Agriculture and Water Quality:

International Perspectives John B.

Braden (Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/agriculture-and-water-quality-international-perspectiv
es-john-b-braden-editor/
Agriculture and
Water Quality
 Agriculture and
Water Quality
International Perspectives

edited by
John B. Braden and
Stephen B. Lovejoy

Lynne Rienner Publishers • Boulder & London

Publication of this book was made possible by the financial support of the Office of
Policy Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
Economic Research and Soil Conservation Services of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy of the
University of Minnesota. Views expressed in the book do not necessarily represent
the policies or positions of the sponsoring organizations.

Published in the United States of America in 1990 by

Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301

and in the United Kingdom by

Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8LU

©1990 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Agriculture and water quality : international perspectives / edited by
John B. Braden and Stephen B. Lovejoy.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 1-55587-183-6 (alk. paper)
1. Water quality management—Government policy. 2. Water—
Pollution—Prevention—Government policy. 3. Agricultural
pollution—Prevention—Government policy. I. Braden, John B.
II. Lovejoy, Stephen B.
HC79.W32A37 1989
363.73'1—dc20 89-10811
CIP

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book
is available from the British Library.

Printed and bound in the United States of Amcrica

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of

the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1984.
 Contents

List of Tables and Figures vii

Acknowledgments ix
Contributors xi

Overview John B. Braden and Stephen B. Lovejoy 1

PART 1 ISSUES AND POLICY OPTIONS

1 Agriculture and Water Quality: Where Are We and Why? 9

Lawrence W. Libby and William G. Boggess

2 Incentive Policies for Control of Agricultural Water Pollution 39

Kathleen Segerson

3 Control of Agricultural Pollution by Regulation 63

Glen D. Anderson, Ann E. DeBossu, and Peter J. Kuch

PART 2 POLICY APPLICATIONS

4 Incentive Policies in Sweden

to Reduce Agricultural Water Pollution 105
Karl-Ivar Kumm

5 Programs to Abate Nitrate

and Pesticide Pollution in Danish Agriculture 117
AlexDubgaard

6 National Agroenvironmental Incentives Programs:

The U.S. Experience 131
Katherine H. Reichelderfer

v
vi CONTENTS

California's Proposition 65: A New Regulatory Trend? 147

Gloria E. Helfand and Sandra 0. Archibald

Water Quality and Agriculture:

The Case of the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia 169
Warren F. Musgrave

PART 3 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

AND AGRICULTURAL COMPETITIVENESS

9 Environmental Regulation and Agricultural Trade Competitiveness 183

C. Ford Runge

10 International Trading Arrangements, the Intensity

of Resource Use, and Environmental Quality 197
Michael D. Young

Index 217
 Tables and Figures

TABLES

3.1 A Pesticide Regulations: Registration and Sale 97

3.IB Pesticide Regulations: Use Restrictions 98
3.2 Sedimentation Regulations 99
3.3 Nutrient Regulations 100

4.1 Charges and Taxes on Fertilizers in Sweden 108

4.2 Development of Barley and Fertilizer-N Prices 110
4.3 Socioeconomic Comparison Between Planting Woodland
and Larger Storage Space for Manure 114

9.1 Sales of Pesticides 186

9.2 Sales of Herbicides 187
9.3 Sales of Insecticides 188
9.4 Farm Herbicide and Insecticide Use by Crop 189
9.5 Per Hectare Fertilizer Use 190
9.6 Contribution of Fertilizer to Agricultural Production 191

FIGURES

3.1 Taxes versus Standards 89

4.1 Sales of Fertilizers in Sweden 108

5.1 Actual and Targeted Nitrogen Use in Danish Agriculture 120

5.2 Actual and Targeted Pesticide Use in Danish Agriculture 125

6.1 Hypothetical Conditions for Shifts in Incentive Programs

and Incentive Levels 143

8.1 River Murray Zones and Development 171

vii
 Acknowledgments

This book was initiated and organized through the Consortium for
Agricultural, Resource, and Environmental Policy Research. Formed in 1988,
the consortium fosters advances in socioeconomic research on policies
affecting natural resources, the environment, and agriculture. Its members
include researchers, research managers, policymakers, and policy analysts
from universities, government, and private research organizations.
The book would not have been possible without the financial support of
the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Soil Conservation Service and Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the Center for International Food and
Agricultural Policy of the University of Minnesota. A grant from the Farm
Foundation was extremely useful in the initial planning for the book. Our
involvement with the consortium and our editorial efforts were made possible
in part by the Departments of Agricultural Economics and the agricultural
experiment stations at the University of Illinois and at Purdue University.
The manuscript was expertly prepared by Sandy Waterstradt, with
excellent copyreading assistance from Pedro Hernandez. Pam Ferdinand and
Gia Hamilton of Lynne Rienner Publishers provided encouragement and
efficient guidance through the publication process.

John B. Brad.cn
Stephen B. Lovejoy

ix
 Contributors

Glen D. Anderson (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin) is senior economist

at the Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.
Sandra 0. Archibald (Ph.D., University of California at Davis) is assistant
professor at the Food Research Institute at Stanford University.
William G. Boggess (Ph.D., Iowa State University) is professor of
agricultural economics at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
John B. Braden (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin) is professor of agricul-
tural economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ann E. DeBossu (M.S., University of Rhode Island) is staff economist at
the Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.
Alex Dubgaard (M.S., University of Copenhagen) is an economist at the
Institute for Agricultural Economics, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gloria E. Helfand (Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley) is assist-
ant professor of agricultural economics at the University of California at Davis.
Peter J. Kuch (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) is staff economist at the
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agcncy, Washington, D.C.
Karl-Ivar Kumm (Ph.D., Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) is
stale extension specialist in farm management, Research Information Center,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Lawrence W. Libby (Ph.D., Cornell University) is professor of agricul-
tural economics and chair of the Department of Food and Resource Economics
at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Stephen B. Lovejoy (Ph.D., Utah State University) is associate professor
of agricultural economics at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Warren F. Musgrave (Ph.D., University of New England) is professor of
agricultural economics at the University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
¡Catherine H. Reichelderfer (Ph.D., University of Maryland) is associate
director of the Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Portions of her
chapter were prepared while she was a resident fellow with the National Center
for Food and Agriculture Policy at Resources for the Future, Washington,
D.C.

xi
xii CONTRIBUTORS

C. Ford Runge (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin) is associate professor of

agricultural and applied economics and director of the Center for International
Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Kathleen Segerson (Ph.D., Cornell University) is assistant professor of
economics at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Michael D. Young (M.Ag.Sc. and B.Ec., University of Adelaide) is
senior research scientist with the Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Common-
wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia.
Overview
J O H N B. BRADEN
STEPHEN B. LOVEJOY

Agriculture is a vital component of all societies, whether they are rich or poor,
industrialized or agrarian. The provision of safe and adequate food and fiber
products is essential. However, the provision of agricultural commodities
leads to some serious problems.
As with any production process, agriculture generates residuals and
byproducts. These can pollute surface and ground water, and some chemical
residues directly threaten human health. Pollution from agriculture degrades
more stream miles, more lakes, more ground-water aquifers, and more coastal
areas of the United States than pollution from any other source. And the
United States is not alone. Agricultural nutrients are contaminating both
freshwater and marine resources in Scandinavia and Europe. The soils of
Australia's prime agricultural region, the Murray-Darling Basin, are festering
with salts left behind by irrigation water. These are examples of just some of
the problems faced in highly industrialized nations. Even more serious
problems are faced in some less industrialized countries: witness the blood-red
rivers of Brazil or the sliding hillsides of South Asia.
Solutions to agricultural problems confront several obstacles. First,
residuals are unavoidable byproducts of all production process, including
agriculture. Second, abating pollution is costly because it requires shifting to
less valuable crops, using more expensive or complex production practices, or
adopting new technologies that alter the commodity/wasteflow ratio. Third,
solving one problem through changing production technologies and practices
may affect other aspects of hydrologie systems, creating new problems.
This book considers public policies designed to reduce water pollution
from agriculture and aims to accelerate international knowledge exchange about
policies in a variety of nations. The chapters focus on the successes and
shortcomings of policies, and their adaptability across political and cultural
boundaries. In addition to reporting on previous policy initiatives, the book
points the way toward the next generation of policy options.
As agricultural pollution problems grow in scope and severity, nations are
searching for solutions. In the past, many nations have relied on educational
programs for farmers and appeals for resource stewardship. However, these
approaches have been overwhelmed by the capabilities of modern agricultural

l
2 BRADEN & LOVEJOY

technologies and by rising public demands for environmental protection. The

result has been recent experimentation with a number of new approaches: taxes
on fertilizers and pesticides; requirements for nutrient management plans;
cross-compliance between various government entitlement programs for
farmers and resource conservation by farmers; intensive agricultural extension
involvement in developing pollution management plans; bans on specific types
of fanning practices in areas where there is a significant environmental threat;
erosion standards; and more careful scrutiny of pesticide registrations and
tougher standards for their use. This book reviews the experience with several
of these approaches and extrapolates from that experience into the future.
Analysis of policies for improving water quality is complicated. First, the
environmental property rights of farmers and others are dynamic, yet policy
options depend on the nature of those rights. Second, the agricultural causes of
water degradation and the effects of that degradation are generally separated
temporally and spatially. This makes it difficult to connect causes and effects
and to place responsibility for environmental damages. Third, many water
quality-based goods are public goods that are not easily separable or tradable;
solutions must be collectively arranged. Fourth, the overall lack of information
about the extent of water quality damages, as well as the costs of water quality
improvements, introduces tremendous uncertainty about the potential gains
from policy actions.
In addition to specific policy options, this book considers the economic
and political context of agricultural pollution control. The policies do not exist
in a vacuum. Farm groups, environmental groups, and, increasingly, fiscal
groups are vigorously engaged in the policymaking processes. In addition, the
extremely important international trade in agricultural commodities is
increasingly intertwined with environmental policies.

SPECIAL CHALLENGES

Environmental problems associated with farming are special in a number of

ways, both practical and political. The problems are widespread—not confined
to just a few, easily identified polluters. Moreover, the polluters are
interdependent: some of the pollutants running off one farmer's field may
actually originate on other fields farther upslope. Under these circumstances, it
is almost impossible to keep track of the polluters or to separate their
responsibilities. There is little accountability, and this undermines many forms
of public policies.
Unlike many types of industrial or municipal situations, there are few
pollution control technologies that can be readily identified, purchased, and
installed on farms. There are no simple add-on devices for intercepting and
neutralizing most agricultural pollutants. Abatement generally requires
 OVERVIEW 3

systematic changes in farming practices, including chemical inputs, tillage

practices, crop mixes, and farm field configurations. These changes may need
to be supplemented with changes in stream channels or shorelines, such as
bank stabilization or buffer strips.
A great many people contribute to agricultural pollution problems, and this
adds to the practical and political difficulties. Aggressive policies risk
alienating important voter blocks. Moreover, the primary polluters are rarely
faceless corporations, but are instead "family farmers" who have long been
venerated and supported as a matter of public policy, and whose property
rights to use land as they see fit have historically been accorded considerable
deference.
Not only is it hard to legislate against farmers, but the objectives sought
are not always really compelling. Decreasing the turbidity of streams and
lakes, extending the lives of reservoirs, improving the diversity of aquatic
biota, and enhancing the quality of recreational experiences are among the
results of abatement. Although these problems are widespread and of interest
to many people, they do not have the dramatic or health-threatening qualities of
a hazardous waste dump, urban smog, or a massive wildlife kill-off from the
accidental discharge of toxic chemicals. In fact, many agricultural problems are
perennially overshadowed by more flashy if less pervasive environmental
concerns.
Public policies must inevitably reconcile the pull of desires for and
entitlements to environmental protection and enhancement with the tug of those
whose rights and desires would be diminished. Neither set of rights or
interests is absolute. Expectations about the proper balance are constantly
changing, and they typically are formed amid great uncertainty about the value
and cost of the eventual outcome. Only when conflicts and differences of
opinion over rights reach compelling levels will the uncertainty be faced, the
natural inertia of policies broken, and change undertaken. It is in this fluid
context that new policies for agricultural pollution will be set.
The list of special challenges could go on, but the point is clear: These
problems are difficult to raise in the public consciousness, to attack politically,
and then to tackle with sound and practical policies.

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

Given these challenges, no single nation or jurisdiction has progressed very far
down the road toward abating agricultural pollution, but many different aspects
of the overall problem are being dealt with around the globe. The specific
initiatives must fit local circumstances, although the basic issues, and the
principles of policy formulation and implementation, are general. This book
begins with three chapters that emphasize these common elements. Chapter 1,
4 BRADEN & LOVEJOY

by Lawrence Libby and William Boggess, describes both the physical and
political dimensions of water quality problems surrounding agriculture. It is
followed by chapters on two generic classes of policy instruments: economic
incentives and regulations. Incentives for abating agricultural pollution are
assessed by Kathleen Segerson in Chapter 2. The basic purpose of incentives
is to use economic gain or loss to motivate changes in private decisions
without resorting to mandates. The possibilities include subsidies, cross-
compliance, taxes, fines, and liability for damages. Segerson thoroughly
reviews the options and then draws conclusions about a mix of incentive
policies that makes sense for agriculture. Chapter 3, by Glen Anderson, Ann
DeBossu, and Peter Kuch, covers regulatory options. These are the mandates
that incentive systems attempt to avoid. They include perfomiance, design, or
operating standards for production activities, standards for ambient
environmental quality, and outright prohibitions of specific activities. There
has been considerably more experience with regulatory approaches than with
incentive policies. Anderson et al. report this experience in a useful tabular
overview of agricultural pollution regulations in Europe and the United States,
and draw implications for future uses of regulations toward agricultural
pollution.
Part 2 of the book turns away from general considerations and toward
specific experiences with a variety of problems and policies. In Chapter 4,
Karl-Ivar Kumm examines Sweden's efforts to reduce nutrient pollution from
agriculture. These efforts include fertilizer taxes, intensive extension
programs, and afforestation incentives. Although the taxes have been good
sources of revenues for environmental programs and the extension efforts have
been locally helpful, all three policies are overshadowed by others that
exacerbate environmental problems. Danish problems with agricultural
pollution, the subject of Chapter 5 by Alex Dubgaard, are similarly exacerbated
by highly distortionary agricultural policies. Nutrient and pesticide
contamination are the paramount problems; input taxes, management plans,
and encouragement of greater agricultural diversity are the major policy
responses.
The setting shifts to the United States in Chapter 6, by Katherine
Reichelderfer. Although surface- and ground-water quality have become
galvanizing political issues in recent years, most U.S. federal programs remain
tied to erosion control. The use of incentives through cross-compliance has
been a major theme in recent U.S. efforts, and Reichelderfer reflects the
considerable skepticism that this approach has elicited. The spotlight stays on
the United States in Chapter 7, but shifts from the national to the state level.
Gloria Helfand and Sandra Archibald assess California's Proposition 65,
which creates labeling standards and public exposure restrictions for chemicals
used in agricultural production, and provides for both civil and criminal
penalties for violators. This proposition is a comprehensive attempt to reduce
 OVERVIEW 5

health threats from pesticides and degradation of water resources by

agricultural production, and it may be a precursor of future trends.
The final policy application is to salinization of surface waters and soils in
Australia's Murray-Darling Basin. In Chapter 8, Warren Musgrave reviews the
physical and political complexities of the Murray-Darling situation, then
assesses a proposed, innovative strategy for mobilizing the four Australian
states that share the problem. The strategy relies fundamentally on incentives
for producers and on new institutional structures.
Part 3 of the book considers agricultural pollution policies from the
perspective of their consequences for, and use in, international trading
relationships. Ford Runge, in Chapter 9, looks at environmental policies as a
relatively new and expanding front in covert trade wars. These policies will
play a significant role in future negotiations over trade liberalization, and they
have special significance for relations between developed and developing
nations. Michael Young, in Chapter 10, takes a different approach,
emphasizing the effects of trade policies on the decisions made by farmers, but
reaches conclusions similar to Runge's. Together, these chapters provide a
fresh and provocative view of the potential for environmental issues to play
increasingly important strategic roles in agricultural trade relations.
The message coming from these papers is one of increasing public concern
for environmental policies dealing with agriculture. This concern is evident in
the many examples of policy approaches being tried and the growing
importance of environmental issues in international trade relations, and signals
an opportunity to make headway in reconciling agricultural practiccs with
environmental quality. But it also signals a need for rapid progress in order for
the agricultural sector to avoid trade dislocations or poorly conceived policies.
There arc examples of possible approaches around the world, and the policy
environment in many nations is ripe for change. At the same time, nations that
arc not aggressive in addressing environmental problems may be left behind in
the competition for international markets for agricultural products.
PART ONE

Issues and Policy Options

ONE

Agriculture and Water Quality:

Where Are We and Why?
LAWRENCE W. LIBBY
WILLIAM G. B O G G E S S

Water problems are emerging as the most compelling set of issues facing
production agriculture in the 1990s. When U.S. agricultural interest groups
assemble to compare notes, take positions, define the enemy, and set
priorities, water problems bubble to the surface. In fact, access to all natural
resources—land, water, even air—is a primary concern for farm groups
everywhere. National and local governments in every part of the world are
responding to perceived health risks or economic damage with a variety of
water quality initiatives. Some of them require farmers to operate differently,
reducing their contribution to the quality problem. Farmers are not accustomed
to this attention. In nearly all nations with a major agricultural industry,
farmers have spent their time and political energies worrying about production
methods, prices, and market protection—not environmental matters. But the
politics of water are becoming more visible, more urgent, and farm groups
must deal with interest groups that they previously had been able to avoid.
This chapter focuses on agriculture's impacts on water quality as a policy
challenge for the purpose of establishing a point of departure for more specific
discussions of policy options. It identifies the basic physical and policy
parameters for water quality and agriculture, covering the major features of this
landscape but leaving the important details to others. The water quality
problems that will demand attention by university and government social
scientists from many nations in coming years are identified and briefly
discussed.

QUANTITY A N D QUALITY

Water supply issues tend to be localized, a product of long-term climate and

economic development patterns and short-tenm weather fluctuations. Water
allocation limits have been imposed in several important instances. In the
United States, adequacy concerns are particularly acute in western states,
although they are increasing in high-use eastern areas as well. The U.S.
average water availability is far higher than that of many nations. Average per
capita water supply in India and China is one-fifth that of the United States.

9
10 LIBBY & BOGGESS

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are 100 times more "water poor" than the United
States on a per capita basis (World Resources Institute, 1988). These averages
hide acute shortages in localities resulting from rapid population increase or
natural scarcity.
For agriculture, water quality issues are more pervasive than water
quantity problems. Farmers are a significant polluting source in some areas,
and even when they are not, there is concern, even suspicion, regarding them.
Agriculture is indeed "part of the problem" in the United States and in other
parts of the world (Batie, 1988).
Fanners, foresters, growers, and ranchers are under scrutiny for their use
and misuse of water. In the rural United States, local politics are increasingly
dominated by people with no particular affinity for farms and farming.
Although issues of water quantity and quality have important differences,
particularly related to institutional history and policy options, they are integral
parts of the larger problem of water allocation. Usable water has a collection of
attributes including chemical, biological, and physical factors. Demand for
water by various users is responsive to the quality dimension.
In addition to using and degrading water, agriculture itself can be damaged
by tainted water. Farm families are more prone than others to consuming water
that has been polluted by farm operations. In those cases, the rationale for
corrective action on the farm is fairly clear. Consumers are increasingly aware
of potential hazards from various pesticides, some of which may come from
unintended applications of polluted water.

WATER USE IN AGRICULTURE

Agriculture impacts heavily upon water use and thus ultimately upon water
quality. It is the largest user (withdrawal) of water in the world, accounting for
two-thirds of the total freshwater withdrawals in countries from which data are
available (World Resources Institute, 1988). Freshwater withdrawals for all
uses in the United States in 1985 totaled an estimated 457 million acre-feet, of
which 125 million acre-feet were used for consumption and 200 million acrc-
feet were used for agriculture with 50 percent of that, or 100 million acre-feet
consumptive use (Guldin, 1988).
The source of water for irrigation in the United States in 1985 was about
60 percent (114.4 million acre-feet) from surface water and 40 percent (75.1
million acre-feet) from ground water, with a small amount (0.6 million acre-
feet) of wastewater reuse. Irrigators in the Great Plains rely most heavily upon
ground water, whereas those in the Rocky Mountains and on the Pacific Coast
rely most heavily on off-farm surface suppliers (Guldin, 1988). Ground-water
withdrawals for irrigation continue to increase across the nation. The Mountain
and Pacific regions account for over 50 percent of ground-water use for
 WHERE ARE WE? WHY? 11

irrigation. The Great Plains is the next largest user of ground water for
irrigation versus dryland farming alternatives. The total value of crops
produced with irrigation in the United States was estimated to be $24 billion in
1982; $16 billion of this was attributable to irrigation versus dryland farming
alternatives (Day and Homer, 1987).

Agriculture's Links to Water Quality

Agricultural production processes generate residuals such as manure, fertilizer,
pesticides, and soil particles, which can contaminate both ground and surface
water. Numerous health and environmental quality problems have been
associated with these contaminants. Water is a primary pollutant delivery and
transport medium. The joint effects of hydrologic processes and agricultural
practices lead to a number of important resource issues that complicate water
allocation decisions.
As emphasized by G e o r g e s c u - R o e g e n (1972), the laws of
thermodynamics dictate that all production processes generate residuals or
wasteflows; for a system to be sustainable, total inflows over time must
balance total outflows. The technology used in a production process
determines the potential flows of outputs and wastes from that process.
This framework illuminates several important aspects of agriculture's role
in water pollution. First, the generation of residuals is an unavoidable
byproduct of production. Production processes that generate wasteflows in
excess of the environment's assimilative capacity are inherently
nonsustainable.
Second, the composition and the timing of agricultural wasteflows can be
modified by changing crop mixes, by changing production practices such as
input substitution and timing of applications, or by developing new
technologies that alter the output/waste ratio. The goals would be to reduce the
amount of potential pollutants in the wasteflows and to modify the timing of
the outflows in order to reduce the likelihood that the potential pollutants are
delivered to a watercourse and/or to mitigate the resulting damages.
Third, the production process affects the spatial and temporal dimensions
of water outflows, which in turn affect the delivery and transport of the
potential loadings. This introduces important interactions and trade-offs
between potential loadings and ultimate delivery to ground or surface waters.

Sources of Agricultural Pollutants

Residuals from agricultural production activities can be grouped into six major
categories: soil sediments, nutrients, pesticides, mineral salts, heavy metals,
and disease organisms. Soil erosion is a natural process, which is accelerated
by cultivation of land. Five factors have the greatest impact on the rate of soil
12 LIBBY & BOGGESS

erosion: rainfall intensity and duration, soil erodibility, field topography,

vegetative cover, and tillage practices. These factors have been expressed in a
formula—the universal soil loss equation—which is commonly used for
predicting erosion from agricultural lands (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978).
Agricultural production practices primarily affect the vegetative cover and
tillage factors. A great deal of research and effort has been expended to
develop and implement production systems (including contouring, reduced
tillage, and crop rotations) that help control soil erosion.
Nutrients, primarily nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, are commonly
applied to agricultural crops as fertilizers to promote growth. In addition,
livestock wastes are a source of nitrogen and phosphorus. Nutrient levels in
excess of crop uptake are potential sources o f pollution of both ground and
surface waters. Agricultural production practices to control nutrient losses
include modifying the amount, timing, form, and placement of fertilizers or
livestock manures applied to agricultural lands.
Numerous chemical compounds are used in agriculture to inhibit growth
of various organisms that otherwise would reduce agricultural yields. These
compounds, c o m m o n l y referred to as pesticides, include herbicides,
insecticides, nematicides, and fungicides used to control weeds, insects,
nematodes, and diseases, respectively. These compounds are potential
pollutants o f both ground and surface waters. Pesticide losses can be
controlled by m o d i f y i n g the amount, timing, form, and placement of the
compounds. Important interactions exist among various types of pollutants and
control measures. For example, reduced tillage methods are often advocated as
a means of reducing soil erosion. H o w e v e r , in many cases these tillage
practices are accompanied by increased applications of herbicides and greater
rates of water infiltration. The result is a reduction in surface-water runoff and
sedimentation, but an increase in leaching and potential ground-water
contamination with herbicides.
A l l surface- and ground-water supplies contain some minerals derived
from natural dissolution o f rocks and soils (Young and Homer, 1986). When
water containing mineral salts is used for irrigating crops, these salts are
carried into the soil root zone and are left behind as the water evaporates or is
taken up by plants. Rising mineral concentrations in the soil can eventually
reach levels detrimental to crop growth (Yaron, 1986). The common solution
to this problem is to apply excess water to leach the salts beyond the crop root
zone. However, this process also concentrates the salts in irrigation return
flows, which negatively impacts downstream users. Salinization is a major
problem in arid regions where large quantities o f saline irrigation water
are applied, and little rainfall is available to dilute and leach the accumulating
salts.
Livestock production processes are a source of heavy metals (e.g., lead,
zinc, mercury, and arsenic) and disease organisms (coliform bacteria and
 W H E R E A R E W E ? WHY? 13

viruses) in addition to nutrients. Heavy metals and disease organisms are

potential pollutants of both ground and surface waters. These pollutant sources
can generally be controlled through appropriate handling and treatment of
manure.

Water as a Pollutant Transport Mechanism

Water movement is the key mechanism for transporting wastes from
agriculture into receiving water bodies as well as for transporting pollutants
into agriculture (e.g., by acid rain or saline irrigation water). Water transports
pollutants via four processes: rainfall, surface runoff, percolation/leaching, and
irrigation/evaporation. Rainfall impacts water quality in several ways. It
transports atmospheric compounds such as nitrogen and sulfates from the
atmosphere onto the land. If utilized by crops, nitrogen is highly beneficial;
however, if not utilized it becomes a potential pollutant. Sulfur reacts with the
rainwater to form sulfuric acid (acid rain), which may kill or retard the growth
of plants and may change the leaching patterns of many soils. Nitrogen is a
naturally occurring element in the atmosphere, whereas sulfur is not a natural
constituent and originates in emissions from coal-burning power plants and
other industries.
Water from rainfall or irrigation beyond that taken up by evaporation,
transpiration, and storage creates runoff or percolates into the ground water.
Runoff water from agricultural lands transports pollutants as solids suspended
in the runoff and transported downgradient. Further, chemicals may be picked
up in solution and transported offsite in the runoff. Water that soaks into the
soil and percolates down into ground-water aquifers may carry chemicals in
solution and ultimately contaminate ground water.
In addition to being a potential source of runoff or leaching, low-quality
irrigation water transports pollutants onto agricultural lands. Highly saline
irrigation water transports mineral salts and occasionally heavy metals onto
agricultural lands. Evaporation of the irrigation water causes the salts to
precipitate out, and reduction of the kinetic energy in the irrigation flows
allows heavy metals to settle out.
Pollutants are often classified by point-source or nonpoint-source origins.
Point-source pollutants are those that can be traced to a precise source defined
as a "discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance," such as a pipe, ditch,
well, or container [33 U.S.C. §1362(14) (1982)]. In agriculture there are
relatively few point sources of pollution, although concentrated confinement
livestock facilities, confined irrigation return flows, and some greenhouse
facilities would qualify as point sources.
Nonpoint or diffuse sources encompass a large areal extent and thus it is
difficult to trace such pollutants to a precise source. The majority of pollution
from agriculture is classified as nonpoint and arises from runoff and leaching
14 LIBBY & BOGGESS

from manure disposal areas and from land used for crop and livestock
production.
The distinction between point and nonpoint sources has important
implications for the design of pollution control practices. Management of
nonpoint-source pollutants is difficult and expensive because the pollution
potential of various residuals and the efficiency of control methods tend to be
site specific. Furthermore, spatial and temporal variability complicates the
assignment of liability for ultimate damages, and thus the choice of institutional
framework for controlling nonpoint sources. These issues will be more fully
discussed later in this chapter.
Agricultural pollutants can also be classified on the basis of whether they
are transported in water as suspended solids or in solution. Pollutants
transported as suspended solids include soil sediments and heavy metals. In
addition, some chemical compounds such as fertilizers and pesticides, which
are adsorbed to the soil, may be carried along with suspended sediments in
runoff. Pollutants transported in solution include nutrients, pesticides, mineral
salts, and disease organisms.
The form of pollutant transport determines the ultimate "sink" or receiving
body as well as the types of controls that are likely to be effective. Leaching
primarily carries compounds in solution. Thus, nutrients (particularly nitrates),
pesticides, and other soluble chemicals are the dominant agricultural sources of
ground-water contamination, and sediments and adsorbed compounds are
important additional sources of surface-water contamination. Pollutants
transported as sediments or adsorbed to sediments can be controlled by
reducing erosion, whereas pollutants transported in solution can be controlled
by reducing the availability and/or solubility of the compounds.

Impacts of Agricultural Pollution

The generation of residuals and ultimate transport to receiving water bodies is
of concern for two reasons. One concern revolves around the onsite effects on
agricultural productivity. Erosion and loss of nutrients reduce soil productivity
and increase costs of production. Likewise, losses of pesticides reduce their
effectiveness in combating pests, resulting in lower yields and increasing
costs.
There have been several attempts to quantify the onsite effects of soil
erosion. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that sheet
and rill erosion occurring over the past 30 years on land planted only to corn
resulted in soil damage costs of nearly $700 million. Total economic
productivity losses from eroding soils in the United States have been estimated
at about $1 billion per year (Ribaudo, 1986). In the short run, the primary
onsite costs associated with erosion are borne by the landowner via reduced
yields, increased costs, and lower land values. In the long run, society as a
 WHERE ARE WE? WHY? 15

whole may be concerned about the intergenerational implications of resource

depletion.
Another general area of concern about agricultural pollution arises from the
externalities, or offsite damages, caused. These effects are external to
agricultural production in that the damages are incurred by other users of
surface waters (rivers, lakes, estuaries) or ground-water aquifers.

Surface Water Impacts. Agricultural pollution of surface-water bodies takes

three general forms: (1) sedimentation arising from soil erosion; (2)
eutrophication, or nutrient enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus; and (3)
contamination from toxic chemicals such as herbicides and insecticides or from
disease organisms.
Soil particles cause instream impacts both while suspended in water and
after they have settled out. Instream impacts include damages to aquatic
organisms, water-based recreation, water-storage facilities, and navigation.
Sediment damages aquatic organisms by destroying spawning areas, food
sources, and habitat as well as directly damaging fish, crustaceans, and other
aquatic wildlife. Water-based recreation activities, including fishing, boating,
swimming, and waterfowl hunting, are adversely affected by sediment. Fish
numbers and composition change, fishing success declines, weed growth and
siltation hampers boating and swimming, and habitat changes rcduce food
supplies and cover for waterfowl. Finally siltation of channels, lakes, and
reservoirs reduces water-storage capacities and limits navigation, thus
requiring increased dredging or the construction of additional waterways.
Offstream impacts of sediment include increased flood damages, siltation
of water conveyance facilities, and raised water-treatment costs. Sediment
contributes to flood damages by increasing the frequency and depth of
flooding due to aggradation of streambeds, by expanding the volume of the
water/soil mixture, and by exacerbating the damage caused by sediment
deposited by the flood waters (Oark et al., 1985). Sedimentation of drainage
ditches and irrigation canals significantly raises the annual maintenance
dredging costs. In addition, the costs of treating water for municipal and
industrial uses increase because sedimentation basins must be built, chcmical
coagulants added, and filters cleaned more frequently.
Nutrients, pesticides, and other contaminants create both instream and
offstream water quality impacts through complex and indirect chcmical and
biological interactions rather than the relatively simple physical processes
associated with sedimentation. Eutrophication is the excessive nutrient
enrichment of a body of water so that rates of biological productivity are
stimulated (Clark et al., 1985). Although eutrophication is part of the normal
aging process of a water body, it is substantially accelerated by enhanced
concentrations of nutrients in runoff. The impact of a specific nutrient depends
upon the biological availability of the particular form and whether that
16 LIBBY & BOGGESS

particular nutrient is the limiting factor. Phosphorus is most commonly the

factor limiting growth in surface-water bodies.
Nutrient enrichment stimulates rapid growth o f aquatic micro- and
macrophytes, which in turn affects aquatic habitats. Changes in plant species
and distribution affect food supply and cover, which in turn may affect the
number and types o f fish. Oftentimes game fish such as trout, bass, or perch
are displaced by "rough" fish such as gar, carp, or shad. Increased growth of
surface macrophytes also interferes with fishing, boating, and swimming.
Algal blooms and decomposing organic matter in a eutrophic water body can
cause undesirable changes in water color, taste, and smell (Clark et al., 1985).
Some types o f algae are toxic and their blooms can make the fish within a
water body toxic. Shellfish are particularly affected by blooms o f toxic algae
such as the "red tides" of dinoflagellates. Furthermore, the decomposition of
algae and other vegetation can combine with other biological oxygen demand
( B O D ) loadings to deplete oxygen levels in the water, seriously harming all
forms of animal organisms and occasionally causing massive fish kills.
E x c e s s nutrients also cause serious offstream impacts. Nitrogen and
phosphorus can directly affect drinking-water supplies when a nutrient is in a
toxic form or combines to form toxic compounds, and can indirectly affect
supplies by stimulating algal growth, which hampers water purification. Toxic
levels of nutrients are rare, although high nitrite concentrations can cause
methemoglobinemia in infants. The most serious offstream impacts revclve
around the costs of removing algae from drinking water. Algae clogs fillers
and often requires the use of additional chemicals to purify the water.
The third type of agricultural pollution affecting surface-water bodies is
contamination by toxic chemicals or disease organisms. The potential damage
associated with a particular compound depends upon its toxicity, solubility,
and persistence. In general, the more toxic, soluble, and persistent a
compound the greater the potential damage.
The effects of toxic chemicals can be loosely classified as acute effects,
which produce an immediate and violent response such as death; and chronic
effects, which persist at low levels or may not appear for a long period of time
(Clark et al., 1985). Concentrations of toxic chemicals are normally too dilute
to produce acute effects. However, storm events or spills can trigger pulses of
contaminants that cause massive fish kills. Data from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (1981), based on reported fish kills in the United
States for which the causes were known, indicate that between 1961 and 1980
an average o f 1.8 million fish were killed annually by agricultural pesticides,
nutrients, or drainage from livestock areas. Two-thirds—an average of 1.2
million fish—were attributed to pesticide contamination.
Chronic effects such as impaired respiration, reproduction, or locomotion
are more common. Pesticides with low water solubilities and high fat
solubilities, such as organochlorines, can bioaccumulate in the fatty tissues of
 WHERE ARE WE? WHY? 17

animals that ingest them. Shellfish have been reported to bioaccumulate

pesticides up to 7 0 , 0 0 0 times the concentration in the surrounding water
(Butler, 1 9 6 6 ) . Concentrations o f pesticides in animal tissues can also
"biomagnify" or become increasingly concentrated as they are passed up the
food chain. A well-known example is D D T , which became concentrated at
very high levels in fish-eating ospreys and eagles, causing them to lay thin-
shelled eggs that could not hatch (Clark et al., 1985). Pesticides can also
indirectly affect aquatic species by reducing food supplies or destroying natural
habitat.
T o x i c compounds also affect offstream uses o f water including drinking
water, irrigation, and industrial uses. Pesticide concentrations in drinking
water are rarely high enough to cause acute effects; however, there is great
uncertainty and concern about chronic effects such as cancer, miscarriage, and
mutations. Pesticides are difficult and expensive to detect and remove from
drinking water supplies. Home water filtration systems that use activated
carbon, distillation, or ion exchange are effective in removing most chemicals
from drinking water. However, these systems cost from $ 5 0 0 to $ 8 0 0 to
install and annual maintenance costs range from $ 1 0 0 to $ 3 5 0 (Nielsen and
Lee, 1987). Pesticides can also create unintended side effects in irrigation
water, such as toxic levels of herbicides, which damage crops.
Mineral salts also cause serious offstream impacts. In drinking water, they
create health, taste, and corrosion problems. Industrial uses o f water are also
impacted by corrosion problems, and certain chemical uses are incompatible
with high concentrations o f dissolved salts. Saline irrigation water is a
particular problem. High salt concentrations are toxic to many agricultural
crops, and salt concentrations in irrigated soils can build up over time,
reducing productivity. Annual salinity damages in the Colorado River system
were estimated to range between $75 million and $104 million in 1980, and are
predicted to increase to $165 million by the year 2 0 0 0 (U.S. Department of the
Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Similarly, annual salinity
damages in the Murray-Darling River system in Australia have been estimated
at A $ 1 1 5 million (about U S $ 1 0 0 million) (Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial
Council, 1988).
It is extremely difficult and in some cases impossible to estimate the costs
associated with all of the instream and offstream impacts caused by agricultural
nonpoint pollutants in surface waters. Clark et al. ( 1 9 8 5 ) undertook a
comprehensive attempt at quantifying the annual damages caused by nonpoint
pollution in the United States. In purely physical terms, they estimated that
nonpoint sources dominate point sources, contributing approximately 7 3
percent o f total biochemical-oxygen-demand loads, 9 9 percent of suspended
solids, 83 percent o f dissolved solids, 82 percent of nitrogen, 84 percent of
phosphorus, and 9 8 percent o f bacteria loads in surface waterways of the
United States. Christensen and Ribaudo (1987), in an update of the economic
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 One of the things on which the members of the mission laid stress
in their request for the elevation of the school to the rank and title of
a college was that it already had “a good collection of philosophical
and chemical apparatus, believed to be the largest and best-
assorted collection in China.” Dr. Mateer also was accustomed to
speak of this apparatus with a pride that was an expression, not of
vanity, but of satisfaction in a personal achievement, that was
eminently worth while. For instance, in his letter to his college
classmates in 1897, he said: “I have given some time and
considerable thought and money to the making of philosophical
apparatus. I had a natural taste in this direction, and I saw that in
China the thing to push in education was physical science. We now
have as good an outfit of apparatus as the average college in the
United States,—more than twice as much as Jefferson had when we
graduated; two-thirds of it made on the ground at my own expense.”
It was a slow, long job to produce it. Early in his career as a teacher
in the Tengchow school he had little need of apparatus because the
pupils were not of a grade to receive instruction in physics; but it was
not very long until he recorded his difficulty, for instance, in teaching
pneumatics without an air pump. Some of his instruction at that
general period was given to a class of students for the ministry. He
was always careful to let it be known that his school was in no
degree a theological seminary; he held it to be vital to have it
understood that it was an institution for what we would call secular
instruction, though saturated through and through with Christianity.
But again and again throughout his life he took his share in teaching
native candidates for the ministry; and before the college proper
afforded them opportunity to study western science he was
accustomed to initiate these young men into enough knowledge of
the workings of nature to fit them to be better leaders among their
own people. Thus, writing in his Journal, February, 1874, concerning
his work with the theological class that winter, he said:

I heard them a lesson every day,—one day in philosophy

[physics] and the next in chemistry. I went thus over optics
and mechanics, and reviewed electricity, and went through
the volume on chemistry. I practically gave all my time to the
 business of teaching and experimenting, and getting
apparatus. I had carpenters and tinners at work a good part of
the time. I got up most of the things needed for illustrating
mechanics, and a number in optics; also completed my set of
fixtures for frictional electricity, and added a good number of
articles to my set of galvanic apparatus. With my new battery I
showed the electrical light and the deflagration of metals very
well. The Ruhmkorff coil performed very well indeed, and
made a fine display. I had an exhibition of two nights with the
magic lantern, using the oxyhydrogen light. In chemistry I
made all the gases and more than are described in the book,
and experimented on them fully. They gave me no small
amount of trouble, but I succeeded with them all very well. I
made both light and heavy carbureted hydrogen, and
experimented with them. Then I made coal gas enough to
light up the room through the whole evening. Altogether I
have made for the students a fuller course of experiments in
philosophy or chemistry than I saw myself. They studied well
and appreciated very much what they saw. I trust the issue
will prove that my time has not been misspent. I have learned
a great deal myself, especially in the practical part of
experiment-making. It may be that I may yet have occasion to
turn this knowledge to good account. I have also gathered in
all a very good set of apparatus, which I shall try to make
further use of.

It was in this way that the collection was begun. As he added to it

in succeeding years, every piece had a history that lent it an
individual interest. Much of it continued to be produced by his own
hand, or at least under his own superintendence, and at the expense
of himself, or of his friends, who at his solicitation contributed money
for this use. Some of the larger and more costly articles were
donated by people to whom he appealed for help, and therefore
peculiar personal associations clustered about them. For instance,
when home on his first furlough, he met Cyrus W. Field, on a voyage
to Europe, and interested him in the Tengchow School. After
reaching China again, he wrote a letter to Mr. Field and solicited from
him the gift of a dynamo. In the course of some months a favorable
response was received; and, eventually, that dynamo rendered most
valuable service in lighting the buildings. Two friends, whose
acquaintance he had made in the United States,—Mr. Stuart, of New
York, and Mrs. Baird, of Philadelphia,—gave him money to buy a
ten-inch reflecting telescope, with proper mountings and
accompaniments; and when, as so often happens in such matters,
there was a considerable deficit, his “Uncle John” came to the relief.
In ordering through an acquaintance a set of telegraph instruments
he explained that the Board was not furnishing the means to pay for
it, but that it was purchased with his own money, supplemented by
the gifts of certain friends of missions and education.
This must suffice as to the history of that collection of apparatus. It
is, however, enough to show why he had so much pride in it.
It was in 1895 that he laid down the headship of the college. He
took this step all the more readily because in his successor, Rev. W.
M. Hayes, now of Tsingchow fu, he had entire confidence as to both
character and ability. On his arrival in China Mr. Hayes was
immediately associated with Dr. Mateer in the school, and showed
himself to be a thoroughly kindred spirit. He continued at the head of
the college until 1901, when he resigned his position in order to start
for the governor of the province a new college at Tsinan fu. It may
not be out of place to add here that the governor at that time was
Yuan Shih K’ai, a man of large and liberal views, and that there was,
as to the new college he was founding, in the requirements nothing
that made it improper for a Christian and a minister of the gospel to
be at the head of it. It is due to Mr. Hayes to say that in accepting
this position he was confident that he had the approval of nearly all
the missionaries associated with him. However, it was not very long
until Yuan was transferred to the viceroyalty of the province of Chi-li,
which dominates Peking, and a successor took his place in
Shantung, who was of a different mind, and who introduced such
usages into the new institution that Mr. Hayes felt conscientiously
bound to lay down his office. He is now one of the instructors in the
theological department of the Shantung Christian University, into
which the college at Tengchow has been merged.
 In the request of the members of the mission for the elevation of
the Tengchow school to the rank and title of a college one of the
articles specifically left the ultimate location of the institution an open
question. The main objection to Tengchow was its isolation. It is
away up on the coast of the peninsula that constitutes the eastern
end of the province, and it is cut off from the interior by a range of
rather rugged hills in the rear. Though a treaty port, its commerce by
sea has long been inconsiderable, and gives no promise of increase.
At the time when that request was made, it is likely that some,
though signing, would have preferred that the college should be
removed down to Chefoo. To any project of that sort Dr. Mateer was
inflexibly, and with good reason, opposed; and it never assumed
such strength as to give him much apprehension. Along in the later
“eighties” and in the early “nineties” the question of location again
arose in connection with the Anglo-Chinese college which Dr. A. P.
Happer, of the Presbyterian missions in China, undertook to found.
He progressed so far as to raise a considerable sum of money for
endowment and had a board appointed for the control. The project at
no stage received the hearty support of Dr. Mateer, though, of
course, so long as it did not threaten hurt to his own college or the
ideas which it represented he did not make any fight against it. Dr.
Happer had long been a missionary in southern China, and was
beyond question earnestly devoted to his work; his idea was that by
means of the Anglo-Chinese college he would raise up an efficient
native ministry for the churches. The conviction of Dr. Mateer was
that, so far as this result is concerned, the institution, by the very
nature of the plan, must be a comparative failure. English was to be
given a large place in the curriculum, and for students it was to draw
especially on such as could pay their own way. In a long letter dated
March 18, 1887, called out by the question of the location of the
proposed college, and signed by Dr. Mateer and Mr. Hayes, they
frankly expressed to one of the secretaries of the Board their
reasons for believing so strongly that an institution conducted on the
plan proposed could not realize the main object which its founder
sought. They had found it necessary years before, in the Tengchow
College, to meet the question as to the introduction of English, and
the decision was in favor of using Chinese alone in the curriculum;
and so long as the school remained in charge of Mateer and Hayes,
they rigidly excluded their own native tongue. When the Tengchow
school was just emerging into the Tengchow College, Dr. Mateer
thus expressed his convictions on that subject:

If we should teach English, and on this account seek the

patronage of the officers and the rich, no doubt we could get
some help and countenance. We would be compelled,
however, to give up in good measure the distinctively religious
character of the school. We would get a different class of
pupils, and the religious tone of the school would soon be
changed in spite of us. Another result would also be almost
inevitable, namely, the standard of Chinese scholarship would
fall. The study of English is fatal to high acquisition in the
Chinese classics. We would doubtless have great trouble in
keeping our pupils after they were able to talk English; they
would at once go seeking employment where their English
would bring them good wages. Tengchow, moreover, is not a
port of foreign residents, but rather an isolated and inland city,
and it would not be a good place to locate a school in which
teaching English is made a prominent feature.

His observation since had served to confirm him in the conviction

of years before, and in the letter to a secretary of the Board, Hayes
united with him in stating clearly and forcibly their joint opinion on the
subject.
In casting about for a location for the Anglo-Chinese college, the
choice narrowed down so that it lay between Canton, Nanking,
Shanghai, and Tientsin. Chefoo was mentioned, but not seriously
considered, yet even the possibility of location there, although
remote, was so important a matter to the Shantung College that it
compelled the men at the head of that institution to be on the alert so
long as the question was undetermined. By and by Dr. Happer
became disposed to turn over the management of his projected
college to some other person, and he wrote to Dr. Mateer, sounding
him as to the vacancy, should it occur. The scheme at that time
seemed to be to locate the new institution at Shanghai, and to unite
with it the Shantung College; and in a long letter in response, written
January 9, 1890, Dr. Mateer went very candidly over the entire
situation. Among other things he said:

It will be necessary, however, to settle the policy of the

college, and also its headship, before making any definite
move. Whoever undertakes to make English and self-support
prominent features, and then aims at a Christian college, has,
as things are at present in China, a difficult contract on his
hands. I for one do not feel called to embark in such an
enterprise, and my name may as well be counted out.... Nor
can the school at Tengchow be moved away from Shantung.
We might go, and the apparatus might be moved; but not the
pupils. It is futile to talk of them or any considerable number of
them coming to Shanghai; nor will pupils go from central
China north to be educated save in exceptional cases. The
distance and the expense are both too great. Each section of
China must have its own schools.

Not long afterward the situation was such that Dr. Mateer and Mr.
Hayes addressed to the trustees of the endowment a paper in which
a suggestion was made that under certain conditions the fund raised
by Dr. Happer should be turned over to the Shantung College. In that
paper there was a frank statement of their attitude as to English.
They were entirely willing to introduce that language, but only under
such conditions that it could not seriously alter the character and
work of the institution. The paper is too long for introduction here. It
will suffice to quote from a letter sent by Dr. Mateer at the same time
to one of the secretaries of the Board, and dated February 9, 1891:

There are one or two things I want to say in a less formal

way. One is that in case our proposition in regard to English is
not satisfactory, you will take care that the proposed school is
not located in Chefoo as a rival of the college in Tengchow. It
would be nothing short of suicidal for the Board to allow such
 a proceeding, and would be a great wrong, both to myself and
to Mr. Hayes. We do not propose to engage in such a contest,
but would at once resign, and seek some other sphere of
labor. Again, I wish to call your attention to what is the real
inwardness of our plan for English; namely, to teach it in such
a way, and to such parties only, as will insure its being used in
literary and scientific lines. We will not teach English merely to
anyone, nor teach it to anyone who wants merely English. We
will teach it to men, not to boys. Lastly, Mr. Hayes and I have
for several years had in mind the idea of a post-graduate
course in applied science, and have been waiting for my visit
home to push it forward; and even if the present endowment
scheme fails, we will still feel like pushing it, and introducing
some English as already indicated.

Nothing came of the suggestion that the money should be turned

over to the Shantung institution.
Dr. Mateer still continued to help in the college at Tengchow, as he
had time and opportunity. Early in the “nineties,” and after the
movement just considered had failed to materialize, he solicited from
the Board the privilege of seeking to raise an endowment fund, but at
that time he was unable to secure their consent. At the beginning of
1900 the Board changed their attitude, and authorized an effort to be
made to secure contributions for this purpose. Of course, in order to
be successful in this undertaking, a satisfactory plan for the control
of the college was a necessity; and as to this Dr. Mateer was
consulted, and he gave his opinions freely. His preference was
expressed for a charter giving the endowment a separate legal
status, but providing that the members of the Board of Foreign
Missions, acting in this distinct capacity, should be the trustees. The
general oversight of the institution he thought should be assigned to
a “Field Board of Directors,” composed of members of the Shantung
Mission. This was not a scheme that entirely satisfied him. The
specter, on the one hand, of a diversion of the college into a school
for teaching English, and, on the other, of making it a theological
seminary, would not altogether down; but in the ultimate appeal to
the members of the Board of Foreign Missions he recognized a
safeguard that was not likely to prove inadequate. When he was on
furlough in 1903, he spent a considerable part of his time in soliciting
permanent funds for the college, then already removed to its present
location; but he was unable to secure much aid. Ada was with him;
and she says of his experience in this work, “He was so accustomed
to success in whatever he undertook that it was hard for him to bear
the indifference of the rich to what seemed to him so important.”
The transfer of the college to another location was a question that
would not permanently rest. So long as it was whether it should go
from Tengchow to Chefoo, or be swallowed up in another more
pretentious institution at Shanghai, and not yet in existence, it was
comparatively easy to silence the guns of those who talked removal.
But at the opening of the twentieth century, even out there in north
China, important changes indirectly affecting this problem had
occurred. The missions had been strengthened by a number of new
men, who came fresh from the rush of affairs in the United States,
and eager to put their force into the work in China in such a way that
it would tell the most. Even China itself was beginning to awake from
the torpor of ages. In Shantung the Germans were building railroads,
one of them right through the heart of the province, on by way of Wei
Hsien to the capital, and from that point to be afterward connected
with Tientsin and Peking. It is not strange that, under the new
conditions, the young members of the mission especially should
desire to place the college which loomed up so largely and
effectually in the work to which they had consecrated their lives
where it could be in closer touch with the swarming millions of the
land and with the movements of the new times. February 26, 1901,
Dr. Mateer wrote to the Board:

At a meeting of the Shantung Mission it was voted to

remove the Tengchow College to Wei Hsien, and then give up
the Tengchow station. Being at Shanghai, engaged in the
translation work, I was not able to be present at the mission
meeting, and it seems incumbent on me to say something on
a matter of so much importance, and that concerns me so
 much.... First, with reference to the college. The major part of
my life has been given to building up the Tengchow College,
and, of course, I feel a deep interest in its future. As you can
easily imagine, I am naturally loath to see it moved from the
place where Providence placed it; and to see all the toil and
thought given to fitting up the buildings, with heating, lighting,
and the other appliances go for nothing; as also the loss of
the very considerable sums of money I have myself invested
in it. The Providence which placed the college in Tengchow
should not be lightly ignored, nor the natural advantages
which Tengchow affords be counted for nothing. It is not
difficult to make out a strong case for Wei Hsien, and I am not
disposed to dispute its advantages, except it be to question
the validity of the assumption that a busy commercial center
is necessarily the best place to locate a college. In view of the
whole question, it seems to me that unless an adequate
endowment can be secured—one which will put the college
on a new basis—it will not pay the Board to make the sacrifice
involved in moving the college to Wei Hsien.... However, I
would rather go to Wei Hsien than be opposed strongly at
Tengchow.

On that part of his contention he lost; and it would be useless now

to try to ascertain the respective merits of the two sides to that
question. The second part of the letter just cited discussed the
abandonment of Tengchow as a mission station. The plan of those
who took the affirmative of this debate was to leave that city to the
Southern Baptists, who almost forty years before had preceded the
Presbyterians a few weeks in a feeble occupation, but who had been
entirely overshadowed by the development of the college. For the
retention of the station Dr. Mateer pleaded with his utmost fervor and
eloquence. Though the decision remained in uncertainty while he
lived, and the uncertainty gave him much anxiety, large gifts, coming
since, from a consecrated layman, have rendered the retention of
the Tengchow station secure. The wisdom of the decision is
vindicated by present conditions. At the close of 1909 the station
reported a city church with three hundred members; a Sabbath
school which sometimes numbers five hundred pupils; thirty out-
stations with about five hundred members; twenty-four primary
schools, giving instruction to three hundred and sixteen boys and
girls, and taught by graduates of the higher schools of the station; a
girls’ high school with an average enrollment of forty-six pupils, and
for the year then closing having twelve graduates, nearly all of whom
became teachers; a boys’ high school with an attendance of forty,
and sending up a number of graduates to the college at Wei Hsien or
to other advanced institutions, and having a normal department with
a model primary department; and also a helpers’ summer school;
besides other machinery for reaching with the gospel the three
millions of people gathered in the neighborhood of Tengchow. Nor
has the work of the Presbyterians in the least hampered that of the
Southern Baptists.
The actual removal of the college was not effected until the
autumn of 1904. In the interval between the time when it was
determined to take this step and when it was actually accomplished
a number of important things affecting the course of Dr. Mateer’s life
occurred. Mr. Hayes, as elsewhere stated, resigned the presidency;
and Rev. Paul D. Bergen, who had come out to the mission in 1883,
was chosen in his place. Dr. Mateer had been so closely associated
with Mr. Hayes, and had such complete confidence in him, that the
resignation came almost like a personal bereavement; but he rose
nobly out of the depths, and wrote home to the Board: “Mr. Bergen is
clearly the best man that our missions in Shantung afford for the
place. He is very popular with the Chinese, which is much in his
favor. The time is as auspicious as it is important. Educational affairs
are taking a great boom, and it looks as if Shantung was going to
lead the van. If it is properly supported the college should do a great
work.” During the interval here covered Dr. Mateer came to the
United States on his third and last furlough, reaching China again in
the autumn of 1903, and bringing with him some substantial fruits of
his efforts for the college.
On his arrival he was confronted by another great problem as to
the institution. A combination had already been almost effected by
the American Presbyterians and the English Baptists in Shantung for
a union in the work of higher education in the province. The matter
had already gone so far that, although he feared that the scheme
would bring about such radical changes as to endanger the real
usefulness of the institution, yet he made no serious opposition, and
it went steadily forward to consummation. Under the plan adopted
the Shantung Christian University was established; and provision
was made for a joint maintenance of three distinct colleges in it, each
at a different location, chosen because of mission and other
conditions—a college of arts and science at Wei Hsien, a theological
college at Tsingchow fu, and a medical college at Tsinan fu. The plan
also provides for a university council, to which is committed the
general control of the institution, subject, of course, to certain
fundamental regulations; and of this body Dr. Mateer was one of the
original members. The first meeting was held at Tsingchow fu near
the end of 1903. Writing to one of the secretaries of the Board of
Missions concerning this, he said: “All were present. Our meeting
was quite harmonious. We elected professors and discussed and
drew out some general principles relating to the curriculum and the
general management. Theoretically things seem quite promising; the
difficulty will come in practical administration. The buildings at Wei
Hsien are all up to the first floor. There should be no difficulty in
getting all ready by next autumn, at which time the college ought by
all means to be moved.” Early the next summer he wrote: “I started
to Wei Hsien about a month ago, overland. I spent over two weeks
taking down and packing my goods, and so forth, including
workshop, boiler, engine, dynamo, and so forth. I found it quite a
serious undertaking to get all my miscellaneous goods packed up,
ready for shipment on boats to Wei Hsien.... I remained in Wei Hsien
twenty-four days, unpacking my effects, getting my workshop in
order, and planning for the heating and lighting outfit.” In the same
letter he expressed himself as follows concerning the theological
college at Tsingchow fu: “It was certainly understood at the meeting
of the directors last winter that it was to be much more than a
theological seminary in the strict sense of the word. It was
understood, in fact, that it would have two departments,—a training
school and a theological seminary proper. In this way only can the
full measure of our needs be supplied.... With this organization it is
not unlikely that the school at Tsingchow fu will be larger than the
college at Wei Hsien.”
This narrative as to Dr. Mateer and the Shantung College is now
approaching its close, and most readers probably will prefer that, so
far as practicable, the remainder of it shall be told in his own words.
December 21, 1904, he wrote to a friend: “The college is now fully
moved to Wei Hsien, and has in it about a hundred and twenty
students. The new buildings are quite fine,—much superior to those
we had in Tengchow. Mrs. Mateer and I have moved to Wei Hsien to
live and will make this our home. We are living in the same house
with my brother Robert, making all one family. This arrangement
suits us very well. I am not teaching in the college, but I would not
feel at home if I were away from it. I hope it has a great future.” In his
report for himself and wife, for the year 1904-05, he says: “The
greater part of the autumn was spent in overseeing the building and
fitting up of a workshop, and in superintending the setting up of a
new thirty-two horse-power steam boiler for heating and lighting the
college, together with a system of steam piping for the same; also
the setting up of engine and dynamo and wiring the college for
electric lights. I also set up a windmill and pump and tank, with pipes
for supplying the college and several dwelling houses with water. I
also built for myself and Mrs. Mateer a seven-kien house in Chinese
style, affording a study, bedroom, storeroom, box room, and coal
room.” This little, narrow, one-story house constituted their home
during the rest of his life in Wei Hsien, though they still look their
meals with the other family. They sometimes called this house “the
Borderland,” for only a narrow path separated them from the small
foreign cemetery at the extreme corner of the compound. In
November, 1905, he wrote to one of the secretaries of the Board:
“The college is, of course, delighted at the prospect of a Science
Hall. I take some credit for having prepared the way for this gift from
Mr. Converse.” In his report for the year 1906 he said: “During the
early part of the winter I spent considerable time, planning,
estimating, and ordering supplies for the lighting, heating, and water
supply of the new Science Hall at Wei Hsien.”
 We are at length face to face with the last stage in the active
connection of Dr. Mateer with the college. February 26, 1907, he
wrote to one of the secretaries of the Board of Missions:

I returned three days ago from the meeting of the College

Directors at Tsingchow fu. The meeting was prolonged and a
very important one. A number of important and embarrassing
questions were before us.... You will hear from others, of
course, and from the minutes, that Dr. Bergen resigned the
presidency of the college, and that in our inability to find a
successor I was asked to take the position temporarily, until
other arrangements could be made, and Dr. Bergen was
asked to remain as a professor, which he agreed to do. This
provided for the teaching, and makes it possible for me to
take the presidency without doing much teaching, which I
could not do under present conditions.

During the period of his service in this capacity the college not only
did well in its regular work; it also made some important advances.
The total attendance was one hundred and eighty-one, and a class
of ten was graduated at commencement. At Tengchow he had
always valued the literary societies very highly, and these now
received a fresh impetus. Several rooms of the new Science Hall
were brought into use; two additional rows of dormitories were built,
one for college and personal teachers and workmen, and one for
students; not to mention lesser matters.
Nevertheless he found his official position in certain ways very
uncomfortable. Some of the reasons of this were casual to the
internal administration, and cannot now be appreciated by outsiders,
and are not worth airing here. Others were of a more permanent
nature, and had to do with the future conduct and character of the
institution. The question of English had been for a while hushed to
sleep; but it was now awake again, and asserted itself with new
vigor. In a letter dated December 19, 1907, he said: “I am strongly in
favor of an English School, preferably at Tsinan fu, but I am opposed
to English in the college. It would very soon destroy the high grade of
scholarship hitherto maintained, and direct the whole output of the
college into secular lines.” His fear was that if English were
introduced the graduates of the institution would be diverted from the
ministry and from the great work of evangelizing the people to
commercial pursuits, and that it would become a training school of
compradors and clerks. Later the intensity of his opposition to the
introduction of English was considerably modified, because of the
advantage which he perceived to be enjoyed in the large union
meetings, by such of the Chinese as knew this language in addition
to their own. He saw, too, that with the change of times a knowledge
of English had come to be recognized as an essential in the new
learning, as a bond of unity between different parts of China, and as
a means of contact with the outside world. Looking at the chief
danger as past, he expressly desired that the theologues should be
taught English. At any rate he had been contending for a cause that
was evidently lost. At this writing the curriculum of the college offers
five hours in English as an optional study for every term of the four
required years; and also of the fifth year. Dr. Mateer, besides, was
not fully in sympathy with a movement that was then making to
secure a large gift from the “General Education Fund” for the
endowment of the institution. In the letter just quoted he says: “The
college should be so administered by its president and faculty as to
send some men into the ministry, or it fails of its chief object. I am in
favor of stimulating a natural growth, but not such a rapid and
abnormal growth as will dechristianize it. I do not believe in the
sudden and rapid enlargement of the plant beyond the need at the
time. It would rapidly secularize the college and divert it entirely from
its proper ideal and work.” These questions were too practical, and
touched the vitals of the institution too deeply, to be ignored by
earnest friends on either side. Some things as to the situation are so
transparent that they can be recognized by any person who looks at
it from not too close a point of view. The entire merits of the
argument were in no case wholly on one side; and as a
consequence it is not surprising that wise and good men differed as
they did; and the only decisive test is actual trial of the changes
advocated by the younger men. It is also perfectly plain that in this
affair we have only another instance of a state of things so often
recurring; that is, of a man who has done a great work, putting into it
a long life of toil and self-sacrifice, and bringing it at length to a point
where he must decrease and it must increase; and where in the very
nature of the case it must be turned over to younger hands, to be
guided as they see its needs in the light of the dawning day. He can
scarcely any longer be the best judge of what ought to be done; but
even if he were, the management must be left for good or ill to them.
That evidently is the fight in which Dr. Mateer came ultimately to see
this matter. He courageously faced the inevitable. In this, as in all
other cases, no personal animosity was harbored by him toward
anyone who differed from him.
October 27, 1907, he wrote to an associate on the Mandarin
Revision Committee: “I have now dissolved myself from the
management of the college, and shall have very little to do with it in
the future. It has cost me a great deal to do it, but it is best it should
be so. I am now free from any cares or responsibility in educational
matters.” In a letter to Secretary Brown, dated December 21, 1907,
he said: “In view of the circumstances I thought it best to resign at
once, and unconditionally, both the presidency and my office as
director. I have no ambition to be president, and in fact was only
there temporarily until another man should be chosen. I did not wish
to be a director when I could not conscientiously carry out the ideas
and policy of a majority of the mission. It was no small trial, I assure
you, to resign all connection with the college, after spending the
major part of my missionary life working for it. It did, in fact, seriously
affect my health for several weeks. I cannot stand such strains as I
once did.”
One of the striking incidents of his funeral service at Tsingtao was
the reading of the statistics of the graduates of the Tengchow
College, including the students who came with the college to Wei
Hsien. These have since been carefully revised and are as follows:
Total receiving diplomas, 205; teachers in government schools, 38;
teachers in church schools, 68; pastors, 17; evangelists, 16; literary
work, 10; in business, 9; physicians, 7; post-office service, 4; railroad
service, 2; Y. M. C. A. service, 2; customs service, 1; business
clerks, 2; secretaries, 1; at their homes, 6; deceased, 22. These
graduates are scattered among thirteen denominations, and one
hundred schools, and in sixteen provinces of China. About two
hundred more who were students at Tengchow did not complete the
course of studies.
The institution since its removal has continued steadily to go
forward. The large endowment that was both sought and feared has
not yet been realized, and consequently the effect of such a gift has
not been tested by experience; but other proposed changes have
been made. A pamphlet published in 1910 reports for the college of
arts and sciences an enrollment of three hundred and six students,
and in the academy, eighty. The class which graduates numbers
seventeen, all of whom are Christians. Down to that year there had
been at Wei Hsien among the graduates no candidates for the
ministry, but during 1910, under the ministration of a Chinese pastor,
a quiet but mighty religious awakening pervaded the institution, and
one outcome has been a vast increase in the number of candidates
for the ministry or other evangelistic work. The pamphlet already
quoted speaks of more than one hundred of the college students
who have decided to offer themselves for this work. It is
appropriately added that “such a movement as this amongst our
students inspires us with almost a feeling of awe.... Our faith had
never reached the conception of such a number as the above
simultaneously making a decision.” It has recently been decided to
bring all the departments of the university to Tsinan fu, the provincial
capital.
In the theological college at Tsingchow fu, according to the last
report, there were eleven students in the regular theological
department and one hundred and twenty-eight in the normal school.
In the medical college at Tsinan fu there were thirteen young men.
The aggregate for the whole university rises to five hundred and
thirty-eight. On the Presbyterian side this all began with those six
little boys, in the old Kwan Yin temple, in the autumn of 1864, at
Tengchow. To-day it is a university, and is second to no higher
institution of learning in China.
It is said that Dr. Mateer never led in prayer, either public or
private, that he did not most earnestly ask that the Lord would raise
up Chinese Christian men, who as leaders would bring many to
Christ. His prayers during the forty-five years of his missionary life
are receiving a wonderful answer at Wei Hsien and at Tsingchow fu.
 XII
WITH APPARATUS AND MACHINERY

“The things most likely to be needed in China, are first, electrical

engineering, especially telegraphy, and second, civil engineering,
especially surveying and laying out of railroads. Special preparation in
one or both of these things would be very valuable. But what is more
necessary for immediate use, and as a preliminary to these things, is
a practical knowledge of scientific apparatus,—how to make and how
to use it. I have myself picked it up from books, without any instructor,
but only at a great expense of time and labor.”—letter to a
prospective teacher, October 29, 1888.

Whenever a group of the early acquaintances of Dr. Mateer talked

together about him, one thing certain to be mentioned was his
achievements with apparatus and machinery, both with the making
and with the using of them. Out in China his reputation for this was
so great that it at times came near to being a burden to him. We
have already seen that the temporary superintendence of the
mission press at Shanghai was thrust upon him, contrary to his own
preference, and because, as he expressed it in a letter at that time,
the men in control considered him a “Jack-of-all-trades,” able to do
anything at which he might be put. If they then did really think of him
as no more than a man who with machinery could do a great many
things without performing any of them thoroughly well, they did him a
great injustice, which their subsequent knowledge amply corrected.
As the years went by, and in this sphere of his multifarious activity he
rose to larger and more difficult achievements, his fame as to this
spread far and wide among both natives and foreigners. At no time,
however, did he permit his efficiency in this line to loom up in such a
form or in such a degree as to seem even to others to put his
distinctively missionary labors into the background. It is a significant
fact that in the eulogiums pronounced on him at his death this
feature of his character and work is seldom even mentioned. He was
—first, last, and all the time—a man whose life and whose abilities
were so completely and so manifestly consecrated to the
evangelization of the Chinese that when those who knew him best
looked back over the finished whole, his remarkable achievements
with apparatus and machinery scarcely arrested their attention.
Dr. Mateer himself regarded his efficiency in this sphere as due in
some measure to native endowment. He had an inborn taste and
ability for that sort of work; and stories have come down concerning
certain very early manifestations of this characteristic. It is related
that when he was a little boy he was suffering loss through the raids
made by the woodpeckers on a cherry tree laden with luscious fruit.
He pondered the situation carefully, and then set up a pole, close by,
with a nice lodging place for a bird at the top, and armed himself with
a mallet down at the foot. The woodpecker would grab a cherry, and
immediately fly to the pole in order to eat it; but a sharp blow with the
mallet would bring him from his perch to the ground. So the boy
saved his cherries. It is also related of him that when a mere boy he
had a friendly dispute with his father over the question whether a
sucking pig had the homing instinct. He maintained that it would
return to its mother under conditions that proved the affirmative; and
in order to satisfy himself, he placed a pig in a sack, and took it a
long way from its familiar haunts, and turned it loose. It had been
agreed that the result was to decide the ownership. To his delight,
immediately the pig started on a bee line for home, and never gave
up the race until it was back in its old place.
For the development and application of this natural gift he received
almost no help from others. Probably if that old workbench in the
barn at the “Hermitage” could speak, it might tell something as to
oversight and guidance of the boy by his father, in making and
repairing traps and tools for use in recreation and in work; but
beyond this he had no instruction. In his day at college a chemical or
physical laboratory was supposed to be exclusively for the professor
to prepare his experiments; the student was expected only to be a
spectator in the classroom when the experiments were shown. The
man who occupied the chair of natural philosophy at Jefferson when
we were there had a gift for supplementing his scanty outfit of
apparatus with the products of his own skill and labor, and if the
student Mateer had found his way down into the subterranean
regions where these were wrought, he and Professor Jones would
have rejoiced together in sympathetic collaboration; but no such
unheard-of violation of ancient custom occurred. In the academy at
Beaver he first turned his hand to making a few pieces of apparatus
which he craved as helps in teaching. But it was not until he reached
China that this field for his talent opened before him, and continued
to enlarge all the rest of his life. In fact, even when he was absent
from China, on his furloughs, he did not get away from his work with
apparatus and machinery. During one of his earlier furloughs, while
he was looking up everything that could be helpful to his Chinese
boys, he spent some time in the Baldwin Locomotive Works, by
special permission, in studying the construction of locomotives, so
that he might be able to make a model of one on his return to China.
In connection with this he showed such an acquaintance with the
structure of these engines that he could scarcely convince some of
the skilled mechanics that he had not been trained to the business.
Dr. Corbett wrote concerning him, after his death: “It was my
privilege to meet him at the World’s Fair at Chicago in 1893. He had
spent nearly a month there examining minutely many things of
special interest to him. As my time was limited he kindly became my
guide for a while, and gave me the benefit of his observations. We
first visited the department of electricity, which he had carefully
studied in all its various applications. We next went to Machinery
Hall, where he had spent days making drawings, measurements,
and so forth, of the most complex machinery. He seemed to
understand everything as though this had been the work of his life.”
Dr. Hayes says: “Dr. Mateer’s ability to meet exigencies was well
shown a few years ago in Wei Hsien, when suddenly the large
dynamo failed to produce a current. He unwound the machine until
he located the fault, reinsulated the wire and rewound the coil; after
which the machine furnished its current as usual.... Electrotyping
was hardly in general use in the west until he secured an outfit of
tools and taught a class of native artisans. When electric fans came
in vogue he purchased a small one as a model and proceeded to
make another.”