THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH ... · THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH EMPHASIS ON THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS IN ONTARIO April 2005 Prepared

THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH EMPHASIS

ON THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS IN ONTARIO

April 2005

Prepared by: Jane Sadler Richards, PhD, PAg Cordner Science RR2, 34050 Maguire Road Ailsa Craig, ON N0M 1A0

On behalf of: Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Huron County Federation of Agriculture

Disclaimer: The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations

ii

At A Glance... SUMMARY

Objectives:

To report on the following: • the economic benefits of

agricultural drainage

• the reasons for enclosing drains

• the economic, environmental and societal impacts of enclos-ing drains, which could be included in a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain

• approaches or methods for evaluating the benefits and costs of enclosing open drains

And, to prepare a database of information sources that could be used by various stakeholders regarding the enclosure of open drains

Ontario farmers and gov-ernments continue to in-vest in drainage. In the last 5 years, $3.9 M to $11.1 M per year was spent on tile drainage and $10.8 M to $18.5 M per year was spent on municipal drainage. Farmers benefit from drainage through im-proved crop yields, ability to adopt higher value crops, timeliness of plant-ing and harvesting, land improvement and reduced production costs.

Since the 1980s, however, studies have indicated that the impacts of agri-cultural land manage-ment in conjunction with drainage systems are sig-nificant and, in many cases, detrimental to the health of aquatic ecosys-tems. This increased

awareness of the impacts of land management has caused concerns about many prac-tices related to agri-cultural drainage.

The Ausable Bay-field Conservation Authority (ABCA) was interested in understanding if the enclosure of open drains in agricultural landscapes could affect the long-term health of aquatic ecosys-tems and in what ways. A companion literature re-view to this document entitled A Review of the Enclosure of Watercourses in Agricultural Land-scapes and River Head-water Functions (2004) determined there was not enough scientific informa-

THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH EMPHASIS ON THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS IN ONTARIO

April, 2005

Who will use this information?

• Anyone who needs informa-tion to help them develop a position statement related to discussions, applications, negotiations or hearings on the enclosure of an open drain.

• Economists, scientists and

water managers may use the information when developing a benefit-cost analysis of enclosing an open drain.

• Economists, scientists and

water managers may use the information when developing a method for establishing when it is appropriate or not appropriate to allow the enclosure of an open drain.

tion available to answer this question.

The above document focused on environ-mental questions. This document focuses on economic and related social questions. The sustainability of the agri-food sector relies on maintaining a balance between economic, envi-ronmental and social needs.

REASONS FOR ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS 1. Similar construction

costs

2. Increased field effi-ciency, decreased overlap of opera-tions, decreased soil compaction

3. Improved safety by removing hazard of tractor rollover

4. Less intensive main-tenance, potential hay crop and/or wild-life habitat

5. Removes need for regulatory compli-ance with setbacks and buffers, and/or mitigation against future changes in regulatory policies

6. Increased land value

7. Control of soil ero-sion from ditch banks and overland flow

Drainage systems include in-field and off-field parts that together drain a watershed. Outlet drains may be

open or enclosed watercourses.

Prepared by: J. Sadler Richards, Cordner Science On behalf of: Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition, Huron County Federation of Agriculture, and Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority

iii

Log on to <http://www.hcfa.on.ca> to view or download a copy of the report or database of references.

This project includes a database of more than 160 references. Some are cited in the report, but many more are listed in the database.

The database is formatted as a worksheet in Microsoft Excel®.

You can search for keywords, au-thors, titles and much more follow-ing the easy instructions.

Also, read A Review of the Enclosure

of Watercourses in Agricultural Landscapes and River Headwater

Functions if you need to understand

how headwaters function.

3. Conduct research on the impact of enclosure on headwater func-tions in agricultural landscapes

4. Determine if grassed water-ways are commonly in place over enclosed drains

1. Prepare a factsheet outlining circumstances when a request to enclose an open drain could be denied and the associated appeal process

2. Update the outline of a bene-fit-cost analysis under the Drainage Act

5. Examine what incentives would encourage private landowners to maintain the ecological functions of drains

6. Develop recommendations for best management practices for enclosed drains

WHAT IS IMPACTED BY DRAIN ENCLOSURE?

Need to find information?

RECOMMENDATIONS

Natural land management and value:

• Headwater function re habitat and food web of ecosystem

• Headwater function re hydrol-ogy of water

• Headwater function re physical/chemical characteristics of wa-ter

• Government resources

• Land value

¤ ¤ ¤

Agricultural land management and value:

• Construction practices

• Field efficiency and overlap of operations

• Government resources

• Land value

• Maintenance practices

• Regulatory compliance and mitigation against future changes in attitudes, policies and regulations

• Safety

• Soil erosion control

PAGE 2 AT A GLANCE. ..

“An economic analysis could

assess the net benefits or net

costs of each impact for private

landowners and society.

However, placing a value on

non-market goods and services

is difficult. This is even harder

when little is known about the

ecological role of small

agricultural drains.”

Funding for this project was provided in part by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Agricultural Adaptation Council’s CanAdapt Program.

Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The sponsorship and interest of the Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition

(HCFEC) in partnership with the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) and

the Huron County Federation of Agriculture (HCFA) are gratefully acknowledged. Funds

were provided through the Agricultural Adaptation Council and the Huron County Farm

Environmental Coalition with in-kind support from the Huron County Federation of

Agriculture and the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. Many thanks are extended

to the Advisory Committee and their sponsoring organizations for their time and

commitment to this project.

J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY AT A GLANCE ...................................................................................................... II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................V

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF TEXT BOXES............................................................................................................VII

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE............................................................................................. 1 1.2 LAND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................. 1 1.3 IMPORTANCE OF DRAINAGE................................................................................................ 3

1.3.1 Private Landowner - Agriculture............................................................................................ 3 1.3.2 Society..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND USE OF THIS DOCUMENT................................................ 10

2 METHODS.......................................................................................................................... 11

3 TILE DRAINAGE.............................................................................................................. 13

3.1 AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS................................................................................................. 13 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .................................................................................................. 15

4 OUTLET DRAINAGE AND THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS ....................... 17

4.1 REASONS FOR ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS ...................................................................... 17 4.2 IMPACTS OF ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS.......................................................................... 19

4.2.1 Agricultural Land Management And Value.......................................................................... 19 4.2.2 Natural Land Management And Value ................................................................................. 33

4.3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 37 4.3.1 Private Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 38 4.3.2 Social Benefit-Cost Analysis................................................................................................. 41

5 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 43

5.1 FUTURE WORK ...................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 44

APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................... 45

J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science v


APPENDIX 2: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS....................................................... 46

APPENDIX 3: DETAILS OF SEARCH METHOD ................................................................ 51

APPENDIX 4: DETAILS OF DRAINAGE PROJECTS ........................................................ 53

APPENDIX 5: DATABASE OF INFORMATION SOURCES .............................................. 56

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 60

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Area, length of tile and cost of tile drainage, 2001 to 2004, Ontario Ministry of

Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004). ............................................................. 5

Table 1.2: Area, length and cost of municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04,

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004).............................. 6

Table 1.3: Range of costs per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario

Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004) ........................................... 7

Table 1.4: Cost of maintenance per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04,

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002, 2004).............................. 8

Table 4.1: Specifications and cost of work for three examples of drainage projects where

an open ditch was enclosed in Huron County, Ontario .................................................... 20

Table 4.2: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of

the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with construction

practices related to enclosing an open drain ..................................................................... 21


the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in

field efficiency and overlap of field operations related to enclosing an open drain ......... 23


the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with government

programs and services related to enclosing an open drain................................................ 24

J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science vi



the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in

land value related to enclosing an open drain................................................................... 25


the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with maintenance

related to enclosing an open drain .................................................................................... 27


the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with regulatory

compliance and mitigation practices related to enclosing an open drain.......................... 30


the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with farm safety

concerns related to enclosing an open drain ..................................................................... 31


the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with soil erosion

control related to enclosing an open drain ........................................................................ 32

LIST OF TEXT BOXES

Text Box 4.1: Definition of surface water, and requirements regarding buffer zones and

depth to groundwater, Ontario Nutrient Management Act, 2002 ..................................... 28

Text Box 4.2: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Aatrex® Nine-0® .. 29

Text Box 4.3: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Ultim®................... 29

Text Box 4.4: Provision for preparing a benefit cost statement, Drainage Act R.S.O.

1990, CHAPTER D.17 ..................................................................................................... 38

J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science vii


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

The agri-food sector is an important part of Canada. In the late 1800s more than 80% of

Canada’s population was involved in agriculture. Today, approximately 15% of our

population is employed in the agri-food sector, although less than 3% of the population

actually farm (Coote & Gregorich 2000). Food costs approximately 14% of disposable

income in Canada, which makes it one of the least expensive countries in the world

(based on 1998 data) in which to buy food (Coote & Gregorich 2000). Also, a large

proportion of our food is exported (43% in 1998), which contributes significantly to

Canada’s trade balance (Coote & Gregorich 2000).

The importance of agriculture to Canada suggests that it is in everyone’s interest to

develop policies and programs that will ensure the long-term existence or sustainability

of the agri-food sector. In fact, the sustainability of Canada’s agri-food sector has been a

topic of much discussion. In Canada, the Federal-Provincial Agriculture Committee on

Environmental Sustainability suggested that “sustainable agri-food systems are those that

are economically viable, and meet society’s need for safe and nutritious food, while

conserving or enhancing Canada’s natural resources and the quality of the environment

for future generations” (Environment Canada 1991). This definition includes three key

words that form the basis of the sustainability concept: economics, environment, society.

1.2 LAND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Ontario has the largest area of cultivated, agricultural land with improved drainage in

Canada (Coote & Gregorich 2000). In Ontario, systems designed to drain water from

agricultural land include a combination of surface and subsurface drainage systems

located within agricultural fields. Surface drainage removes water from the surface of

agricultural fields. Surface drainage systems may include land smoothing or grading,

field ditches, lateral ditches, grassed waterways, and open drains or channels that provide

an outlet for the accumulated water (Ritter & Shirmohammadi 2001; Irwin 1997b).

J. Sadler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science 1


Subsurface drainage (often called tile drainage in Ontario) removes excess water from

the plant root zone and lowers the water table (Ritter & Shirmohammadi 2001). The

water table in agricultural fields is represented by the upper surface of groundwater,

which is the line or level in the soil below which the soil is saturated with water (Brady &

Weil 2002; Irwin 1997a). A perched water table is the surface or upper limit of a local

zone of soil that is saturated with water that also is separated from the main body of

groundwater by an unsaturated zone in the soil. A perched water table may be held above

the main body of groundwater by an impermeable layer in the soil, usually clay (Brady &

Weil 2002). Subsurface drainage systems use buried, perforated pipes or tiles that collect

excess water and move it through the underground pipe system to main drains or

channels that provide an outlet for the accumulated water (Coote & Gregorich 2000). An

outlet drain or channel that is used to remove water from surface and/or subsurface

drainage systems may consist of an existing natural watercourse, a man-made open ditch,

a buried non-perforated pipe or, in some situations, a pumped outlet (Irwin 1997b).

In Ontario, surface and subsurface drainage systems in agricultural fields are the

responsibility of the private landowner. Agricultural producers may apply for a fixed rate

loan from the government under the Tile Drainage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b)

to assist them with the cost of installing a private subsurface or tile drainage system on

their property (Vander Veen 2001). Today, most outlet drainage, which removes the

water collected by the in-field drainage systems of one or more agricultural producers

within a watershed, is managed under the Drainage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a).

The outlet drain, called a municipal or petition drain, is the responsibility of the local

municipality and private landowners within the watershed that the outlet drain services

(Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004b). A municipal drain may be an open ditch

or an enclosed ditch, which consists of a pipe buried underground and, in some cases, a

grassed waterway on the surface of the soil above the buried pipe. Other types of outlet

drains include private drains, mutual agreement drains and award drains. Evanitski

(2000) provides an explanation of each type of outlet drain along with photographs.

Although the provincial drainage program associated with the Tile Drainage Act and the



Drainage Act changed significantly in 2004, grants and loans, along with related

government services, are still available (Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004a).

1.3 IMPORTANCE OF DRAINAGE

1.3.1 PRIVATE LANDOWNER - AGRICULTURE

When the land in Ontario was first settled, farmers cleared the forests and began to

produce food. According to Kelly (1975), after their property was cleared of forest

(unless wetlands were involved), farmers considered developing land drainage systems to

improve the productivity of their fields. The artificial drainage of land was encouraged in

Ontario as early as the 1850s (Kelly 1975) and continues today through the Drainage Act

(Government of Ontario 1990a) and the Tile Drainage Act (Government of Ontario

1990b). Several authors have documented the history of drainage in Ontario and North

America (Todgham 2000; McLaughlin 1995; Ritter et al. 1993; McLaughlin 1992; Kelly

1975), which provides a basis for understanding why land drainage is so widespread and

accepted within Ontario’s rural landscape.

Farmers continue to invest in tile drainage in agricultural fields in Ontario. For example,

based on statistics from the provincial program associated with the Tile Drainage Act, the

area tiled in the 1999/00 fiscal year was 19,352 ac and in the 2000/01 fiscal year was

21,521 (Vander Veen 2002). The area declined in the following three years from 14,434

ac in 2001/02 to 7,209 ac in 2003/04 (Table 1.1). The average cost per acre was $481 and

$516/ac in 1999/00 and 2001/02, respectively (Vander Veen 2002). In the following three

years, the average costs were $531/ac, $507/ac and $537/ac (Table 1.1). In 1999/2000

(the only year data were available), the average $/ft of tile drainage was $0.48 (Vander

Veen 2002) or approximately $50 for every 100 ft of tile. From 1999 to 2004, the cost of

tile drainage work in Ontario ranged from a high of $11.1 M in 2000/01 to a low of $3.9

M in 2003/04 (Vander Veen 2004; Vander Veen 2002). Tile drainage is an essential

component of an effective land drainage system. Outlet drainage, without a connection to

tile drainage in agricultural fields, does not provide an effective land drainage system for

agricultural purposes (Irwin 1997b; McCaw 1984; Found et al. 1976).


Eco

J. Sa

nomic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005

dler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science 4

Within agricultural watersheds, farmers also continue to install and improve outlet

drainage systems through the Drainage Act. In recent years, from 1994/95 to 2003/04,

approximately $10 M to $18 M dollars were spent each year on municipal drainage work,

at a unit cost between approximately $147 to $295 per hectare serviced per year (Table

1.2). Relative lengths of open and closed drains varied over the years. The length of open

drain was generally greatest (55 to 66 % of total length), except in 1998/99 when

approximately equal amounts of open and closed drain were involved (Table 1.2). The

area serviced by these new or improved municipal drains varied from a low of 54,717 ha

in 1996/97 to a high of 103,043 ha in 2001/02 (Table 1.2.).

Between 1994/95 and 2003/04, the cost of most projects (53 to 66 % of total number of

projects/yr) ranged between $5 K and $50 K. Generally, less than 5% of projects cost

>$200 K (Table 1.3). While the number of construction projects in Ontario ranged from a

high of 340 in 1998/99 to a low of 167 in 2000/01 (Table 1.3), the number of

maintenance projects each year was generally 10 times greater. For example, in 1994/95

approximately $6.4 M was spent across 2,317 projects in Ontario. In 2001/02

approximately $6.9 M was spent on 1,462 projects (Table 1.4).

From a local perspective, Dietrich and Wilson (1999), representing the municipalities of

West Perth and Perth East within Perth County in Ontario, reported at the Ontario

Drainage Engineers Conference in 1999 that approximately 750 municipal drains (~1800

km in length) had been constructed in their area under the Drainage Act. At the time of

reporting, approximately 60% of these municipal drains (~1080 km) were open ditches

(Dietrich & Wilson 1999).

1.3.2 SOCIETY

Society, represented by government, has indicated that land drainage to improve the

agricultural production of food is important. Governments have invested in land drainage

by providing significant financial support to encourage its adoption. Fixed rate loans,


Table 1.1: Area, length of tile and cost of tile drainage, 2001 to 2004, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen 2002,

2004).

TILE DRAINAGE ACT: 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/04

Total Cost of Work Done $7,675,206.29 $5,578,090 $3,875,107

Total Amount of Loans $4,863,200 $3,617,000 $2,612,700

Area Tiled (acres) 14,434 11,007 7,209

Number of Projects 366 281 199

Average Cost Per Acre $531 $507 $537

AGRICULTURAL TILE SALES SURVEY RESULTS

2001 (10 of 11

responded)

2002 (10 of 11

responded)

2003 (10 of 11

responded)

Total Tile Production (feet) 111,772,498 137,237,498 123,787,272



Table 1.2: Area, length and cost of municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander

Veen 2002, 2004)

TECHNICAL MUNICIPAL DRAIN STATISTICS IN ONTARIO FROM 1994/95 TO 2003/04

YEAR

SERVICED

(HA)

OPEN

(M)

CLOSED

(M)

OPEN

(%)

CLOSED

(%)

TOTAL COST

($)

UNIT COST

($/HA)

1994/95 65,744 157,294 85,396 64.8 35.2 9,678,299 147.21

1995/96 70,247 156,647 87,194 64.2 35.8 12,197,539 173.64

1996/97 54,717 153,102 110,683 58.0 42.0 11,308,929 206.68

1997/98 56,017 236,660 190,688 55.4 44.6 16,541,361 295.29

1998/99 70,778 195,947 193,093 50.4 49.6 17,913,944 253.10

1999/2000 91,978 256,575 157,601 61.9 38.1 18,509,448 201.24

2000/2001 56,931 164,402 82,885 66.5 33.5 10,852,487 190.63

2001/02 103,043 216,700 140,479 60.7 39.3 16,148,203 156.71

2002/03 82,420 200,297 114,438 63.6 36.4 14,158,311 171.78

2003/04 61,475 218,346 109,945 66.5 33.5 17,971,739 292.34



Table 1.3: Range of costs per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander Veen

2002, 2004)

RANGE OF MUNICIPAL DRAIN COSTS IN ONTARIO FROM 1994/95 TO 2003/04

YEAR

TOTAL NO.

DRAINS

NO. OF DRAINS IN THE COST RANGE OF: (Note: Percentage Engineering for Cost Range shown from 2000/01 and forward)

HIGHEST SINGLE COST ($)

< $5,000

$5,000 - < $50,000

$50,000- < $75,000

$75,000 - < $100,000

$100,000- < $200,000

> $200,000

1994/95 192 22 126 18 9 10 7 1,131,423

1995/96 197 17 129 15 10 16 10 1,421,643

1996/97 203 14 128 31 10 16 4 1,282,320

1997/98 253 5 134 43 25 35 11 734,236

1998/99 340 17 191 56 28 43 5 1 664,611

1999/00 266 17 160 33 30 29 10 1,445,160

2000/01 167 4 (37.0%) 94 (28.3%) 21 (23.0%) 15 (20.0%) 21 (24.1%) 12 (22.4%) 383,600

2001/02 250 6 (45.0%) 135 (27.2%) 37 (22.2%) 28 (21.5%) 32 (20.5%) 12 (24.3%) 1 474,762

2002/03 261 7 (30.1%) 135 (25.2%) 41 (22.6%) 24 (19.9%) 38 (22.4%) 5 (19.1%) 459,682

2003/04 228 2 5 (55.7%) 132 (26.7%) 29 (23.8%) 21 (24.2%) 28 (20.4%) 13 (20.5%) 2,279,593Notes: 1. Interim Payment 2. Two projects were predominantly engineering, incorporating work with volunteer contributions


nomic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture, April, 2005

Eco

J. Sa

MUNICIPAL DRAIN MAINTENANCE STATISTICS IN ONTARIO FROM 1994/95 TO 2003/04

YEAR NO. OF PROJECTS TOTAL COST ($)

1994/95 2,317 6,451,525

1995/96 2,310 6,921,187

1996/97 *1,748 5,452,568

1997/98 *1,720 6,510,455

1998/99 *1,602 (paid) + 76 (unpaid) 6,981,867

1999/2000 1,467 6,157,225

2000/2001 1,559 6,925,512

2001/02 1462 7,353,666

2002/03 1612 8,137,735

2003/04 1517 8,029,105

dler Richards PhD PAg, Cordner Science 8

Table 1.4: Cost of maintenance per municipal drainage work, 1994/95 to 2003/04, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Vander

Veen 2002, 2004)

* Due to reduced municipal allocations, not all maintenance projects were reported.


which are guaranteed by the province under the Tile Drainage Act, ranged from a high of

$4.9 M in 2001/02 to a low of $3.9 M in 2003/04 (Table 1.1). Between 2001/02 and

2003/04 under the Drainage Act, provincial grants ranged from $2.5 to $2.9 M for outlet

drainage work, from $3.6 to $4.1 M for engineering services and from $2.8 to 3.4 M for

drainage superintendents (Vander Veen 2004). Since the 1980s, however, studies have

indicated that the impacts of agricultural land management in conjunction with drainage

systems are significant and, in many cases, detrimental to the health of aquatic

ecosystems (Rudy 2004; Skaggs et al. 1994a; Fleming 1990). This increased awareness

of the impacts of land management has caused concerns about many practices related to

agricultural drainage. For example, the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority

(ABCA) recently raised a question about the rate of enclosure of open drainage ditches

within agricultural watersheds in their Fish Habitat Plan (Veliz 2001):

Transformation from open, surface drains to closed, tiled drains is occurring in the ABCA jurisdiction. However, the extent to which this activity has occurred is unknown. Therefore, drain closures between 1975 and 1999 were examined in one sub-basin, the Nairn Creek sub-basin. The total length of open watercourses in 1975 was determined from the 1975 enlargements (1:5 000) of aerial photographs (1:20 000). The length of closed, tiled drains in 1999 was determined from the 1999 (1: 15 000) aerial photographs. (The length of the watercourse that no longer appeared was assumed to be the amount of the watercourses that was closed and tiled.) The amount of watercourse closed and tiled in 1999 is expressed as a per cent of the total length of open, surface drains (1975). The findings from this preliminary survey suggested that 14 % of open watercourses in this sub-basin had been transformed to closed, tiled drains.

The ABCA was interested in understanding if the enclosure of open drains could affect

the long-term health of aquatic ecosystems in agricultural landscapes and in what ways.

A literature review determined there was not enough scientific information available to

answer this question (Sadler Richards 2004). However, the review identified several

questions that should be considered. Also, the review provided an overview of the

functions of headwaters since many watercourses (including outlet drains) in agricultural

landscapes meet the definition of headwaters. The following statement suggests that



improving our understanding of the impacts of enclosure of open drains on the long-term

health of aquatic ecosystems in agricultural landscapes is important:

There is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life – and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation.

(Baron et al. 2002)

In the Handbook of Drainage Principles, Irwin (1997) made the connection between land

drainage and broader water management issues and strategies that focus on the quality,

quantity and use of water within a watershed (also called a catchment). Sellers (1993)

provided a simplified decision procedure as a recommended starting point for clarifying

the information needs related to making water management decisions, which, as

suggested by Irwin (1997), should include a land drainage component:

1. Determine study area’s water needs (quantity and quality), present and future

2. Identify all alternatives 3. Estimate all costs for each alternative considered 4. Eliminate alternatives based on costs, political, technological and other

reasons 5. Evaluate the environmental impacts of the remaining alternatives 6. Select the alternative that is most cost-effective on an economic and

environmental basis 7. Install monitoring procedures to insure that the alternative selected is

implemented correctly and that the results are as anticipated

1.4 PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND USE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The purpose of this work is to review available information and develop a searchable

database of references on the economic importance of drainage to agricultural production



in Ontario. Special emphasis was placed on information about the economic effects of

replacing open drains with enclosed tile.

The following objectives were identified:

1. To prepare a document that includes the following topics:

a) the economic benefits of agricultural drainage;

b) the reasons for enclosing drains;

c) the economic, environmental and societal impacts of enclosing drains, which

could be included in a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain

d) approaches or methods for evaluating the benefits and costs of enclosing open

drains

2. To prepare a database of information sources that could be used by various

stakeholders regarding the enclosure of open drains

It is anticipated that this document and related database will be used in several ways:

1. Stakeholders may use the review/database to obtain information to assist them in

developing a position statement related to multi-party discussions, applications,

negotiations or hearings on tile drainage or the enclosure of an open drain.

2. Economists, scientists and water managers may use the review/database to assist

in the development of a benefit-cost analysis of enclosing an open drain.

3. Economists, scientists and water managers may use the review/database to assist

in the development of a method for establishing when it is appropriate or not

appropriate to allow the enclosure of an open drain.

Complementary information also may be obtained from the companion document A

Review of the Enclosure of Watercourses in Agricultural Landscapes and River

Headwater Functions (Sadler Richards 2004).

2 METHODS

Terms of reference were provided as an initial guide for this work (Appendix 1). Further

direction for this review was provided by the Advisory Committee (Appendix 2), which

included:



Name Affiliation Phone Email

TomProut/Alec Scott Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA)

519 235 2610 [email protected]

Don Lobb Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario (LICO)


Jane Sadler Richards Cordner Science 519 293 1190 [email protected] McCallum LICO 519 527-1633 [email protected] Veliz ABCA 519 235 2610 [email protected]

Norm Smith Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) 519 383 1815 [email protected]

Pat Down Huron County Federation of Agriculture (HCFA) 519 235 2557 [email protected]

Bob Down Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition (HCFEC)


Sid Vander Veen Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF)


The committee agreed that a wide range of information sources beyond the scientific

literature would be required to satisfy the objectives of the work. These could include for

example non-government, government and extension documents and web pages, in

addition to personal communications with knowledgeable persons.

References for this literature review were obtained as follows:

1. Several sources were used to provide reference material including: committee

members/other contacts; university and organizational libraries; non government,

government and organizational documents and web sites; literature databases;

personal communications with knowledgeable persons.

2. A list of key words was developed by the author.

3. Key words were combined in a wide assortment of search strings using Boolean

logic.

4. Internet links were established with specific libraries and retrieved references were

entered into a database in Reference Manager® software.

5. The attrition of references during the review process was as follows:

Titles Reviewed ~4800

Titles/Abstracts Retrieved ~500


mailto:[email protected]



References Cited in Searchable Database 169

References Obtained ~115

References Cited in Report 80

Additional details are provided in Appendix 3.

3 TILE DRAINAGE

3.1 AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS

A significant amount of information indicating the net benefits of tile drainage on

agricultural lands was published during the 1970s and early 1980s (Jorjani 1982; Irwin

1981; Irwin 1979; Colwell 1978; Wendte et al. 1978; Neenan et al. 1978; Found et al.

1976; Fife & Bornstein 1973). Irwin (1981; Author’s note: publication date was

estimated since the document was undated) published a comprehensive report for Ontario

entitled On-Farm Drainage Benefit. The reader is advised to review this document for

detailed information and data related to the effect of tile drainage on soil, farm

management, crop yield, livestock farming, land use and land value (Irwin 1981). Irwin

(1981) divided the benefits of tile drainage into four categories. First, land use changes

may result from improved drainage. Land may be cultivated that previously was too wet

to work, which could allow the conversion of wooded or low areas to agricultural

production or the use of pasture or ‘wild’ land for crop production. Second, land may be

used more intensively due to increased crop yields, increased fertilizer use, improved

crop rotations and improved crop quality resulting from tile drainage. Third, production

costs may be reduced due to improved drainage. The time to cover the field is reduced

and may result in the use of smaller, energy efficient tractors. Tractors are stuck less in

wet spots in the field and there is less need for replanting crops, which also reduces the

use of commercial fertilizer. Finally, improved drainage allows the farmer to improve

resource allocation on his farm. By minimizing the number of wet areas or wet fields on

his farm, he has greater flexibility in crop placement amongst his fields and may even be

able to change his type of farming operation (Irwin 1981).



Jorjani (1982) reviewed the literature related to the general agricultural economic aspects

of tile drainage. He noted that the literature generally fell within one of two categories.

The first category included references that indicated the general benefits that farmers

experienced when using tile drainage systems during crop production. The second

category included references that analyzed the benefit-cost relationships of tile drainage

(Jorjani 1982). In summary, Jorjani (1982) noted from his review of the literature the

following list of major benefits: improved crop yield; ability to adopt higher value crops;

timeliness of planting and harvesting; and land improvement. Although tile drainage does

benefit crop production, it is important to know whether the benefits obtained within a

given field are greater than the cost of installing the tile drainage system under the

specified conditions. Jorjani (1982) concluded that in most of the cases he reviewed, the

benefits of tile drainage were far greater that the costs.

In his own work, Jorjani (1982) conducted a microanalysis of the economic feasibility of

tile drainage based on the profitability of tile drainage at the farm level. He noted that a

macroanalysis would be required if all economic benefits derived by the farmer and

society were included in a study. Jorjani (1982) concluded that, based on the data

available to him, an investment in tile drainage by a farmer was viable over a 40 year

period. The inclusion of tax savings, however, increased the internal rates of return for

farmers and effectively shortened the length of time over which a tile drainage

investment was viable. The rates of return were greater for those farmers with higher

taxable incomes.

A survey to determine the benefits of drainage as expressed by landowners was

conducted in 1974 in Ontario (Irwin 1979). A sample of 100 farms was randomly

selected from the list of drainage plan surveys conducted in 1968 in Ontario and held in

government archives. It was assumed that a lapse of approximately eight years between

the installation of the drainage system and the survey would allow the farmer enough

time to comment on his experiences before and after the drainage system was installed in

his field(s). Eighty-one farmers responded to the survey with the following results:



Factor Reported Outcome (% of Respondents)

Before Drainage After Drainage Flooding incidence 84 10 Seeding delays 99 10 Harvest difficulties or losses 64 4 Yield increase 90 Changed cropping patterns 60 Satisfied with investment 94

(Irwin 1979).

Additional references, which include specific information along with tables and figures

showing data, are listed in the searchable database that accompanies this document.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Environmental issues related to tile drainage were summarized by Sadler Richards (2004)

from the findings of three reviews of this topic:

At least three reviews of the impacts of agricultural drainage were published

during the last decade (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming 2001; Skaggs et al. 1994a).

Skaggs et al. (1994) determined that agricultural drainage can impact receiving

waters, first, when lands are converted to agricultural production and, second,

when drainage systems on existing agricultural lands are improved, generally by

increasing the intensity of the subsurface components of the drainage systems.

These workers noted that it was difficult to separate the environmental impacts of

changes in land use from changes due to natural vs. artificial drainage. Their

review showed that the conversion of natural landscapes to agricultural

production generally increased peak runoff rates, sediment losses and nutrient

losses, although exceptions occurred. Conversion to agricultural production was

often criticized for causing loss of and negative impacts on wildlife habitats along

with declines in the natural ability of the landscape to filter or cleanse water

(Skaggs et al. 1994). In contrast, improved subsurface drainage in agricultural

landscapes generally decreased peak outflow rate and sediment loss. The loss of

some pollutants increased (e.g. nitrates and soluble salts) while the loss of others



decreased (e.g. phosphorus and organic-nitrogen) (Skaggs et al. 1994). Exceptions

to these findings occurred in the literature.

Fraser and Fleming (2001) also concluded from their review of the environmental

benefits of tile drainage (i.e. focused on in-field systems) that peak flow volumes

were decreased in watercourses associated with artificially drained land, that total

runoff of water was spread out more over time and that surface runoff may be

reduced. However, the volume of annual total runoff was greater in watersheds

with tile drainage than in watersheds with only surface drainage systems. In

agricultural landscapes, the presence of tile drainage generally decreased surface

soil erosion, which decreased the load of sediment, some nutrients (e.g.

phosphorus, potassium) and some pesticides (e.g. atrazine) entering nearby

watercourses (Fraser & Fleming 2001). This review of the literature showed that,

similar to the findings reported earlier by Skaggs et al. (1994), nitrate-nitrogen

losses from tile drained fields tended to be greater compared to non tile drained

fields (Fraser & Fleming 2001).

A review of positive and negative environmental impacts related to agricultural

drains was provided recently by Rudy (2004). Many findings were similar to

Skaggs et al. (1994) and Fraser and Fleming (2001) and are not repeated here. As

described by Skaggs et al. (1994), improved subsurface drainage occurs on a

regular basis within agricultural landscapes. Rudy (2004) noted that in some

circumstances agricultural drainage will increase, not decrease, peak flows. For

example, increasing the frequency of subsurface tile drains within a field, e.g.

from 60 ft to 30 ft spacing, increased total water flow by 50%. Enlarging,

straightening and cleaning debris from surface channels (i.e. open drains or

channelized streams) also increased the peak flow by 100-200% at the watershed

outlet. However, the literature reviewed by Rudy (2004) showed that subsurface

drainage systems had no effect on volume of water flowing downstream. This was

attributed to the increased water storage capacity of land with subsurface drainage

systems, which spreads out the effects of peak flows from storms.



Additional references, which include specific information along with tables and figures

showing data, are listed in the searchable database that accompanies this document.

4 OUTLET DRAINAGE AND THE ENCLOSURE OF

OPEN DRAINS

4.1 REASONS FOR ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS

In Ontario, new municipal drains may be designed as open or enclosed ditches. However,

municipal drains that include open drains may be enclosed some time after construction

when the drain is reviewed in response to a private landowner petition for maintenance or

upgrading to accommodate additional water. The petition triggers a well-defined process,

coordinated by the municipality, for determining the agricultural need and specifications

for the work, in addition to whether the work complies with existing environmental

regulations and policies (Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004b). Stakeholders,

including landowners, municipal council, an engineer appointed by the municipal

council, OMAF, the local conservation authority and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, may

or may not agree with the need or advisability of the requested work.

Specifically, enclosure of an open drain may be requested by the person who initiated the

petition for work, by a landowner who, having received notification of a petition, may

decide that this would be an appropriate time to request enclosure, or by the engineer

developing the work plan. In all cases, the person requesting or suggesting the enclosure

generally does so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Similar construction costs between open and enclosed structures, depending on

the needs of the site;

2. Increased field efficiency with fewer headlands and decreased overlap of field

operations such as tilling, planting, spraying, and harvesting, which all lead to less

soil compaction;

3. Increased land value;



4. Less intensive maintenance requirements after construction of the enclosed drain

plus the installation of a grassed waterway over the enclosed drain could produce

a potential hay crop and/or provide habitat for birds and small mammals;

5. Removal of the need for regulatory compliance with specified setbacks and

buffers adjacent to open surface water and/or mitigation against future changes in

regulatory policies;

6. Improved safety by removing the hazard of tractor rollover, which may occur if

the operator comes too close to an open ditch; and

7. Control of soil erosion from ditch banks and overland flow.

(Drain Economics Advisory Committee 2004)

More information on each of the above is provided in section 4.2.

The literature search identified one reference from 20 years ago that discussed the

reasons for enclosing open drains. In 1985, a discussion on Tile Drain vs Open Ditch

during a workshop at the Ontario Drainage Engineers Conference was reported in the

conference proceedings (Spriet 1985). The main question was, “How does the engineer

determine whether a drain should be a tile or open drain?” It was not clear whether the

discussion focused on the design of new municipal drains or the review of existing drains

in response to a petition for maintenance and/or upgrading of a drain. Items 1, 2, 4, 6 and

7 from above were discussed during the workshop. Additional comments included:

• What is the cost-benefit ratio before and after government grant? Construction may

be based on what the farmer can afford and the farmer decides on the benefits. If a

well-constructed open drain is made, with conservation measures in place, then the

cost will approach that of a buried tile.

• The landowner can influence the design especially with regard to costs. If the

landowner wants it enclosed, the feeling was that the landowner should pay for most

of the extra cost.

• Open drains mean there is a loss of land for the actual drain and decreased

productivity where the spoil is deposited along the bank.



• There are not many benefits [to a farmer] to having an open ditch except that the ditch

does carry a lot of water. Also, an open ditch may be useful in intercepting water

from nearby areas e.g. a woodlot.

• The drainage report should explain why a drain is open or closed. In the end, the

engineer decides if a drain can be properly designed as either open or closed.

(Spriet 1985)

4.2 IMPACTS OF ENCLOSING OPEN DRAINS

The enclosure of open drains may have impacts that occur across a range of spatial scales

(i.e. from microscopic levels to large areas of land) and temporal scales (i.e. a few

seconds or minutes to thousands of years). Impacts may be categorized as economic,

environmental and/or social, which are the three basic ideals in the concept of

sustainability. However, for the purposes of this report, impacts were divided into two

sub sections representing the dual interests of maintaining viable food production and

ecosystem health. The impacts discussed in the following sections may be included in an

analysis of benefits and costs related to the enclosure of an open drain. However, the

information on its own does not represent a benefit-cost analysis.

4.2.1 AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND VALUE

4.2.1.1 Construction practices

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on construction practices?

The enclosure of an open drain requires the construction of a system of properly sized,

buried pipe along with a grassed waterway on the soil surface above the pipe, which

includes different tasks than those used to maintain or improve an open drain. Under the

Drainage Act, enclosure of an open drain requires an engineer’s report in addition to

construction materials, equipment and labour that are provided by a licensed contractor.

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on construction practices?

The costs associated with the enclosure of an open drain vary depending on the

specifications of the project. Three examples of construction practices related to the

enclosure of an open drain in Huron County, Ontario (e.g. Miller-Alton Municipal Drain,



2001; Drain “B” of the Pepper Municipal Drain, 2002; “A” Drain of the Canada

Company Municipal Drain, 2003) were identified from provincial government files

(Table 4.1; Appendix 4) (W.E.Kelley and Associates Limited 2003; W.E.Kelley and

Associates Limited 2002; Maitland Engineering 2001). For these three examples from

Huron County, the cost of enclosure ranged from $97/m to $114/m of linear drain,

whereas in two of the examples, the cost of maintenance and/or upgrading work on an

existing open drain ranged from approximately $25/m to $85/m of linear drain (Table

4.1).

Table 4.1: Specifications and cost of work for three examples of drainage projects where an open ditch was enclosed in Huron County, Ontario

Drain Miller-Alton

Municipal Drain 2001

Drain “B”, Pepper Municipal Drain

2002

“A” Drain of the Canada Company Municipal Drain

2003 Area assessed (ha) 240 110 85 Open (m) 653 0 279 Closed (m) 1260 342 303 Total (m) 1913 342 582

Work Construction $97,397 $26,970 $26,070 Allowances $16,010 $2,520 $2,580 Engineering $53,163 $8,500 $8,700 Bridges, Culverts $ - $ - $ - Interest Charges $6,641 $ - $342 Other Costs $4,452 $1,064 $1,243

Actual Total Cost ($) $177,663 $39,054 $38,935 Estimated Total Cost * ($) $151,000 $39,000 $41,000

Cost per m of Ditch $/m for open ditch maintenance and/or upgrading

$85/m** Not applicable ~ $25/m***

$/m for open ditch enclosure $97/m $114/m ~$112/m

Cost Allocation Private landowners $125,609 (71%) $27,640 (71%) $26,215 (67%) Society per government grant $52,054 (29%) $11,410 (29%) $12,720 (33%)

* Details of cost estimate in Appendix 4 ** Clean out, new construction, fill old ditch *** Ditch bottom clean out only

What factors and data sources related to construction practices could be considered

during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?



The Advisory Committee agreed with the following list of example factors and data

sources (Table 4.2) in response to the above question.

Table 4.2: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with construction practices related to enclosing an open drain

Factors Data Sources Use of government services, infrastructure and grant or loan programs to initiate and implement the construction phase of drain enclosure

OMAF or municipality files regarding administration of the Drainage Act

Purchase of goods and services required to enclose the drain i.e. materials, equipment, labour

Engineer reports as required under the Drainage Act

Change in the potential for soil erosion on adjacent fields and stream banks, and sedimentation in the watercourse during the construction phase

On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature and project database

Change in terrestrial and aquatic habitats and food webs during the construction phase

On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature

4.2.1.2 Field Efficiency And Overlap Of Field Operations

What impacts does the enclosure of an open drain have on field efficiency and the

overlap of field operations?

When producing crops, it is important to maximize the efficiency of operations (e.g.

tillage, planting, spraying, harvesting) in the field. Small, irregularly shaped fields require

more time per acre to work and often result in areas of the field receiving twice the

planned inputs due to overlap of operations (Schoney 1988; Buckingham 1984). For

example, the diagram of proposed work for Drain “B” Pepper Municipal Drain 2002

(Appendix 4) shows a rectangular field where one corner of the field was previously cut

off from the rest of the field by the existence of an open drain (i.e. Drain “B”) that farm

machinery could not travel across. This effectively created two irregularly shaped fields,

one large and one small, which required more working time per acre than one regular,

rectangular shaped field (Buckingham 1984).

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on field efficiency and the

overlap of field operations?



Field efficiency (%) is determined by comparing effective field capacity (the actual

amount of work done in the field) with theoretical field capacity (the amount of work that

would have been done if no time was lost) (Buckingham 1984). Factors that cause time to

be lost and therefore affect field efficiency include machine capacity and performance,

operating speed, and time spent in operation (Buckingham 1984).

When a portion of a field is cut off or truncated from the remainder of the field or farm

by an open drain or, as in many cases, a new highway, there is often an economic impact

associated with the change. Economic losses can be divided into direct costs due to the

detachment of the land from the rest of the farm and indirect costs due to the changes in

how the rest of the farm is managed (Schoney 1988). In general, direct costs include

reduced field efficiency and increased variable costs due to the overlap of field operations

(Schoney 1988). Field efficiency is affected when field size and shape are decreased,

which affects machinery performance due to extra turning time, loss of time in overtaking

a field run, extra time and costs incurred in finishing out a field and, finally, added time

from making left hand turns in acute corners and picking up the field run (Schoney 1988;

Buckingham 1984; Breece et al. 1975). Increased overlap of field operations results in

areas of the field being covered twice or more during tillage or with inputs such as seed,

fertilizer and pesticides. Increased traffic also may lead to increased soil compaction

(Gasser et al. 1993). Indirect costs are attributed mainly to increased travel time to access

the parcel of land that has been cut off. These costs are associated with each field

operation, for example, tillage, seeding and harvest. When timeliness is important, as it is

at seeding time, there is an extra cost associated with travel time delays in accessing

fields (Schoney 1988). Schoney (1998) provided example calculations of direct and

indirect financial losses per acre given several different time frames.

In the Pepper Drain example discussed earlier in this section, a grassed waterway

constructed above the enclosed tile drain would allow equipment to cross easily (Gasser

et al. 1993) and would thus join the two fields together so that the land could be managed

more efficiently as one unit.



What factors and data sources related to field efficiency and overlap of field operations

could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?



Table 4.3: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in field efficiency and overlap of field operations related to enclosing an open drain

Factors Data Sources

Field efficiency (Schoney 1988) for formulas, see project database On-site survey and farm machinery handbooks to fill in variables

Overlap of operations On-site survey and farm machinery handbooks to fill in variables

Soil compaction On-site survey Scientific literature

Inputs e.g. fuel, fertilizers, pesticides

On-site info, Ont. pubs and farm machinery handbooks to fill in variables

Producer stress On-site survey and analysis

4.2.1.3 Government Resources

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on government resources?

A request to enclose an open drain requires government involvement in the process and

thus usees government resources. The Drainage Act and the Tile Drainage Act require

input, to varying degrees, from representatives at the municipal, provincial and federal

levels of government (Vander Veen 2001; Evanitski 2000; Irwin 1989). Although the

provincial drainage program associated with these acts changed significantly in 2004,

grants and loans, along with related government services are still available (Ontario

Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004a). (Also, see section 4.2.2.1.)

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on government resources?

No references were identified that addressed how the enclosure of open drains affects the

provision of government programs and services.



What factors and data sources related to government resources could be considered




Table 4.4: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with government programs and services related to enclosing an open drain


Provision of government services Case study analysis Government program evaluation

Provision of government grants and loans

Case study analysis Government program evaluation

4.2.1.4 Land Value

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on agricultural land value?

Land values are often similarly assigned to open ditch areas and woodlot areas when

appraisals are completed on farmland in southwestern Ontario (Charlton 2004). The

appraised land value of a previously open ditch area could increase markedly if the open

drainage ditch is enclosed. Cultivated land values are traditionally assigned to grassed

waterway areas, regardless of whether the grassed waterway covers an enclosed

municipal drain or a private tile (Charlton 2004). This assignment of value is not

necessarily transferable onto large areas of lowlands or flood land areas. These grassed

waterways are very important in lessening the effect of soil erosion through water run-

off. Additionally, the functional use of the field increases as a whole since field tillage

and harvesting equipment can now move more easily from one area to another within the

farm enterprise. Landowners should seek advisement from their local municipal drainage

official in regard to enclosing open drainage ditching. Through this partnership, all the

options available to the landowner will be explored (Charlton 2004).

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on agricultural land value?

No references were identified that addressed how the presence of an enclosed drain

affects the land value of a farm. However, to obtain information on the current value of



agricultural land in a specific area and most locations in Canada, visit the Farm Credit

Corporation (FCC) website <http://www.fcc-fac.ca/>, choose ‘Online Services’ and then

choose ‘Farmland Values Online’. If more information is necessary, contact local lending

institutions that carry agricultural accounts.

What factors and data sources related to land value could be considered during a benefit-

cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?



Table 4.5: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with changes in land value related to enclosing an open drain


Area of affected land

On-site survey and analysis Case study analysis Farm Credit Corporation (FCC) website <http://www.fcc-fac.ca/>

Location of property

On-site survey and analysis Case study analysis Farm Credit Corporation (FCC) website <http://www.fcc-fac.ca/>

Producer satisfaction On-site survey and analysis

4.2.1.5 Maintenance Practices

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on maintenance practices on a

drain?

Maintenance practices differ between open and enclosed drains. An open drain requires

maintenance on a periodic basis to ensure that it continues to efficiently remove water

from surrounding land (Evanitski 2000). Maintenance practices include the removal of

sediment, plants, shrubs and other vegetation from the ditch. Also, it may include

increasing the width and depth of the drain (Evanitski 2000). The spoiled material that is

removed from the open drain may be placed on the bank of the open drain or hauled

away to another location. Under the Drainage Act, drain maintenance involves all

stakeholders including the municipality, engineer, contractor, landowners, conservation


http://www.fcc-fac.ca/




authority and possibly Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Evanitski 2000; Thames River

Implementation Committee 1982). A grassed waterway established over an enclosed

drain, however, requires a maintenance program that focuses on the vegetation in the

waterway. Activities include, for example, reseeding bare or eroded spots, prevention of

livestock grazing and avoidance of regular vehicle traffic in the waterway (Stone 1994).

The grass in the waterway should be cut two or three times during the growing season to

thicken the sod which helps to maintain the integrity of the waterway (Stone 1994). The

cut grass may be harvested for hay depending on the needs of the landowner or the

presence of a local market (Stone 1994).

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on maintenance practices on

the drain?

No references were identified that addressed in detail how the enclosure of an open drain

would affect the maintenance practices for an outlet drain. However, information on

related costs is available. In the example “A” Drain of the Canada Company Municipal

Drain 2003 (Table 4.1; Appendix 4) the cost of removing material from the bottom of the

drain was approximately $25/m of linear drain. A more extensive maintenance and

upgrading work plan on the Miller-Alton Municipal Drain 2001, which included cleaning

a portion of the drain along with filling in and relocating a portion of the drain, cost

approximately $85/m of linear drain (Table 4.1; Appendix 4). Alternatively, the key

maintenance practice for maintaining a grassed waterway is mowing two or three times

per year. The custom rate for stalk chopping, which uses machinery similar to that used

for mowing, was approximately $10/ac in a survey area that included Huron County in

2003 (Fletcher 2004).

What factors and data sources related to maintenance practices for outlet drains could be

considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?





Table 4.6: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with maintenance related to enclosing an open drain


Time and labour OMAF drainage project files Custom rates for harvesting forage

Equipment use OMAF drainage project files Custom rates for harvesting forage

Outcome comparison: hay crop vs. spoil material from ditch bottom On-site survey and analysis

Terrestrial and aquatic habitats Scientific literature and project database Terrestrial and aquatic populations Scientific literature and project database

4.2.1.6 Regulatory Compliance And Mitigation Against Future Changes In Attitudes,

Policies And Regulations

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on regulatory compliance and

mitigation practices by agricultural landowners?

Government regulations restrict the application of farm inputs (e.g. fertilizer and

pesticides) near surface water. Under the Ontario Nutrient Management Act, open ditches

represent artificial channels that may carry water continuously or intermittently during

the year (Text Box 4.1). This means that farm managers must take extra care to ensure

that farm management practices near surface water comply with regulations. Under the

Ontario Nutrient Management Act, water flowing over a grassed waterway, however, is

not considered surface water (Text Box 4.1). When a grassed waterway is constructed

over an enclosed drain, the regulatory requirements of the Nutrient Management Act do

not apply and farm managers do not have to allocate resources to ensure regulatory

compliance.

In Canada, persons applying pesticides are required to follow label instructions for each

pesticide product. Requirements for buffer zones or setbacks between areas where

pesticide products are applied and surface waters are clearly stated (Text Boxes 4.2 and

4.3). When an open drain is enclosed, these requirements do not apply and farm

managers do not have to allocate resources to ensure regulatory compliance.



Text Box 4.1: Definition of surface water, and requirements regarding buffer zones and depth to groundwater,

Ontario Nutrient Management Act, 2002

Nutrient Management Act, 2002 ONTARIO REGULATION 267/03

Amended to O. Reg. 294/04

Definitions and general Surface water 2. (1) In this Regulation, "surface water" means, subject to subsection (2), (a) a natural or artificial channel that carries water continuously throughout the year, or intermittently, and does not have established vegetation within the bed of the channel except vegetation dominated by plant communities that require or prefer the continuous presence of water or continuously saturated soil for their survival, (b) a lake, reservoir, pond or sinkhole, or (c) a wetland, such as a swamp, marsh, bog or fen, but not land that is being used for agricultural purposes that no longer exhibits wetland characteristics, if the wetland, (i) is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has the water close to the surface of the ground, and (ii) has hydric soils and vegetation dominated by hydrophytic or water-tolerant plants. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 2 (1); O. Reg. 447/03, s. 2 (1). (2) The following are not surface water for the purposes of this Regulation: 1. Grassed waterways. 2. Temporary channels for surface drainage, such as furrows or shallow channels that can be tilled and driven through. 3. Rock chutes and spillways. 4. Roadside ditches that do not contain a continuous or intermittent stream. 5. Temporarily ponded areas that are normally farmed. 6. Artificial bodies of water intended for the storage, treatment or recirculation of runoff from farm-animal yards, manure storage facilities and sites and outdoor confinement areas. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 2 (2); O. Reg. 447/03, s. 2 (2). And;

Adjacent Surface Water Requirement for vegetated buffer zone 44. (1) No person shall apply nutrients to a field that contains or is adjacent to surface water unless there is a vegetated buffer zone in the field that is adjacent to the surface water and that lies between the surface water and where the nutrients are applied. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (1). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the application of nutrients to a field that is composed of organic soils. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (2). (3) No person shall apply nutrients within the vegetated buffer zone except for an amount of commercial fertilizer that is reasonable to establish or maintain the vegetation of the buffer zone. O. Reg. 447/03, s. 21. (3.1) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person shall be deemed to apply commercial fertilizer to establish or maintain the vegetation of a vegetated buffer zone if the person applies the fertilizer, (a) in accordance with a determination, made using the Sampling and Analysis Protocol, of the concentration in the soil of the vegetated buffer zone for each of the following parameters: available phosphorus, available potassium and soil pH; (b) in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as set out in the computer program described in clause (a) of the definition of "NMAN" in subsection 1 (1); and (c) in a manner so that the agronomic balance does not exceed zero. O. Reg. 447/03, s. 21. (4) No person shall apply materials containing nitrogen and phosphorous to any part of the field, whether or not within the vegetated buffer zone, that is within 13 metres from the top of the nearest bank of the surface water. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (4). (5) Despite subsection (4), a person may apply commercial fertilizers or agricultural source material within the 13 metres from the top of the nearest bank of the surface water if the application is done in accordance with this Regulation and is done, (a) by injection or placement in a band below the soil surface; (b) so that the materials applied are incorporated within 24 hours of application; (c) to land covered with a living crop; or (d) to land with crop residue covering at least 30 per cent of the soil, as determined in accordance with the Nutrient Management Protocol. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 44 (5). Application of non-agricultural source materials 45. Despite section 40, whether or not this Regulation requires an operation to have a nutrient management plan, no person shall apply non-agricultural source materials to a field that contains or is adjacent to surface water, if the application is closer than 20 metres from the top of the nearest bank of the surface water. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 45. Minimum depth to groundwater 46. No person shall apply prescribed materials to land unless there is at least 30 centimetres of unsaturated soil condition at the surface of the land at the time of application. O. Reg. 267/03, s. 46.

(Government of Ontario 2002)



Text Box 4.2: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Aatrex® Nine-0®

For Aatrex® Nine-0® (Guarantee: Atrazine 88.2%, Related triazines 1.8%) AAtrex® Nine-0® herbicide provides selective control of broadleaf weeds and wild oats in corn and certain broadleaf weeds in blueberries. Label directions related to buffer zones: This product should not be mixed/loaded within 30 meters of any wells, lakes, streams, ponds or sink holes in order to avoid the potential of well or surface water contamination. Do not use this product within 10 meters of the above mentioned water sources. Avoid contamination of food and feed, domestic or irrigation water supplies, lakes, streams and ponds.

(Syngenta Crop Protection Canada 2004)

Text Box 4.3: Specifications regarding buffer zones and the use of Ultim®

For Ultim® (Guarantee: Rimsulfuron 12.5%, Nicosulfuron 12.5%) ULTIM® Herbicide is a dry flowable granular formulation to be mixed in water and applied post-emergence to field corn in Eastern Canada for control of quackgrass, annual grasses, and redroot pigweed. Label directions related to buffer zones: Overspray or drift to important wildlife habitats such as ponds, wetlands, streams, woodlots and shelterbelts should be avoided. Leave a 10 metre buffer zone between the last spray swath and bodies of water or wetlands. Leave a 5 metre buffer zone between the last spray swath and the terrestrial habitats listed above.

(Dupont Canada Inc. 2004)

Although no supporting documents were identified, uncertainty about future changes in

attitudes, policies and regulations will cause stakeholders to take actions that may offset

or diminish the impacts of potential changes. These actions, whether justified or not over

time, divert resources that could be used elsewhere. For example, if agricultural

landowners believe that the enclosure of open drains may not be allowed in the future,

they may allocate resources to deal with this concern before attitudes, policies and

regulations change significantly.

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on regulatory compliance

and mitigation practices by agricultural producers?

A recent study by the George Morris Centre (GMC) identified the financial costs of

compliance with the Ontario Nutrient Management Act. The resulting report was not

available at the time of publication of this document. It is anticipated, however, that the

GMC report will include the cost of maintaining adequate buffers along open drains.

What factors and data sources related to regulatory compliance and mitigation practices

could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?





Table 4.7: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with regulatory compliance and mitigation practices related to enclosing an open drain


Record management as evidence of due diligence

On-site survey and analysis Unpublished report by George Morris Centre (GMC), Guelph, ON Contact Cher Brethour, (519) 822-3929 *

Set aside of productive land for setbacks and buffers See GMC report

Alternative management needs per buffer adjacent to open drain and grassed waterway above enclosed drain

OMAF drainage project files Custom rates for harvesting forage or mowing

Potential penalties for non compliance Federal/provincial legislation and regulations

Off-site movement of nutrients, pesticides and soil

On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature and project database

Producer stress On-site survey and analysis * At the time of publication of this document, release of a report prepared by the George Morris Centre in 2004 on the farm financial impacts of Ontario’s nutrient management legislation was pending.

4.2.1.7 Safety

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on farm safety?

Fatalities due to tractor rollovers into open ditches have occurred on farms in Ontario

(Zronick 2004). Although published statistics do not indicate the reasons for tractor

rollovers, Zronick (2004) estimated that 10 fatalities have occurred in the last 20 years

due to this on-farm hazard. Also, it should be noted that only fatalities are reported to the

Ontario Farm Safety Association, while related near misses and incidents are not reported

(Zronick 2004). Traveling too close to an open drain with unstable and undercut banks

was identified in the early 1980s as a hazard that could result in machinery overturns and

possible injury (Thames River Implementation Committee 1982).

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on farm safety?



No references were identified that addressed in detail how the enclosure of an open drain

would affect farm safety. However, information indicating that significant costs are

related to farm safety in general is available. The Canada Safety Council reported that

every year approximately 130 farm-related deaths occur in Canada. Each year

approximately 1,200 people are hospitalized and 50,000 people seek medical attention or

lose time at work due to farm-related injuries (Canada Safety Council 2002). In the

United States, the National Safety Council estimated, based on 1994 data, that farm

work-related deaths cost $858 M US and non-fatal disabling farm work injuries cost

approximately $3.5 B US per year. This was averaged out at approximately $2 K US per

farm in 1994 (Shutske 1995). Farm fatalities continue on an annual basis. In 2003 in the

United States, the combined occupations of farming, fishing, and forestry had the highest

rate of fatalities (27.9 fatalities per 100,000 workers) followed by transportation and

material moving occupations (16.9 per 100,000) and construction and extraction

occupations (12.7 per 100,000) (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004).

What factors and data sources related to farm safety could be considered during a benefit-




Table 4.8: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with farm safety concerns related to enclosing an open drain


Labour and equipment

On-site survey and analysis Farm safety associations/Statistics Canada www.statcan.ca

Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada www.awcbc.org

Scientific literature and project database

Producer trauma and death

On-site survey and analysis Farm safety associations/Statistics Canada www.statcan.ca

Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada www.awcbc.org

Scientific literature and project database



4.2.1.8 Soil Erosion Control

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on soil erosion control?

A search for references related to the enclosure of open drains and soil erosion in

agricultural landscapes did not yield any relevant documents. Example documents on best

management practices for controlling soil erosion adjacent to drains or for controlling

bank erosion in open drains and sedimentation during construction or maintenance of

open drains were identified (Rudy 2004; Evanitski 2000; Dorner 2000; Dissart 1998;

Maaskant et al. 1994; Thames River Implementation Committee 1982).

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on soil erosion control?

A search for references related to the enclosure of open drains and soil erosion in

agricultural landscapes did not yield any relevant documents. Example documents that

include information on the economics of best management practices for controlling soil

erosion adjacent to drains or for controlling bank erosion in open drains were identified

(Colombo et al. 2003; Dissart 1998; Thames River Implementation Committee 1982)

What factors and data sources related to soil erosion control could be considered during a

benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of an open drain?



Table 4.9: Examples of factors and data sources that could be included in an analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs associated with soil erosion control related to enclosing an open drain


Soil productivity On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature and project database

Rate of erosion and sedimentation On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature

Producer stress/satisfaction On-site survey and analysis Scientific literature



4.2.2 NATURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND VALUE

4.2.2.1 Government Resources

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on government resources?

A request to enclose an open drain would require government involvement in the process

and thus would use government resources. The Drainage Act and the Tile Drainage Act

require input, to varying degrees, from representatives at the municipal, provincial and

federal levels of government (Vander Veen 2001; Evanitski 2000; Irwin 1989). Although

the provincial drainage program associated with these acts changed significantly in 2004,

grants and loans, along with related government services are still available (Ontario

Ministry Agriculture and Food 2004a).

Any proposed work on an existing open municipal drain, including enclosure, must be

reviewed by the local conservation authority. The conservation authority (or Ministry of

Natural Resources in the absence of a local conservation authority) determines the

importance of the drain as fish habitat based on the Drain Review Protocol developed by

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Smith 2002; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1998; Fisheries

and Oceans Canada 1986). If the municipal drain is deemed important, then further

discussions are required, which would necessitate the allocation of additional government

resources to follow through on the request.

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on government resources?


provision of government programs and services.

What factors and data sources related to government resources could be considered


See section 4.2.1.3 for details.

4.2.2.2 Headwater Function - Habitat and Food Web

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on the habitat and food web

function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes?



The impact of enclosure of an open drain on the habitat and food web function of

headwaters in agricultural landscapes, as indicated by two factors including biological

diversity and food supply/organic matter cycling, is not known (Sadler Richards 2004).

Several research questions were identified by Sadler Richards (2004) in an effort to focus

attention on this gap in the literature. Although references specifically related to the

enclosure of open drains were not identified, there are significant bodies of literature

related to the impact of land use (e.g. forest, wetland, agriculture, urban) on headwater

functions (Center for Watershed Protection 2003; Meyer et al. 2003; Sponseller et al.

2001; Allan et al. 1997) and the impact of agricultural land management in conjunction

with land drainage systems on water quality and quantity (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming

2001; Skaggs et al. 1994). This information could be used to assist in the development of

hypotheses and appropriate research study designs.

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on the habitat and food web

function of headwaters?

A wide search for any references, including economic impacts, related to the enclosure of

open drains and the habitat and food web function of headwaters in agricultural

landscapes did not yield any relevant documents (Sadler Richards 2004).

What factors and data sources related to the habitat and food web function of headwaters

in agricultural landscapes could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the

enclosure of an open drain?

Identification of the environmental impacts of enclosing open drains should assist in the

identification of the economic impacts of enclosure. This information could be used to

help develop a list of factors and data sources that could be considered during a benefit-

cost analysis. However, many environmental goods and services do not have a market

value. Section 4.3 includes information on the valuation of non-market goods and

services.



4.2.2.3 Headwater Function - Hydrologic

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on the hydrologic function of

headwaters in agricultural landscapes?

The impact of enclosure of an open drain on the hydrologic function of headwaters in

agricultural landscapes, as indicated by three factors including flood control, sediment

management and water supply, is not known (Sadler Richards 2004). Several research

questions were identified by Sadler Richards (2004) in an effort to focus attention on this

gap in the literature. Although references specifically related to the enclosure of open

drains were not identified, there are significant bodies of literature related to the impact

of land use (e.g. forest, wetland, agriculture, urban) on headwater functions (Center for

Watershed Protection 2003; Meyer et al. 2003; Sponseller et al. 2001; Allan et al. 1997)

and the impact of agricultural land management in conjunction with land drainage

systems on water quality and quantity (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming 2001; Skaggs et al.

1994). This information could be used to assist in the development of hypotheses and

appropriate research study designs.

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on the hydrologic function of

headwaters?


open drains and the hydrologic function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes did not

yield any relevant documents (Sadler Richards 2004).

What factors and data sources related to the hydrologic function of headwaters in

agricultural landscapes could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the







services.



4.2.2.4 Land Value

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on agricultural land value?

Land values are often similarly assigned to open ditch areas and woodlot areas when

appraisals are completed on farmland in southwestern Ontario (Charlton 2004). The

appraised land value of a previously open ditch area could increase markedly if the open

drainage ditch is enclosed (Charlton 2004). See section 4.2.1.4 for more details.

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on agricultural land value?


land value of a farm. However, to obtain information on the current value of agricultural

land in a specific area and most locations in Canada, visit the Farm Credit Corporation

(FCC) website <http://www.fcc-fac.ca/>, choose ‘Online Services’ and then choose

‘Farmland Values Online’. If more information is necessary, contact local lending

institutions that carry agricultural accounts.

What factors and data sources related to land value could be considered during a benefit-


See section 4.2.1.4 for details.

4.2.2.5 Headwater Function - Physico-Chemical

What impact does the enclosure of an open drain have on the physico-chemical function

of headwaters in agricultural landscapes?

The impact of enclosure of an open drain on the physico-chemical function of headwaters

in agricultural landscapes, as indicated by two factors including nutrient cycling and the

physical condition of the watercourse, is not known (Sadler Richards 2004). Several

research questions were identified by Sadler Richards (2004) in an effort to focus

attention on this gap in the literature. Although references specifically related to the

enclosure of open drains were not identified, there are significant bodies of literature

related to the impact of land use (e.g. forest, wetland, agriculture, urban) on headwater

functions (Center for Watershed Protection 2003; Meyer et al. 2003; Sponseller et al.

2001; Allan et al. 1997) and the impact of agricultural land management in conjunction




with land drainage systems on water quality and quantity (Rudy 2004; Fraser & Fleming

2001; Skaggs et al. 1994). This information could be used to assist in the development of

hypotheses and appropriate research study designs.

What do we know about the economic impacts of enclosure on the physico-chemical

function of headwaters?


open drains and the physico-chemical function of headwaters in agricultural landscapes

did not yield any relevant documents (Sadler Richards 2004).

What factors and data sources related to the physico-chemical function of headwaters in

agricultural landscapes could be considered during a benefit-cost analysis of the







services.

4.3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

The net benefits and net costs due to the impacts of enclosing open drains may be

reported from two different perspectives. First, private benefits and costs may accrue to

the individual stakeholder, which is generally the landowner. Second, social benefits and

costs may accrue to society, i.e. the larger population, which may be represented by the

government (van Vuuren & Roy 1993; McCaw 1984). Jorjani (1982) referred to these

two different perspectives using an analytical definition. Microanalysis focuses on private

landowner interests whereas macroanalysis includes societal interests.

The traditional economic approach to benefit-cost analysis focuses on those goods and

services where a market value can be determined. Environmental benefits and costs,



however, result from goods and services that are not sold in conventional markets

(Crutchfield et al. 1995). There are several techniques available to help place a ‘value’ on

non-market goods and services (Olewiler 2004; Crutchfield et al. 1995).

4.3.1 PRIVATE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

A provision for preparing a benefit-cost statement of an outlet drainage project is

included in the Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17 as indicated below:

Text Box 4.4: Provision for preparing a benefit cost statement, Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17

Benefit cost statement 7. (1) The council of any local municipality to which notice was given under subsection 5(1) or the Minister may send to the council of the initiating municipality within thirty days a notice that a benefit cost statement is required and the cost of preparing such statement shall be paid by the party who required it. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, s. 7 (1). Idem (2) The council of the initiating municipality may obtain a benefit cost statement on its own initiative, the cost of which shall be paid by the municipality from its general funds. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, s. 7 (2).

(Government of Ontario 1990a)

A recent example of a benefit-cost analysis of an outlet drainage project in Ontario was

not identified during this review. The following comments, provided by Irwin (1975),

outline the content of a benefit-cost analysis, but may require updating to reflect current

knowledge and practice. Irwin’s (1975) explanation of the process involved mainly an

assessment of private benefits and costs, with some limited attention given to social

benefits and costs. Irwin (1975) suggested that the objectives or purposes of a drainage

project must be identified first. As the number of objectives increases conflicts between

objectives may occur. Irwin (1975) indicated that each project should be evaluated on the

basis of the following questions:

• Is there a need for drainage improvement? • Is there a flood water problem? • Is there a sediment or erosion problem? • Will idle land become productive? • Are there potentials for intensive or changed land use? • Are there recreational, fish or wildlife developments?



Also, Irwin (1975) suggested that the following basic data are required when preparing a benefit-cost statement:

• Soils data for the affected area, e.g., drainage class, capability class; • Land use, i.e., present and anticipated with and without drainage • Crop yields, i.e., present and anticipated with and without drainage • Current water table and expected impacts due to drainage • Estimates of anticipated outcomes should be based on the same

timeframes and include a factor to account for the adoption of technological advancements that could occur if the project was not in place.

• Production data are required that indicate changes in production and costs associated with the project, which are translated into a change in net agricultural income.

Irwin (1975) went on to identify benefits and costs, which include economic,

environmental and societal components, as follows:

Benefits: • Increase in agricultural income with the project less any costs

associated with the increase, and • Other benefits, not evaluated in monetary terms, such as,

improvements in wildlife habitat and production, and • Reduction in health hazards

Agricultural benefits may be realized through: • Land use changes including conversion of other lands to agriculture

and change of current agricultural use to higher income agricultural production

• More intensive use of land including realization of higher crop yields, better crop rotation, improved crop quality

• Reduced production costs due to improved soil conditions including reduced equipment size, labour (time) per acre, incidence of equipment getting stuck in wet fields, risk and need for replanting

• Restoration or maintenance of former productivity where flooding or excessive wetness has caused an area to be abandoned or shifted to low income agricultural production. The drop in income could be assessed as a type of flood damage.

• Improved resource allocation since the conversion of wet areas to non-wet area may allow shifts in production management strategies

Non-agricultural benefits may be realized through: • Flood prevention on non-agricultural lands, which may increase land

values or land rental income



• Flood prevention may improve management of municipal road systems

Costs: • Project costs as estimated in the engineer’s report • Associated costs include on-farm capital costs and farm production

costs that are related to the implementation of the drainage project. These may include: on-farm surface and sub-surface drains, land clearing, buildings and equipment plus associated annual maintenance costs.

• Induced costs which include damage to fish and wildlife habitat and production or an increase in damages due to flooding if higher valued crops are produced due to the project.

Found et al. (1976) divided the impacts of outlet drainage into three categories:

agricultural, environmental and non-agricultural land uses. Benefit-cost ratios were

calculated, at the local level, for 37 outlet drains in seven representative townships in

Ontario. Found et al. (1976) noted that the ratios varied significantly across the province

and even within townships, with some outcomes favorable and others not. For example,

in Mersea Township in southwestern Ontario, the overall benefit-cost ratio was >1.0 (i.e.

benefits were greater than costs), even though two of the seven drain projects in the

township had benefit-cost ratios of <1.0 (i.e. benefits were less than costs). These

workers suggested the following seven reasons for this finding:

• Productivity of the environment varies across the province; • Installation of field tile drainage prior to outlet drainage project; • Special hydrological conditions at a location may make the outlet

drainage beneficial even without the installation of field tile drainage; • Local initiative by affected landowners who seek to maximize their

benefit from the outlet; • Type of project including maintenance versus construction of a new

outlet; • Quality of engineering where the work matches the need and is not

over-designed; and • Weather conditions since project, especially excessively wet weather

may not allow the full benefits of the drainage to be realized by agricultural producers.

(Found et al. 1976)

Found et al. (1976) attempted to evaluate environmental impacts but cautioned that their

findings were based on an examination of ‘other evidence’ and discussions with



landowners and other knowledgeable persons. In their study, these workers suggested

there was no widespread evidence of serious environmental damage due to the drainage

projects in the study. However, exceptions occurred in southwestern Ontario and areas

north of Toronto. They suggested that consultations with conservation authority and

government agencies responsible for wildlife and forests prior to drain construction,

would allow an adequate assessment of potential environmental impacts of a project

(Found et al. 1976). [Author’s note: This practice is currently in use.]

4.3.2 SOCIAL BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

Land use in the upper reaches of watersheds affects the quantity and quality of

downstream water (Sellers 1993). Sellars (1993) recommended reviewing papers by

Bower and Hufschmidt (1984) and Hufschmidt (1986) as guides when beginning an

analysis of water resources. Sellars (1993) noted that when conducting a benefit-cost

analysis, it is important to understand that to achieve some objectives, subsidies must be

provided due to a lack of social or economic incentive for individual persons or entities to

adopt the desired practice. These types of objectives will fail the standard benefit-cost

analysis or cost effectiveness analysis. When this situation occurs, desired outcomes must

be compared and trade-offs assessed (Sellers 1993). Olewiler (2004) agreed that private

interests are often not accommodated by socially-based policies and that it is incumbent

on society to provide incentives or compensation to affected individuals.

Farrow (1998) suggested additional tests to standard benefit-cost analyses to address

those objectives that Sellers (1993) identified as lacking social or economic incentive to

achieve. Economic analyses often approve of proposed actions if the “beneficiaries can

potentially, instead of actually, compensate those bearing the costs.” (Farrow 1998). This

leaves too much uncertainty around the dispensation of compensation to affected groups.

In society’s quest to achieve environmental equity and sustainability, there is concern that

some group or stakeholder will bear the real cost of the proposed actions without

receiving appropriate benefits (Farrow 1998). Farrow (1998) proposed additional tests

(see text of article for mathematical formula) within a traditional benefit-cost analysis to

address these shortcomings. He suggested that a project would pass a benefit-cost



analysis related to environmental equity if “the identified group either receives net

benefits or is more than compensated for its losses.” He also suggested that a project

would pass a benefit-cost analysis related to sustainability if “the compensation is larger

than the net value of the resource, and the net value of the resource is reinvested.”

(Farrow 1998).

A benefit-cost analysis of the enclosure of open drains in agricultural watersheds was not

identified in the scientific literature or from other information sources. However, a case

study of the private and social benefits associated with the preservation or conversion of

wetlands to agricultural production may provide relevant insights. Van Vuuren and Roy

(1993) conducted a case study to determine the most beneficial economic use of the

marshes along the eastern shore of Lake St. Clair in southwestern Ontario. A comparison

of private and social net benefits was made between maintaining the lands as wetlands

and draining them for agricultural use. The study found that the scale of the analysis had

a significant impact on the outcome, i.e. “Social net benefits from preservation exceed

those from conversion, while private net benefits from conversion to agriculture exceed

those from preservation.” (van Vuuren & Roy 1993). It was noted that location of the

wetland was very important to the outcome since some wetlands are more important than

others in the functions they perform. In the case of the St. Clair marshes, these wetlands

were designated as nationally significant for waterfowl staging. Van Vuuren and Roy

(1993) went on to state that, “The dichotomy between social and private most beneficial

use is at the root of the controversy about wetland conversion.” This also was the basis

for a USDA report entitled Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public

Benefits (Heimlich et al. 1998).

Several examples of the valuation of non-market goods and services, especially related to

the environment, are available (Feather et al. 2005; Olewiler 2004; Heimlich et al. 1998;

Crutchfield et al. 1995). These examples, along with the references cited within these

documents, may provide a basis for method development related to a benefit-cost

analysis of the enclosure of open drains. One method of valuation, called benefits

transfer, that was discussed by Heimlich et al. (1998) involved the practice of using



estimates from one study to form the basis for the next study. Although limitations exist,

the practice may be useful within defined geographic areas such as southern or eastern

Ontario.

Examples of studies where workers have tried to use biological outcomes to complement

economic analysis or to develop decision support systems related to environmental issues

and farm management decisions were identified in the literature. These studies may

provide useful insights when developing an approach to analyzing the benefits and costs

of enclosing open drains (Colombo et al. 2003; Dorner 2000; Yiridoe 1997).

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 FUTURE WORK

The Advisory Committee agreed with the following recommendations for further work:

1. Prepare a factsheet outlining what circumstances could result in the review and

possible denial of a request to enclose an open drain and, further, what is the

associated appeal process;

2. Update the example outline of a benefit-cost analysis for a drainage project under the

Drainage Act to reflect current practice and needs;

3. As a first step toward understanding the private and social benefits and costs

associated with the enclosure of open drains, conduct research to determine the

impacts of enclosure of an open drain on headwater functions in agricultural

landscapes;

4. Determine the difference, if any, between the number of grassed waterways over

enclosed drains that were specified in the engineer’s reports at the time of

construction or improvement of the drain compared with the number of grassed

waterways actually installed and in current use over enclosed drains;

5. Conduct research to determine what incentives would encourage private landowners

to maintain the ecological functions of drains;

6. Develop recommendations for best management practices for enclosed drainage

systems.



5.2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A database of more than 160 references is available to all stakeholders interested in

agricultural drainage and the enclosure of open drains. The database can be accessed by

logging on to the Huron County Federation of Agriculture web site at

<http://www.hcfa.on.ca>. Also, an electronic copy of this report and its Appendix 4

supplement are available online at the same web site.


http://www.hcfa.on.ca/


APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

The economic effects of the closure of surface, agricultural drains: A Review

Terms of Reference Introduction The transformation of open, surface agricultural drains to closed, tiled drains is occurring across southern Ontario. The impact to the overall health of the watershed and ecosystem is not clearly understood. Further environmental evaluation of this practice should be undertaken. However, economic considerations of drain enclosures are also an important issue for the farming community. Class one agricultural land is currently assessed for at least $4000.00 an acre. The value of agricultural land is an important factor in decisions regarding drainage and therefore, the economic costs and benefits of enclosing surface drains should also be identified. The Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition plan to review available information and develop a searchable database of references on the economic importance of tile and open drains to agricultural production in Ontario. Special emphasis would focus on information about the economic effects of replacing open drains with enclosed tile. Proposed Project – Review The review will include a general search followed by the selection and review of information most applicable to the economic considerations about the transformation of open, surface agricultural drains to closed, tiled drains. The review should be conducted with drainage reports. Economic factors that should be examined include the following that may be beneficial or detrimental: land value; technical fees for transformation. As part of the literature review a number of individuals and organizations will be contacted. However the review is not limited to the following: US Army Corp of Engineers US Department of Agriculture US Environmental Protection Agency DFO - specifically Central & Arctic Region Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Provincial/state and federal agencies across North America (note that some of the above sources would be captured in this statement) Universities across North America internet/web search The project will include a written report that sets out the procedure used and findings. The consultant will provide one hard copy of the report as well as one electronic/digital copy. A draft literature review is required for annual meetings of the different commodity groups that commence in November, 2004.



APPENDIX 2: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Tile-Ins Meeting # 3

10 am to 1 pm September 13, 2004 Present Name Affiliation Phone Email Alec Scott ABCA 519 235-2610 [email protected] Lobb LICO 905 838 2721 [email protected] Sadler Richards Cordner Science 519 293 1190 [email protected] McCallum LICO 519 527-1633 [email protected] Veliz ABCA 519 235 2610 [email protected] Smith DFO 519 383 1815 [email protected] Down Huron County

Federation of Agriculture


Bob Down Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition


Sid Vander Veen OMAF (519) 826-3552 [email protected]

Introduction Alec Scott welcomed everyone. Background Mari Veliz provided the context for this study. In December 2003, ABCA received funding to review literature on the environmental (i.e., hydrological, nutrient recycling, food web implications) effects of drain enclosure. At the initial committee meeting (January 14, 2004), Pat Down and Paul McCallum expressed concern that there was no attempt to document economic considerations for drain enclosure. Pat Down proceeded to coordinate funding from the Agricultural Adaptation Council for this project. She also asked Tom Prout at the ABCA to facilitate the process. Mari summarized the main findings from the literature review on the effects of drain enclosures. There was some initial discussion re: report deadline. Some were hopeful for a draft of the report by November. It was agreed that after we determine what would be included in the report it would be easier to make a deadline. DRAFT - Terms of Reference (Review) Pat wanted to ensure that the report recognized the value of agricultural land and the benefits of tiling. Norm Smith wanted to clarify if this would be a report on benefits of farm field tiles or the economic considerations regarding the enclosure of open-surface drains. Sid Vander Veen suggested that there would be much information on the economic benefits about draining fields and that he could provide this information. Sid thought this review was to focus on factors of enclosing open drains. Farmers enclose drains so that they can work on larger tracts of land, to meet nutrient management setback requirements and for safety reasons. Sid suggested that the economics of farming a 20 acre field compared to a 100 acre field would be one indicator that could be looked at. Don Lobb thought that a preamble could introduce the overall benefits of tiling a field and introduce sources for further information. There was some discussion about setbacks and watercourse as defined by the Nutrient Management Act. Mari suggested that the Nutrient Management Act definition of watercourse be included in this work. There was some general discussion about source water protection and the importance of food production and educating urban people. Sid thought that it might be time to update the fact sheet about the benefits of tile drainage.





Jane Sadler-Richards wondered about the tone of the report, was it to be neutral or positive. Mari suggested that there should be some documentation of the cost. Paul McCallum thought that might be difficult as prices would vary according to factors such as soil and future maintenance – grassed waterways have associated maintenance fees. Pat thought the report should address the benefits (i.e., land consolidation, increased efficiency and safety). Sid suggested that a cost/benefit analysis was beyond the scope of the report and that the report might suggest that future cost/benefit analyses be conducted. Mari suggested that the identification of factors that need to be considered when enclosing drains would be an appropriate end point for this review. There was considerable discussion around drainage and wetlands. It was stated that the primary loss of wetlands is through urban development in recent years and that there had been more awareness in the rural area for wetland value. Alec suggested that we need some information about costs. Sid suggested that the cost of construction would be in the engineer’s reports available at the OMAF office and would provide some guidance. As for benefits some things like safety might be difficult to measure but numbers around differences in costs for farming different field sizes might be available. Don suggested that the costs might also include effects for wildlife and habitat. Sid suggested that the tile loan program could provide reference for cost of drainage per acre. Don suggested that the review should provide general information with a Huron County focus. It was agreed that Huron County was a good example as it supports a diverse farm community and might be considered a median with respect to land values. Furthermore, the Huron farm community initiated the project. Norm and Alec both made it clear that we were not looking for a cost benefit analysis. Norm thought that in the future it would be interesting to bring all the stakeholders together and look at the costs and benefits from an ecological and economic perspective. Pat suggested that potential sources of information included: LICO, OMAF and Worker’s Compensation – Farm Safety Committee. Other economic factors to consider included: land value, efficiency of farming a parcel or a field size, the importance of food production (in the preamble) and the relationship to the Nutrient Management Act and Source Water Protection Act. There was general agreement to Jane’s statement that this would be a neutral document that points to different information sources and that it could be used for many purposes. Sid suggested that in some cases enclosing a drain might be a good environmental solution because soil condition may cause constant slumping and soil erosion. Norm suggested that another option to enclosure in this situation is drain relocation. Mari summarized the structure of the report: A preamble (up to 1 page in length) about the economic benefits of agricultural drainage. This section would provide references for further information about drainage. Identification of reasons for enclosing drains. Why do farmers enclose drains? Identify economic, societal (safety) and environmental costs and benefits and provide reference for this information. If there are sufficient resources an example from Huron County would be provided. This review might also establish a terms of reference for future work that evaluated economic, societal and environmental costs and benefits of enclosing a single drain. (There was a brief discussion of the importance of using the word drain not stream.) Sid suggested that we were looking to define the line of when it is reasonable from all stakeholder’s perspectives to enclose a drain. Mari mentioned that at some point we will need to consider the cumulative effect of enclosures. Acceptable Information for Review Potential sources of literature include scientific literature and reports from various agencies. It was also deemed acceptable to use the reasons for enclosure as suggested by this committee as a personal communication. Other references might include: Ross Irwin’s History of Tile Drainage and “The Dipper



Stick” history in Kent County. Sid thought the review could focus on North American information and date as least as far back as the 1980’s. Next Steps November 1 Detailed Outline December 1 Draft for Review to Committee December 14 Committee Meeting (This is a Tuesday, so if all goes as planned, we should pencil this meeting in now. However, I will confirm this at the end of November.) January 1 Final Report (to be confirmed with Pat Down and Agricultural Adaptation Council). Lunch Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 pm. Mari Veliz took notes. Please submit any corrections to her.

***

Tile-Ins Meeting # 4

10 am to 1 pm December 15, 2004 ABCA, Exeter

Present

Name Affiliation Phone Email Tom Prout ABCA 519 235-2610 [email protected] Lobb LICO 905 838 2721 [email protected] Sadler Richards

Cordner Science 519 293 1190 [email protected]

Mari Veliz ABCA 519 235 2610 [email protected] Down Huron County Federation of

Agriculture 519 235 2557 [email protected]

Bob Down Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition


Sid Vander Veen OMAF (519) 826-3552 [email protected] 1. Review of September 14, 2004 Minutes Three corrections were noted: I added “ In recent years” to the section about the primary loss of wetlands, Bob Down is representing the interests of the the Huron County Farm Environmental Coalition. Pat Down also thought that Paul Nairn at Meeting #1 had expressed interest in documenting economic benefits of drainage.

2. Review of Terms of Reference Mari Veliz provided the context for this study. In December 2003, ABCA received funding to review literature on the environmental (i.e., hydrological, nutrient recycling, food web implications) effects of drain enclosure. After the initial committee meeting (January 14, 2004), Pat and Bob Down proceeded to coordinate funding from the Agricultural Adaptation Council to evaluate the economic importance of tile and open drains.

Mari summarized the expected content of the report:

♦ A preamble (up to 1 page in length) about the economic benefits of agricultural drainage. This section would provide references for further information about drainage.

♦ Identification of reasons for enclosing drains. Why do farmers enclose drains? ♦ Identify economic, societal (safety) and environmental costs and benefits and provide reference for this

information. ♦ If there are sufficient resources an example from Huron County would be provided. ♦ This review might also establish a terms of reference for future work that evaluated economic, societal

and environmental costs and benefits of enclosing a single drain.





3. DRAFT – Economic Importance of Drainage to Agriculture Jane Sadler Richards presented her Draft Review. Wording changes and discussion regarding different perspectives were brought up as we progressed through the document. Jane recorded minor editorial changes. Discussion ensued regarding:

a. Concept of Cost/Benefit; b. Definitions of different types of land drainage; c. Nairn Sub-basin review of enclosures; d. Ecological functions not identified; e. The usability/readability of the report; f. Initial cost compared to long-term investment.

a. Concept of Cost/Benefit Jane acknowledged that there was a dichotomy between private (i.e., landowner) costs and benefits and societal costs and benefits. The importance of drainage differs for the private landowner and society.

b. Land Drainage Definitions and information (from Sid Vander Veen) Surface drainage refers to a field system such as a shallow trench;

Sub-surface drainage refers to a field system with tile this system removes excess soil moisture;

Outlet is a communal system that may in certain soil conditions lower the water table in the soil

Jane to rework the definitions in the report.

Sid to provide updated data on area, length and cost of municipal drainage work in Ontario. Jane to expand discussion of the data. c. Nairn Review Previous investigation in the Nairn Creek sub-basin showed that 14% of the open surface watercourses were converted to enclosed drains between 1975 and 1999. At previous meetings it was suggested that the drainage reports should be investigated. This past summer, Dan Moserunjuohn and Mari Veliz visited with Jim Reeves and documented the history of all the drains in the sub-basin. Of the 186 km length of watercourse (stream, drain, waterway) length 69 km (37 %) had been enclosed. Sid Vander Veen suggested that some of the enclosure had been on systems that had not been originally streams in the first place (i.e., a trench had been excavated and then closed). Mari suggested that the average size of a first order sub-basin in the ABCA area was 47 ha (approximately, 0.5 km2 or 120 acres). In the literature, the transition from mass movement-dominated to fluvial process-dominated reaches occurs in headwater streams with drainage areas between 0.1 and 1.0 km2. In the Nairn Creek sub-basin, the current drainage network with first-order systems draining a 0.5 km2 headwater sub-basin is comparable to that which is suggested in the literature. d. Ecological functions not identified Mari commented that there was no discussion of potential costs for the loss of the different ecological functions. The Committee suggested that because there was no information regarding the effects of drain enclosure the potential costs should not be highlighted. Tom Prout suggested that reference to the ecological report be made. Mari suggested that instead of dividing the ecological functions into many sub-sections (as it currently exists in the draft) that the report refer to the three main functions (i.e., flooding/sediment, nutrient/organic matter recycling and habitat/biodiversity). Jane to make a stronger link between this report and the previous literature review so the reader knows to go to it for additional information

h. The usability/readability of the report;



Jane explained the tables. There was some concern that the tables might be too complex and might better be replaced with a list of bullets. It was also discussed that the executive summary (when produced) be reformatted to make a fact sheet.

For each main impact listed re potential benefit-cost analysis, Jane to drop the table format and replace with a list of sub-factors for each impact that may be affected by the enclosure of an open drain and possible data sources related to the factors.

Jane noted that this part of the report represents ‘new thinking’ coming from the Advisory Committee, which departs from the typical ‘literature review’ format. However, the Committee agreed that the information would be useful for a future analysis and should be included.

i. Initial cost compared to long-term investment.

Don Lobb suggested that the infrastructure costs of construction should not be realized as a cost but an investment. Sid Vander Veen thought that if Ross Irwin were to conduct a benefit/cost analysis (of drainage) in 2004 it would be important to develop methodology around how different aspects should be considered.

Jane proceeded to explain the searchable database in Excel. It was agreed that she would keep the documents (for now).

Sid asked Jane about where she thought there was a lack of information. Jane said that questions pertaining to the economic costs and benefits existed and with more looking, specific costs could be identified. However, information pertaining to the environmental effects could not be summarized nor evaluated because it simply does not exist.

Mari suggested that enclosed drains are not always replaced as grassed waterways and that should be noted in the report.

j. Questions and recommendations Suggestions;

need to identify the gaps in the information need to build a template/method of benefit-cost analysis to update Irwin’s 1975 document need to investigate the actual presence of grassed waterways over enclosed drains. They are a BMP but

what is the incidence of use and the effectiveness of the installation? g. Lunch Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 pm. Mari Veliz took notes. Please submit any corrections to her.

***



APPENDIX 3: DETAILS OF SEARCH METHOD

The steps and outcomes of the steps are list below:

1. A key word search was conducted using Boolean logic to combine concepts. Boolean connectors included AND, OR and NOT. Special characters to indicate phrases (“ “), truncation (*), wildcards (?) and ( ) for grouping were used appropriately to ensure that the search included all possible formats of words. (Characters sometimes changed between sources.)

2. The author provided a list of key words and phrases as follows:

agriculture land improvement benefit land value benefit-cost money buried municipal drain Canada North America cost Ontario cost proposal open ditch cost-benefit outlet ditch price drain construction quote drainage return drainage engineer return on investment drainage improvement rural economic sustainable enclosure tile farm tile drain field drainage United States investment water

3. Key words were combined in search strings similar to examples listed below:

agricult* AND drain* AND econ* AND Ontario agricult* AND drain* AND econ* AND water rural AND ditch AND value AND enclos* farm AND tile drain* AND cost AND North America municipal AND ditch AND cost-benefit AND open



4. The following sources provided reference material or were electronically searched:

Committee Members D. Lobb J. Sadler Richards S. Vander Veen M. Veliz Databases Cambridge Scientific Abstracts

ISI CrossSearch (includes Web of Science, Current Contents Connect, BIOSIS Previews, Biological Medical and Agricultural Sciences, Engineering Computing and Physical Sciences and Social and Behavioral Sciences

Scholarsportal Libraries Canadian Agricultural Library Sir Wilfred Laurier University Univ. of Western Ontario Univ. of Guelph Univ. of Waterloo

Web Sites

Approximately 40 web sites related to companies, farm land values, farm safety, governments and extension services, libraries and organizations were searched for relevant material. A few examples are listed below.

http://www.prinsco.com http://www.fcc-fac.ca http://www.farmsafety.ca/ http://www.gov.on.ca/omafra/ http://www.usda.gov http://d-outlet.coafes.umn.edu/ http://www.collectionscanada.ca http://www.libdex.com/whatis.html http://www.drainage.org Search Engines AgriSurf Dogpile Google Scirus

5. The attrition of references during the review process is indicated below:

Titles Reviewed ~4800 Titles/Abstracts Retrieved ~500 References Cited In Searchable Database 169

References Obtained ~115

References Cited In Report 80



APPENDIX 4: DETAILS OF DRAINAGE PROJECTS

Miller-Alton Municipal Drain, 2001:

(Maitland Engineering 2001)

If viewing a hardcopy, see following pages for Appendix 4 content.

If viewing an electronic file, see separate file for Appendix 4 contents.



Drain “B” of the Pepper Municipal Drain, 2002:

(W.E.Kelley and Associates Limited 2002)


If viewing an electronic file, see separate file for Appendix 4 contents.



“A” Drain of the Canada Company Municipal Drain, 2003:

(W.E.Kelley and Associates Limited 2003)


If viewing an efile, see separate file for Appendix 4 contents.



APPENDIX 5: DATABASE OF INFORMATION SOURCES

If viewing a hardcopy, see following pages for a list of references included in the

database. If viewing an electronic file, see separate file for Appendix 5 contents. The

database is formatted using Microsoft Excel® and may be searched using the filter

function.

Reference Identification

Number Date Reference Title

1902001 1982 A multidisciplinary approach to economic feasibility of tile drainage in southern Ontario 1902002 1993 Information needs for water resources decision-making 1902003 1984 A conceptual framework for analysis of water resources management in Asia

1902004 1986 A Conceptual Framework for Watershed Management 1902005 1998 Environmental equity and sustainability: Rejecting the Kaldor-Hicks criteria 1902006 2002 Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

1902007 1996 Environmental accounting for agricultural producers

1902008 2000 (estimate) The Drain Primer: A Guide to Maintaining and Conserving Agricultural Drains and Fish Habitat

1902009 1982 Practical Guide for Municipal Drains

1902010 1975 Benefit cost statements 1902011 1990 Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17 1902012 1999 Drain maintenance and fisheries: Application of the drain classification system

1902013 2004 Farm Credit Corporation 1902014 2004 Farm Safety Association Inc. 1902019 1995 Drainage: A farmer's perspective

1902020 1985 Workshop: Tile drain vs. Open ditch 1902021 1985 Views and concerns on outlet drainage: Federation of Agriculture 1902022 1985 Views and concerns on outlet drainage: Federation of Ontario Naturalists

1902023 1985 Views and concerns on outlet drainage: Ministry of the Environment 1902024 1978 Closed drains in natural watercourses (An approach to Section 14) 1902025 1974 Summary of research on engineering and construction costs in Ontario

1902026 1976 Can engineers and biologists cooperate in land drainage? 1902027 1986 Downstream effects of subsurface drainage under different crops 1902028 1982 Downstream hydrologic effects of drainage measures

1902029 1982 Temporal Variation of Southwestern Ontario Streamflows and the Possible Influence of Agricultural Land Drainage

1902030 1995 Progress, politics and the role of conservation: Wetland drainage in Ontario 1902031 1992 The lost lands: Land drainage in Ontario, 1781 to 1900 1902032 2000 50 years of drainage in Ontario

1902033 1993 Effect of Agricultural Drainage On Water Quality In The Northeastern U.S. and Canada 1902034 1975 The artificial drainage of land in nineteenth-century southern Ontario 1902035 1985 Effects of agricultural drainage on streamflow in the Middle Thames River, Ontario, 1949-1980

1902036 1994 Best Management Practices: Water Management 1902037 2001 Environmental Benefits of Tile Drainage Literature Review 1902038 1998 Agricultural Drainage: Water Quality Impacts and Subsurface Drainage Studies in the Midwest

1902039 2004 Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Drains 1902040 1993 Field Crop Production





1902041 1973 Notes on valuation of land required for tile drainage schemes 1902042 1975 Does drainage add to flood peaks?

1902043 1969 Evaluating drainage benefit

1902044 1983 Preliminary engineering study of flood reduction works for Riviere Beaudet, economic analysis of alternatives

1902045 1983 Agricultural benefits from drainage 1902046 1979 Field survey of drainage benefits in Ontario

1902047 1981 (estimate) On-Farm Drainage Benefit

1902048 2002 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Report 1902049 1989 Drainage Legislation 1902050 1982 Farm Drainage Economics

1902051 1973 Economics of Soil Drainage Systems in Vermont 1902052 1986 Impact of Yields and Taxes on Profitability of Subsurface Drainage Investment in Southern Ontario 1902053 1994 Profitability of Subsurface Drainage on Operator Owned and on Rented Land

1902054 2001 Tile Drainage Reduces Runoff, Flooding 1902055 2001 Tile Drainage, an Advantage in Drier Weather 1902056 2001 Tile Drainage, Environmentally Friendly to Water Quality

1902057 2002 Nutrient Management Act 2002 1902058 1999 Drain Tile Water Quality 1902059 1966 Tile flow and surface runoff for drainage systems with corn and grass cover

1902060 1985 Measurements and analysis of runoff from subsurface drained farmlands 1902061 2004 AAtrex Nine-0 1902062 2004 Ultim Herbicide

1902063 1998 Drainage Pays! 1902064 1990 Impact of agricultural practices on tile water quality 1902065 1994 Hydrologic and water quality impacts of agricultural drainage

1902066 1970 Response of agricultural crops to flooding, depth-of water table and soil gaseous composition 1902067 1951 Farm Drainage: An important conservation practice 1902068 1978 Tile Drainage Benefits Corn Production

1902069 1981 Closer Drain Spacings For Higher Yields

1902070 1978 (estimate) The economics of increasing crop productivity in Ontario and Quebec by tile drainage installation

1902071 1978 The timeliness benefit of subsurface drainage

1902072 1973 Drainage Economics: Change in Land Use as a Result of Drainage 1902073 2004 Estimating the Economic Feasibility of Tile Drainage 1902074 1994 Impacts of Tile Drainage on Water Quality

1902075 1988 Impacts of Tile Drainage 1902076 2002 Farm Safety Facts 1902077 1995 What is the Real Cost of Farm Injuries?

1902078 2001 The Tile Loan Program 1902079 2001 Agricultural Drainage Licensing 1902080 1997 Drainage Guide for Ontario

1902081 1975 Environmental impact appraisal for drainage 1902082 1978 Outlet drainage in Quebec 1902083 1986 An environmental appraisal of the Kievall Creek drain under the Ontario Drainage Act

1902084 1993 Fish habitat management and land drainage 1902085 1997 Ecosystems, watersheds & wetland: An ecosystem approach to resource management-context and





sustainable practices for rural land drainage

1902086 1992 Understanding Drainage Assessments

1902087 1996 Farming Along the Stream 1902088 1999 Application of reference data for assessing and restoring headwater ecosystems 1902089 2002 The Race to Save the Dace

1902090 2003 Declining plant species richness of grassland ditch banks: A problem of colonisation or extinction? 1902091 2003 Assessing the habitat requirements of stream fishes: An overview and evaluation of different approaches

1902092 1996 Habitat Suitability Assessment Models for Southern Ontario Trout Streams. Model Development and Evaluation

1902093 1999 Municipal drain classification and fisheries

1902094 2002 Drain review protocol, a marrying of processes (Fisheries Act/Drainage Act) 1902095 1991 The State of Canada's Environment - 1991 1902096 2000 The Health of Our Water: Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Canada

1902097 1997 Handbook of Drainage Principles, Publication 73 1902098 1984 Cost-benefit analysis of public investment in outlet drainage in eastern Ontario 1902099 1990 Tile Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER T.8

1902100 1976 Impacts of agricultural land drainage in Ontario 1902101 1988 An economic assessment of field triangulation and increased travel time 1902102 1984 Tillage

1902103 1975 Planting 1902104 2004 A Review of the Enclosure of Watercourses in Agricultural Landscapes and River Headwater Functions 1902105 2001 Fish Habitat Plan

1902106 2004 Drainage 1902107 2004 Landowner reasons for enclosure of open drains

1902108 1993 Private and social returns from wetland preservation versus those from wetland conversion to agriculture

1902109 2001 Miller-Alton Municipal Drain 2001

1902110 2002 Drain "B" of the Pepper Municipal Drain 2002 1902111 2003 "A" Drain of the Canada Company Municipal Drain 2003 1902112 1995 Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries

1902113 1998 A Decision Framework for the Determination and Authorization of Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of Fish Habitat

1902114 1986 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat 1902115 1995 Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters

1902116 1984 Water-table regimes in an eastern Ontario soil with and without pipe drains 1902117 1993 Channel Network Hydrology 1902118 1990 Economic effects of long-term restrictions on drainage water disposal

1902119 1996 Modelling the hydrological impacts of open ditch drainage 1902120 1972 Stream channelization: conflict between ditchers, conservationists 1902121 1975 Stream channel modification and environmental assessment: Policies, objectives and procedures

1902122 2004 Variability of hydrologic regimes and morphology in contructed open-ditch channels 1902123 1980 The Nature and Effects of County Drainage Ditches in South Central Minnesota 1902124 1992 Economic analysis of wetlands drainage in central Alberta

1902125 1996 Price incentives for resource quality investments: a hedonic study of agricultural land markets in Quebec's agricultural regions 5,6,7, and 10

1902126 1994 A conceptual framework for the analysis of cumulative environmental change 1902127 1998 The economics of erosion and sustainable practices: The case of the Saint-Esprit watershed

1902128 1991 A municipal response to agricultural and community change: Approaches to rural planning and development





1902129 2003 The effects of management practice and tile drainage on movement of nitrogen 1902130 1977 Hydrologic and economic models for subsurface drainage

1902131 2001 Incorporating environmental costs into an economic analysis of water supply planning: A case study of Israel

1902132 1986 Economics of farm drainage 1902133 1978 Agricultural drainage development: A simulation approach for public expenditure decisions

1902134 2003 The use of program theory for identifying and evaluating best practices for implementing land-use policies

1902135 2003 The economic benefits of soil erosion control: An application of the contingent valuation method in the Alto Genil basin of southern Spain

1902136 1994 Grassed Waterways 1902137 2004 Details on Drainage Program Changes 1902138 2001 Agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Watershed management and hydrology

1902139 2002 The nature and properties of soils (thirteenth edition) 1902140 2004 Survey of Custom Farmwork and Short-term Equipment Rental Rates Charged in 2003

1902141 2004 2003 Custom Work Rates - Area 3 Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Halton, Huron, Peel, Perth, Simcoe, Waterloo, Wellington

1902142 1978 Potential Benefits of Drainage, A General Methodology And Empirical Analysis For Northern New York

1902143 1995 Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters 1902144 1997 The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales 1902145 2003 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems

1902146 2001 Relationships Between Land Use, Spatial Scale and Stream Macroinvertebrate Communities 1902147 2003 Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands 1902148 1997 Bio-economics of agricultural nonpoint source pollution control: nitrates in southwestern Ontario

1902149 2000 Evaluating best management practices for agricultural watersheds using probalistic models 1902150 2004 The Value of Natural Capital in Settled Areas of Canada 1902151 1995 The Benefits of Protecting Rural Water Quality: An Empirical Analysis

1902152 1998 Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public Benefits

1902153 2005 Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Programs: The Case of the CRP

1902154 2004 Summary of Ontario Drainage Statistics 1994/95 to 2003/04 1902155 1998 The role of technology in sustaining agriculture and the environment

1902156 2004 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2003 1902157 1999 Evaluating Ontario's Drainage Act and wetland management practices: in the case of Zorra Township 1902158 2001 Computer support for environmental multiple criteria decision analysis under uncertainty

1902159 2001 Rural water use decision-making: adoption of water conservation practices in southwestern Ontario

1902160 1998 Environmental/social cost-benefit analysis: the integration of sustainability; the cases of the Narmada Valley project the Three Gorges Dam

1902161 1999 Changes in agricultural intensity and river health along a river continuum

1902162 1999 Aquatic ecosystems in agricultural landscapes: A review of ecological indicators and achievable ecological outcomes

1902163 1982 An evaluation of agricultural outlet drainage in Ontario in the Drain 36 example

1902164 2002 Farmer, Streams, Information, and Money: Does Informing Farmers About Riparian Management Have Any Effect?

1902165 1999 Economics of water quality protection from nonpoint sources: Theory and practice. 1902166 1997 Benefits of safer drinking water: The value of nitrate reduction

1902167 1993 Social and economic impact assessment for land and resource management planning in British Columbia - Parts 1.0 and 2.0

1902168 2003 Draft: Model Class Screening Report for Small Scale Water Quality and Habitat Improvement Projects 1902169 2000 Safety steps can pay big financial dividends



REFERENCES 1. Allan, J. D., Erickson, D. L. & Fay, J. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity

across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37: 149-161. Ref Type: Journal

2. Baron, J. S., Poff, N. L., Angermeier, P. L., Dahm, C. N., Gleick, P. H., Hairston, N. G. Jr., Jackson, R. B., Johnston, C. A., Richter, B. D. & Steinman, A. D. 2002. Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Application 12: 1247-1260. Ref Type: Journal

3. Bower, B. T. & Hufschmidt, M. M. 1984. A conceptual framework for analysis of water resources management in Asia. Natural Resources Forum 8: 343-355. Ref Type: Journal

4. Brady, N. C. & Weil, R. R. The nature and properties of soils (thirteenth edition). 2002. NJ, Prentice Hall. Ref Type: Book

5. Breece, H. E., Hansen, H. V. & Hoerner, T. A. 1975. Planting. Moline, IL: John Deere Service Publications, Dept. F. Ref Type: Book

6. Buckingham, F. 1984. Tillage. Moline, IL: John Deere Service Publications, Dept. F. Ref Type: Book

7. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2003. USDL 04-1830, 1-5. 2004. Washington, DC, United States Department of Labour. Ref Type: Report

8. Canada Safety Council. 2002. Farm Safety Facts.

9. Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection.

10. Charlton, P. Farm Credit Corporation. To Sadler Richards, J. 2004. Ref Type: Personal Communication

11. Colombo, S., Calatrava-Requena, J. & Hanley, N. 2003. The economic benefits of soil erosion control: An application of the contingent valuation method in the Alto Genil basin of southern Spain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58. Ref Type: Journal

12. Colwell, H. T. M. 1978. The economics of increasing crop productivity in Ontario and Quebec by tile drainage installation. Canadian Farm Economics 13: 1-7. Ref Type: Journal

13. Coote, D. R. & Gregorich, L. J. (eds). 2000. The Health of Our Water: Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Research Planning and Coordination Directorate. Ref Type: Report

14. Crutchfield, S. R., Feather, P. M. & Hellerstein, D. R. 1995. The Benefits of Protecting Rural Water Quality: An Emperical Analysis. Agricultural Economic Report Number 701, 1-27. Washington,



DC, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Ref Type: Report

15. Dietrich, W. & Wilson, W. 1999. Drain maintenance and fisheries: Application of the drain classification system. 59-69. Guelph, ON, Land Drainage Committee. Drainage Engineer's Conference Proceedings. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding

16. Dissart, J. 1998. The economics of erosion and sustainable practices: The case of the Saint-Esprit watershed. Montreal, PQ, McGill University. Ref Type: Thesis/Dissertation

17. Dorner, S. M. 2000. Evaluating best management practices for agricultural watersheds using probalistic models. 1-168. University of Guelph. Ref Type: Thesis/Dissertation

18. Drain Economics Advisory Committee. Landowner reasons for enclosure of open drains. To Sadler Richards, J. 2004. Ref Type: Personal Communication

19. Dupont Canada Inc. 2004. Ultim Herbicide. Ottawa, ON, Health Canada, Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Ref Type: Electronic Citation

20. Environment Canada. 1991. The State of Canada's Environment - 1991. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada. Ref Type: Report

21. Evanitski, C. 2000. The Drain Primer: A Guide to Maintaining and Conserving Agricultural Drains and Fish Habitat. Drainage Superintendents Association of Ontario, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ref Type: Pamphlet

22. Farrow, S. 1998. Environmental equity and sustainability: Rejecting the Kaldor-Hicks criteria. Ecological Economics 27: 183-188. Ref Type: Journal

23. Feather, P. M., Hellerstein, D. R. & Hansen, L. 2005. Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Programs: The Case of the CRP. Agricultural Economic Report Number 778, 1-56. Washington, DC, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Ref Type: Report

24. Fife, C. L. & Bornstein, J. 1973. Economics of Soil Drainage Systems in Vermont. 1-14. Burlington, VT, University of Vermont, Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station. Ref Type: Report

25. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1986. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. Ottawa, ON, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Directorate. Ref Type: Report

26. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1998. A Decision Framework for the Determination and Authorization of Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of Fish Habitat. Ottawa,



ON, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Communications Directorate. Ref Type: Report

27. Fleming, R. J. 1990. Impact of agricultural practices on tile water quality. 1-9. St. Joseph, MI, American Society of Agricultural Engineers. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Summer Meeting. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding

28. Fletcher, C. 2004. 2003 Custom Work Rates - Area 3 Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Halton, Huron, Peel, Perth, Simcoe, Waterloo, Wellington. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Report

29. Found, W. C., Hill, A. R. & Spence, E. S. 1976. Impacts of agricultural land drainage in Ontario. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 1976: 20-24. Ref Type: Journal

30. Fraser, H. & Fleming, R. 2001. Environmental Benefits of Tile Drainage Literature Review. Ridgetown, ON University of Guelph. Ref Type: Report

31. Gasser, P. Y., Glasman, G., Iler, G., Lobb, D., Vanden Heuvel, M., Cruickshank, L., Hayes, A., Kennedy, B., Reid, K. & Graham, A. 1993. Field Crop Production. Guelph, ON: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ref Type: Book

32. Government of Ontario. 1990. Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17. 1990a. Ref Type: Statute

33. Government of Ontario. 1990. Tile Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER T.8. 1990b. Ref Type: Statute

34. Government of Ontario. 2002. Nutrient Management Act 2002. Ontario Regulation 267/03 amended to Ontario Regulation 294/04. 2002. Ref Type: Statute

35. Heimlich, R. E., Wiebe, K. D., Claassen, R., Gadsby, D. & House, R. M. 1998. Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public Benefits. Agricultural Report Number 765, 1-93. Washington, DC, Resource Economics Division, United States Department of Agriculture. Ref Type: Report

36. Hufschmidt, M. M. 1986. A Conceptual Framework for Watershed Management. In Easter, W. K. et al. Watershed Resources Management: An Integrated Framework with Studies from Asia and the Pacific. 17-31. Boulder, CO, Westview Press. Studies in Water Policy and Management. Ref Type: Serial (Book,Monograph)

37. Irwin, R. W. 1975. Benefit cost statements. 2-17. Guelph, ON, Land Drainage Committee. Drainage Engineer's Conference Proceedings. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding

38. Irwin, R. W. 1979. Field survey of drainage benefits in Ontario. 1-13. St. Joseph, MI, American Society of Agricultural Engineers. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Winter Meeting. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding



39. Irwin, R. W. 1981. On-Farm Drainage Benefit. 1-62. Guelph, ON, University of Guelph. OMAF Research Program 39. Ref Type: Report

40. Irwin, R. W. 1989. Drainage Legislation. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1-7. Guelph, ON, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Pamphlet

41. Irwin, R. W. 1997a. Drainage Guide for Ontario. 1-40. Guelph, ON, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Ref Type: Report

42. Irwin, R. W. 1997b. Handbook of Drainage Principles, Publication 73. Toronto ON. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Ref Type: Report

43. Jorjani, H. 1982. A multidisciplinary approach to economic feasibility of tile drainage in southern Ontario. 1-182. Guelph, ON, University of Guelph. Ref Type: Thesis/Dissertation

44. Kelly, K. 1975. The artificial drainage of land in nineteenth-century southern Ontario. Canadian Geographer 14: 279-298. Ref Type: Journal

45. Maaskant, K., Glasman, B. & Wilcox, I. 1994. Best Management Practices: Water Management. ON. Agriculture Canada, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Book

46. Maitland Engineering . Miller-Alton Municipal Drain 2001. 2001. Goderich, ON, Twp of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh, Huron County. Ref Type: Generic

47. McCaw, G. W. 1984. Cost-benefit analysis of public investment in outlet drainage in eastern Ontario. 1-207. Guelph, ON, University of Guelph. Ref Type: Thesis/Dissertation

48. McLaughlin, J. C. 1992. The lost lands: Land drainage in Ontario, 1781 to 1900. Queens University at Kingston. Ref Type: Thesis/Dissertation

49. McLaughlin, J. C. 1995. Progress, politics and the role of conservation: Wetland drainage in Ontario. Queens University at Kingston. Ref Type: Thesis/Dissertation

50. Meyer, J. L., Kaplan, L. A., Newbold, D., Strayer, D. L., Woltemade, C. J. & et al. 2003. Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. USA. American Rivers and Sierra Club. Ref Type: Report

51. Neenan, B. F., Milligan, R. A. & Swader, F. N. 1978. Potential Benefits of Drainage, A General Methodology And Empirical Analysis For Northern New York. A.E.Res.78-21 Agronomy Mimeo 78-28, 1-19. Ithaca, NY, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. Ref Type: Generic



52. Olewiler, N. 2004. The Value of Natural Capital in Settled Areas of Canada. 1-36. Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Ref Type: Report

53. Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food. 2004a. Details on Drainage Program Changes. Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Electronic Citation

54. Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food. 2004b. Drainage. Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Electronic Citation

55. Ritter, W. F., Rudra, R. P. & Milburn, P. H. 1993. Effect of Agricultural Drainage On Water Quality In The Northeastern U.S. and Canada. In Allen, R. G. (Ed) Management of Irrigation and Drainage Systems Integrated Perspectives (pp. 541-548). New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers. Ref Type: Report

56. Ritter, W. F. & Shirmohammadi, A. 2001. Agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Watershed management and hydrology. Florida, CRC Press LLC. Ref Type: Book

57. Rudy, H. 2004. Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Drains. 1-41. Guelph, ON, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Report

58. Sadler Richards, J. 2004. A Review of the Enclosure of Watercourses in Agricultural Landscapes and River Headwater Functions. 1-41. Sarnia, ON, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ref Type: Report

59. Schoney, R. A. 1988. An economic assessment of field triangulation and increased travel time. Economics 70-75. Ref Type: Journal

60. Sellers, J. 1993. Information needs for water resources decision-making. Natural Resources Forum 228-234. Ref Type: Journal

61. Shutske, J. M. 1995. What is the Real Cost of Farm Injuries? 1-2. Engineering Notes. Ref Type: Pamphlet

62. Skaggs, R. W., Breve, M. A. & Gilliam, J. W. 1994. Hydrologic and water quality impacts of agricultural drainage. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 24: 1-32. Ref Type: Journal

63. Smith, N. 2002. Drain review protocol, a marrying of processes (Fisheries Act/Drainage Act). 55-65. Guelph, ON, Land Drainage Committee. Drainage Engineer's Conference Proceedings. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding

64. Sponseller, R. A., Benfield, E. F. & Valett, H. M. 2001. Relationships Between Land Use, Spatial Scale and Stream Macroinvertebrate Communities. Freshwater Biology 46: 1409-1424. Ref Type: Journal

66. Spriet, J. 1985. Workshop: Tile drain vs Open ditch. 41. Guelph, ON, Land Drainage Committee. Drainage Engineer's Conference Proceedings. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding



67. Stone, R. 1994. Grassed Waterways. Guelph, ON, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Pamphlet

68. Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, 2004. AAtrex Nine-0. 1-2. Ottawa, ON, Health Canada, Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Ref Type: Electronic Citation

69. Thames River Implementation Committee 1982. Practical Guide for Municipal Drains. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ref Type: Pamphlet

70. Todgham, H. H. 2000. 50 years of drainage in Ontario. 65-78. Guelph, ON, Land Drainage Committee. Drainage Engineer's Conference Proceedings. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding

71. van Vuuren, W. & Roy, P. 1993. Private and social returns from wetland preservation versus those from wetland conversion to agriculture. Ecological Economics 8: 289-305. Ref Type: Journal

72. Vander Veen, S. 2001. The Tile Loan Program. Guelph, ON, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Ref Type: Pamphlet

73. Vander Veen, S. 2002. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Report. Guelph, ON, Land Drainage Committee. Drainage Practitioners Meeting. Ref Type: Report

74. Vander Veen, S. 2004. Summary of Ontario Drainage Statistics 1994/95 to 2003/04. 1-7. Guelph, ON, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Ref Type: Report

75. Veliz, M. 2001. Fish Habitat Plan. Exeter, ON: Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. Ref Type: Report

76. W.E.Kelley and Associates Limited. 2002. Drain "B" of the Pepper Municipal Drain 2002. Zurich, ON, Municipality of Bluewater. Ref Type: Report

77. W.E.Kelley and Associates Limited. 2003. "A" Drain of the Canada Company Municipal Drain 2003. 2003. Seaforth, ON, Municipality of Huron East. Ref Type: Report

78. Wendte, L. W., Drablos, C. J. W. & Lembke, W. D. 1978. The timeliness benefit of subsurface drainage. 484-488. St. Joseph, MI, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Soil and Water Division. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding

79. Yiridoe, E. K. 1997. Bio-economics of agricultural nonpoint source pollution control: Nitrates in southwestern Ontario. 1-235. University of Guelph. Ref Type: Thesis/Dissertation

80. Zronick, S. Farm Safety Association Inc. To Sadler Richards, J. 2004. Ref Type: Personal Communication


Documents

THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH ... · THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WITH EMPHASIS ON THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN DRAINS IN ONTARIO April 2005 Prepared