wastewater agricultural herbicides for Corn Belt rivers, 1996-2006. Rodriguez, and S.C. Chapman. 2009. Adaptation reuse. Water Science Technology and Water Supply 5:59-65. Environmental Science and Technology 43:9096-9102. science for agriculture and natural resource Scallan, E., P.M. Griffin, F.J.Angulo, R.V.Tauxe, and R.M. Waskom, R., and J. Kallenger. 2009. Graywater Reuse and management—urgency and theoretical basis. Current Hoekstra. 2011b. Foodborne illness acquired in the Rainwater Harvesting. Colorado State Extension Fact Sheet. Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1:69-76. United States: Unspecified agents. Emerging Infectious Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University Extension. Morris, J.G. 2011. Cholera and other types of vibriosis: A Diseases 17:16-22. Waskom R., J. Pritchett, and J. Schneekloth. 2006. Outlook story of human pandemics and oysters on the half shell. Scallan, E., R.M. Hoekstra, F.J. Angulo, R.V. Tauxe, on the High Plains aquifer: What’s in store for irrigated Clinical Infectious Diseases 37:272-80. M.A.Widdowson, S.L. Roy, J.L. Jones, and P.M. Griffin. agriculture? Great Plains Soil Fertility Conference, Mueller D.K., and N.E. Spahr. 2006. Nutrients in Streams 2011a. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States: Proceedings, Denver, Colorado, March 2006, 122–128. and Rivers Across the Nation. Scientific Investigations Major pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17:7-15. Winter, T.C., J.W. Harvey, O.L. Franke, and W.M. Alley. 1998. Report 2006-5107. Denver, CO: US Geological Survey. Schaible, G. 2000. Economic and conservation tradeoffs of Ground water and surface water: a single resource. US National Research Council. 2012. Challenges and regulatory vs. incentive-based water policy in the Pacific Geological Survey Circular 1139. Denver, CO: US Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences. Washington, Northwest. Water Resource Development 16:221-238. Geological Survey, Branch of Information Services. DC: National Academy Press. Schipper L.A., W.D. Robertson, A.J. Gold, D.B. Jaynes, and WEF (World Economic Forum). 2009. The bubble is close to Nguyen-The, C., and F. Carlin. 2000. Fresh and processed S.C. Cameron. 2010. Denitrifying bioreactors: An bursting: A forecast of the main economic and geopolitical vegetables. In The Microbiological Safety and Quality approach for reducing nitrate loads to receiving waters. water issues likely to arise in the world during the next of Food, Volume I, eds. B.M. Lund, T.C. Baird-Parker, Ecological Engineering 36:1532-43. two decades. Draft for Discussion at the World Economic and G.W. Gould, 620-684. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Scibek, J., and D.M. Allen. 2006. Modeled impacts of Forum Annual Meeting 2009, World Economic Forum. Nolan, B.T., K.J. Hitt, and B.C. Ruddy. 2002. Probability predicted climate change on recharge and groundwater WEF. 2011. Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy- of nitrate contamination of recently recharged Climate Nexus. Washington, DC: Island Press.

348 JULY/AUGUST 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 4 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION