opinion

Use buffer strip bill to restore some balance

The rapid and recent conversion of natural habitat to farmland in Minnesota certainly has benefited the state's agricultural economy. From water quality to decreased habitat, though, Mother Nature has paid a huge price.

A better balance is needed, especially in a state so well-known for its vast waters and wild places.

Enter Gov. Mark Dayton's "buffer strip" proposal. The DFL governor is proposing a uniform 50-foot buffer strip along state lakes, rivers, streams and ditches.

The idea holds merit, and with some clarity and compromise, it should be adopted yet this session.

Such strips are long-known tools to improve water quality by filtering out fertilizer, sediments and livestock runoff. They would not solve all water-quality problems, but adopting some form of Dayton's proposal would help as well as show the agriculture sector is a willing partner in improving water quality.

Dayton's idea also would add back about 125,000 acres of natural habitat. According to a recent national study, that's roughly half the amount Mother Nature lost in the state between 2008-2012 as farmers cashed in on high commodity prices by converting 400 square miles of varied (mostly natural) habitat to cropland.

Indeed, a simple drive through Central Minnesota these days shows how crops now are often planted right up to shoulders of roads and how drain tiling has turned acres of wetlands into tillable fields.

Opposition to Dayton's proposal is rooted largely in lost revenues, claimed inflexibility and infringement on property rights.

For revenues, the governor has marked $20 million and noted more funds might be available through federal buffer strip programs. Certainly, reasonable compensation is in order.

On inflexibility, bills offered as well as discussions statewide about them seem to suggest there are options other than the mandated 50 feet. More clarity about those tools should prove whether it's truly the "one size fits all" concept opponents claim.

As for property rights, this idea seems less like infringement and more akin to rules for lakeshore development or even municipal codes. All are aimed at making sure owners of any property do their part in balancing human use with environmental protections.

Again, Dayton's idea may not be perfect. But with more clarity and some compromises, it can help restore some of the balance lost in the rapid, recent and understandable expansion of farmland.