Soil Conservation

Protection, enhancement, management, public policies and wise use of soil resources to prevent the loss of soil through erosion or degradation.

Soil Erosion as a Socioenvironmental Issue in the U.S.

Soil erosion has been a serious environmental problem in most agricultural regions of the U.S. since the Colonial years. However, most environmental costs associated with soil loss were ignored. Three of the most important reasons why soil erosion was permitted to exist at very high rates during this time period were 1) free land in the sparsely settled western frontier; 2) lack of awareness of environmental problems and possible solutions among landowner-operators; and 3) the prevailing land tenure laws and attitudes of the general population toward private ownership of land resources (Napier, 1990a; Napier, 2007). One of the most significant factors affecting rates of soil loss prior to the closing of the frontier was availability of free land. Many land operators were not concerned about soil erosion because degraded crop land could be abandoned and new farmsteads developed from forests and plains. There were few incentives for land operators to conserve soil resources because fertile land was available at very low prices or at no cost. Labor required to implement soil conservation programs on highly erodible farmland was considered to be too costly compared with the alternative of abandoning degraded crop land and establishing a new farm on easily accessible frontier land.

Another factor that contributed to soil erosion was lack of awareness of erosion problems and ignorance of technical solutions. Most farmers were not aware of the environmental consequences associated with soil erosion and did not possess technical expertise required to implement effective erosion control programs. The situation was compounded by the fact that most citizens of the U.S. were not concerned about environmental quality, nor about protecting land resources for future generations.

A third factor affecting soil loss on agricultural land was the commitment by the federal government to protect individual property rights. Society attributed landowners almost absolute rights to land resources. While some local jurisdictions prohibited specific types of land uses, national laws gave property owners broad legal rights to use land resources in almost any manner they wished. The only universal constraint on the use of land was nuisance laws that prevented landowners from engaging in actions that would damage other landowners.

Degradation of soil and water resources continued unabated for decades under these conditions. However, concern for soil erosion and environmental degradation began to develop during the Great Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Widespread economic deprivation resulted in the emergence of increased government intervention in the economic institutions of society. One of the first government programs to influence future soil conservation programs was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).

The CCC was a work relief program authorized by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. While the CCC was designed primarily to provide work for unemployed people, program participants implemented conservation control projects within national forests and national parks. Even though improvement in environmental quality was a secondary objective to reduce unemployment, CCC projects generated many environmental benefits and focused public attention on the need to preserve soil and water resources.

Public concern for soil erosion reached its highest level in the U.S. when dust storms billowed across Midwest farmsteads and darkened the skies of urban communities. The environmental consequences of the Dust Bowl changed citizens’ attitudes about soil erosion and environmental protection. U.S. citizens were forced to recognize that abuse of land resources could result in significant reduction in the fertility of farmland and that future food and fiber production could be substantially reduced by inappropriate use of land resources.

Citizens of the U.S. were forced to acknowledge that the socioeconomic well-being of the country was dependent on the productive capacities of agricultural land and that it was in the nation’s best security interests to protect soil resources. Concern for preserving land resources was translated into political action, and Congress authorized the formation of what became known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in 1935 via the Soil Conservation Act (Napier, 2007).

The SCS assumed the role of providing technical assistance and financial support to landowners on a voluntary participation basis to encourage adoption of soil conservation production systems at the farm level. SCS program activities traditionally have been governed by soil conservation districts, composed primarily of local land operators. This type of social organization gave landowner-operators a significant role in the development and implementation of SCS programs at the local community level.

Conservation programs implemented by the SCS were accepted quickly by landowner-operators because most farmers recognized that soil erosion was destroying the future productive capacities of crop land. Landowner- operators recognized the value of SCS assistance because most farmers did not have the economic resources to adopt conservation practices and technologies, and they did not possess adequate technical skills to implement effective conservation programs.

The initial successes of voluntary methods for implementing soil conservation programs resulted in their widespread use by government conservation agencies for decades. Voluntary SCS programs were supported by farmers because they received many benefits from program participation while internalizing few of the costs associated with adoption of conservation production systems. After several years of participation in these conservation programs, landowner-operators began to believe that the government was primarily responsibility for abating soil erosion and agricultural pollution at the farm level.

For decades few people questioned how soil erosion control programs were being implemented. Dust storms of the early 1930s no longer threatened the topsoil of Midwest farms; water quality in lakes and rivers improved due to reduced soil displacement from agricultural land; and future production of food and fiber appeared to be relatively secure from the threat of soil erosion. The subsidy-information dissemination approach used by conservation agencies appeared to have been successful and was deemed worthy of financial support. However, soil erosion continued at rates that resulted in significant degradation of soil and water resources.

Environmentalists began to question why soil erosion remained high even though millions of dollars and thousands of work years were being allocated to address the issue each year. Taxpayers expressed concern about agricultural assistance programs that had been partially justified on the basis of soil conservation benefits. Of particular concern were land set-aside programs that authorized the federal government to rent crop land to be retired from commodity production. Critics of soil conservation initiatives suggested that programs such as the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) and the Soil Bank Program (SBP) were not useful for protecting land from soil erosion in the long term. The primary concern expressed by critics of land diversion programs prior to the mid-1980s was the inability of the government to ensure that conservation benefits were maintained once contracts with landowners were completed.

Prior to the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985, landowners were permitted to reintroduce highly erosive production systems on crop land enrolled in conservation diversion programs without constraint when rental agreements were completed. Critics argued that farmers should be required to operate highly erodible farmland using conservation production systems once set-aside contracts were terminated. The counter argument offered by proponents of voluntary diversion programs was that crop land was being rented by the government to control supplies of agricultural commodities rather than protect soil and water resources. Since land was diverted for commodity supply control purposes, it was argued that government rent payments were not appropriated for the purpose of conservation. Thus, landowner decisions to return crop land to production using highly erosive production practices were not a violation of the intent of land diversion programs.

Concern was also expressed about public investment in on-farm conservation projects designed to reduce soil erosion at the farm level. Landowner-operators often secured financial subsidies and technical assistance from government agencies to implement soil conservation control programs. However, landowners retained the right to remove conservation structures when they deemed it desirable for them to do so. Many erosion control structures developed on privately owned land using public subsidies were removed by landowners when they were unable to accommodate larger farm technologies introduced at later dates.

Contemporary Soil Conservation Programs and Policies

The environmental movement of the 1970s ushered in a new era of environmental awareness and precipitated critical examination of existing soil conservation programs and policies. Conservationists organized themselves into action groups and began to influence public opinion. Environmentalists suggested that government programs implemented in the 1930s were no longer appropriate to address soil erosion problems on agricultural land. Conservation groups were successful in their efforts to secure additional public funding for soil conservation research, and sponsored studies were conducted to assess the nature of soil erosion and the utility of existing conservation programs. Findings derived from these studies significantly redirected soil conservation policies.

Research conducted during the 1970s and 1980s demonstrated that billions of tons of topsoil were being eroded from land each year and that a majority of the soil loss was from cultivated crop land (Lovejoy and Napier, 1986). Examination of the economics of soil erosion revealed that most of the costs of soil erosion were in the form of off-site damages. Some of the most frequently cited off-site damages were sedimentation of streams, rivers, and lakes; loss of wildlife habitat; loss of recreation use of water resources; costs of purifying contaminated drinking water; disruption of river transportation and shipping; and reduced aesthetic value of water resources. Research revealed that on-site damages were relatively inconsequential. It was also observed that about 90 percent of water-induced soil erosion was confined to about 10 percent of crop land and that highly erodible crop land was widely distributed throughout the U.S.

Research revealed that future production of food and fiber was not threatened by erosion in the U.S. Projections of grain production losses in the Corn Belt due to soil erosion using 1977 soil displacement rates demonstrated corn and soybean production probably would decline from 2 to 8 percent over 50 years. It was suggested that production declines of such magnitude would be of relatively little consequence over multiple decades. It should be noted that the magnitude of production losses may be much lower than those projected because erosion rates have declined significantly in recent years. Another reason the projections may be inflated is that they were made without knowledge of the impact on production of improved agricultural technologies.

Other research findings demonstrated that technology

transfer programs using the information dissemination approach were basically ineffective. Lack of awareness about soil erosion problems and knowledge of potential solutions were shown not to be significant barriers to adoption of soil conservation practices at the farm level. Farmers were shown to be knowledgeable of soil erosion on their land and aware of the techniques and technologies available to resolve erosion problems (Lovejoy and Napier, 1986; Napier, 1990a ; Napier, 1990b; Napier et al., 1994).

Profitability of soil conservation became an important research topic and assessments of returns to investments in soil conservation practices were conducted in many geographical regions of the U.S. Research findings revealed that many soil conservation practices were not profitable in the short term and often not profitable in the long term (Mueller et al., 1985; Putman and Alt, 1988). Research findings demonstrated that land operators perceived farming to be a business and that farmers were motivated by profits (Halcrow et al., 1982; Napier et al., 1994).

Profitability studies strongly suggested that farmers were not adopting soil conservation practices needed to reduce soil erosion to levels desired by society because such practices would not improve the economic viability of the farm enterprise and would not increase net farm income. Adoption decisions relative to conservation practices were shown to be made using the same criteria employed in all farm-level adoption decisions. If proposed changes in production practices were perceived not to be profitable, they would not be incorporated into existing farm production systems. Such findings strongly suggest that landowner-operators do not respond favorably to appeals to change farming practices unless they are adequately compensated economically for disruptions of farm operations.

Many people assumed that lack of adoption of soil conservation practices at the farm level was a function of attitudes held by farmers about land resources and agricultural pollution. It was argued that farmers must possess positive attitudes and perceptions about environmental problems and about stewardship of land resources before they will adopt conservation practices. Research demonstrated that attitudes toward soil conservation were not barriers to adoption of conservation practices at the farm level. Survey findings indicated that land farmers held very positive orientations toward protection of land resources and perceived themselves to be stewards of the land even though they often used production practices that contributed to degradation of soil and water resources (Lovejoy and Napier, 1986; Napier, 1990a; Napier, 1990b; Napier et al., 1994). It has also been shown that landowners in general hold positive orientations toward natural resources conservation but are simultaneously unwilling to allocate any economic resources to reduce or control environmental degradation (Napier et al., 1994; Napier et al., 2008; Napier and Bridges, 2003).

Policy and Program Implications of Soil Erosion Research

Research conducted during the 1970s through the 1980s validated casual observations that soil loss from agricultural sources remained quite high after six decades of soil conservation efforts. The findings were also used to justify continued public support of existing soil conservation policies and programs. However, several of the findings from research conducted during this time period suggested that a number of implementation strategies employed by conservation agencies prior to the mid-1980s were probably inappropriate.

The validity of using on-site damages as the primary argument to persuade landowner-operators to adopt soil conservation production systems was challenged. Voluntary conservation programs traditionally had been marketed using protection of future productive capacities of crop land as the primary motivation for farmers to adopt. Study findings indicated that future productivity of crop land was not being threatened by erosion. Landowner-operators did not respond to this type of appeal because they were aware that agricultural productivity of their crop land was not being adversely affected by soil erosion to any great extent.

Soil conservationists often argued that adoption of soil conservation practices would increase profits at the farm level. Landowner-operators were encouraged to adopt conservation practices because such practices were argued to be profitable at least in the long term. This intervention strategy was dealt a death blow when it was discovered that many soil conservation practices were not profitable in the short or in the long term.

Since the 1930s, practically all technology transfer programs designed to facilitate adoption of soil conservation systems have relied heavily on information dissemination to make landowner-operators aware of environmental issues and to create positive attitudes toward the environment. Such strategies were based on the following assumptions: 1) landowner-operators do not adopt conservation production systems because they are ignorant of soil erosion problems and possible solutions; 2) landowner-operators do not possess favorable attitudes toward soil conservation; 3) landowneroperators do not perceive themselves as being stewards of land resources that they manage; and 4) structural barriers do not impede adoption of soil conservation systems.

While information dissemination programs may facilitate adoption of soil conservation programs when the four above-mentioned assumptions are satisfied, research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and even into the 2000s revealed that none of the assumptions appeared to be valid. Farmers are generally well educated and are aware of causes and consequences of soil erosion. Agriculturalists are aware of many technological solutions to soil erosion problems and are aware that soil erosion damages crop land. Most landowneroperators support environmental protection programs and perceive themselves to be stewards of the land. Programs designed to increase positive attitudes toward soil conservation will have little effect in terms of changing production practices at the farm level because most farmers already have developed favorable attitudes toward environmental protection and are well informed about how to address erosion problems.

The assumption that institutional barriers do not prevent farmers from adopting soil conservation practices is not valid, since many farmers do not have access to capital needed to invest in conservation programs. Also, some conservation practices are not appropriate for certain types of farm operations.

Since the assumptions providing the underpinnings of soil conservation programs implemented during the 1930s have been shown to be no longer valid, it should not be surprising that intervention programs using these approaches have not motivated land operators to adopt conservation practices. While conservation programs implemented using a number of these assumptions may have been relevant in the early years of conservation programming, evidence produced in the 1970s and early 1980s challenged past conservation initiatives and provided direction for future soil conservation programs and policies.

Evolution of Alternative Soil Conservation Strategies in the U.S.

Dissatisfaction with traditional soil conservation programs and implementation procedures increased, and agitation for change emerged in many sectors of society. Political action by conservation interests resulted in significant modification of conservation policy included in the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA, 1985).

The Conservation Title of the FSA 1985 significantly redirected soil conservation programs. In fact, it may have been the most innovative soil conservation legislation since the authorization of the SCS in 1935, at least during the formation and initial implementation stages.

The most significant change in soil conservation policy contained in the Conservation Title of 1985 was modification of land tenure rights. For the first time, rights of landowner-operators were constrained significantly by the federal government. Landowners no longer possessed the right to cultivate highly erodible land without an approved conservation farm plan. Landowners lost the right to drain wetlands and to cultivate land that had not been previously farmed without approval by federal agencies.

The Conservation Title of 1985 introduced the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that authorized the federal government to rent highly erodible crop land for a 10-year period. Landowners could enroll highly erodible crop land in the program for yearly payments that were determined using a bidding system. The federal government established upper bounds of rent prices and landowners were permitted to submit bids to enroll eligible crop land. The CRP targeted highly erodible land for diversion from crop production and established constraints on the amount of rent a landowner could receive.

Targeting limited public resources for use on highly erodible crop land was a significant improvement over previous conservation initiatives. Conservation programs developed prior to 1985 made funding for conservation purposes available on a competitive basis to all landowners. Property owners could submit requests for financial support for conservation purposes regardless of the severity of erosion problems on their land. As a result, a large portion of conservation funding was allocated to conservation efforts on land with relatively insignificant erosion problems. Another innovation of the CRP was the emphasis placed on conservation relative to other policy objectives. While the CRP was designed to achieve multiple policy goals (e.g., commodity supply control, stabilization of commodity prices, and conservation of soil resources), it placed much greater emphasis on conservation. Conservation became one of the most important considerations relative to the reauthorization of the Conservation Title in the 1990 Farm Bill.

While a significant portion of highly erodible crop land in the U.S. is very productive, commodity supply control and price support elements of the CRP would have been substantially enhanced had the criteria used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the program been defined differently. If commodity supply control and price support objectives had been emphasized in the development of the CRP, crop land in the humid Corn Belt would have been targeted for withdrawal from production with significantly fewer acres in the arid West.

Cross-compliance was another innovation included in the CRP. Landowner-operators who violated CRP agreements were subject to penalties. Landowners also were constrained by other components of the Conservation Title from returning highly erodible crop land enrolled in the CRP to crop production without use of an approved farm plan. These elements of the Conservation Title were consistent with research findings that demonstrated landowners often wasted public investments in conservation by returning land enrolled in diversion programs to production using highly erosive farming systems.

Environmental Outcomes of the Conservation Titles 1985-2002

The social, economic and environmental outcomes of the Conservation Title of the FSA of 1985 were mixed. While there were many benefits associated with the CRP, there were a number of adverse socioeconomic and environmental outcomes. Considerable soil savings were achieved via the CRP authorized in 1985 but at a very high economic cost. The early CRP cost U.S. taxpayers about $2 billion per year in direct payments to landowners, and the administration costs of the program are unknown but are undoubtedly quite high.

The socioeconomic costs of retiring large tracts of crop land in rural farming communities were very high. Many rural farming areas in the High Plains suffered significant decline in economic activity due to land enrolled in the CRP. Land operators purchased fewer agricultural inputs due to enrollment of eligible land in the CRP. The withdrawal of crop land from production in high enrollment areas negatively affected local land operators who were dependent on rented land because the price of available rental land was often bid upward (Napier, 1990b).

Procedures used to implement the CRP reduced the environmental benefits that could have been achieved with the same level of funding. The CRP was implemented to minimize economic costs rather than maximize environmental benefits. It was designed to maximize soil savings rather than maximize improvement in water quality. Had the goal of the CRP been to maximize improvement in water quality, much of the land in the High Plains would have not been enrolled in the program. CRP benefits would have been distributed more evenly had protection of water quality been emphasized.

Experiences with the Conservation Titles of 1985 and 1990 resulted in the redirection of conservation initiatives designed to address soil and water conservation problems. In the late 1980s, soil erosion began to receive much less attention as an environmental issue in the context of land degradation. However, it received much greater attention in the context of water quality. Conservation policy analysts began to argue that future soil conservation policies and programs should become more focused on water quality concerns.

Soil conservation policies and programs formulated and implemented during the 1990s and early 2000s were consistent with the suggestions of the critics of conservation efforts focused on soil savings rather than protection of water quality. The Conservation Titles authorized and implemented during the 1990s and very early 2000s clearly placed considerable emphasis on water quality. Unfortunately, many of the strategies employed to achieve the new policy goal served to weaken the effectiveness of the policy innovations incorporated into the Conservation Title of 1985. The primary shortcoming was the movement away from targeting of worst-first enrollment and program priority.

The Conservation Title of 2002 elaborated existing conservation initiatives and broadened eligibility criteria. New conservation programs were added to embrace new target populations of landowner-operators. Political maneuvering to ensure that the maximum number of landowners qualified for program participation greatly reduced the effectiveness of the conservation programs included in the Conservation Title of 2002. Landowners were even provided economic compensation for past conservation activities on their land. The rationale for this action was to encourage landowneroperators to adopt and to use additional conservation practices.

Conservation programs authorized and funded by the Conservation Title of 2002 were primarily designed to reduce water pollution from agricultural sources. The outcome of these policy changes has been an expansion of conservation program participation to include animal producers. Greater emphasis has been placed on animal waste management.

Critics of existing soil and water conservation policies and programs in the U.S. argue that contemporary conservation policies and programs have embraced the philosophy of the pre-1960s that has been criticized so severely for being inappropriate (Napier, 2007). Unfortunately it is highly probable that the 2008 Farm Bill will contain Conservation Title provisions that will be very similar to what was included in the 2002 Conservation Title. If that should happen, conservation funding will be distributed to even more eligible landowners and the effectiveness of the programs in addressing the most severe soil and water resources issues will be further eroded. It is highly likely that the 2008 Conservation Title will further expand eligible landowner-operators to the point that practically any landowner will qualify for program participation. A number of observers of conservation policy bemoan the return to the philosophy that makes it possible for practically all landowners to participate in conservation subsidies. Conservation subsidies appear to be more like income transfers to agriculture than targeted efforts to advance soil and water conservation.

Future Soil Conservation Initiatives in the U.S.

Realization that it is very difficult to motivate landowner- operators to invest in soil conservation efforts designed to benefit downstream populations has resulted in reassessment of conservation policies, programs and implementation strategies. Increasing attention is now being focused on alternative methods to motivate farmers to adopt soil conservation practices. At least two options have been identified: 1) use of regulations and penalties to force landowner-operators to adopt; and 2) privatization of soil and water conservation efforts to make it profitable for landowner-operators to adopt. One or both of these options probably will complement voluntary incentive approaches presently emphasized.

Regulatory approaches to reduce soil erosion are relatively easy to implement even though they are not popular with landowners. Environmental standards could be established for agriculture, and farmers could be forced to comply. Penalties could be implemented to make it too costly for landowners to violate environmental expectations. Investments in soil conservation production systems would become less costly than penalties assessed for contributing to environmental degradation.

While monitoring compliance would be expensive, it would be much less costly than the billions per year required to rent highly erodible land enrolled in conservation set-aside programs and to subsidize purchase of conservation technologies and inputs. Fines for violation of environmental regulations could be used to partially defer the costs of monitoring compliance.

Regulations to control access to agricultural nutrients could also affect environmental quality. Establishment of nutrient quotas would reduce pounds of fertilizer available for application to crop land. Reduced levels of fertilizers released into the environment would result in lower levels of nutrients that could reach waterways. This assumes that land operators would continue to apply nutrients proportionately to cultivated crop land rather than concentrating available fertilizers on crop land adjacent to waterways.

There are other policies that could be established to influence the type of farm production systems adopted at the farm level. Quotas could be established that permit farmers to market a specified amount of food and fiber per year. Such marketing systems could reduce pressure to maximize output and make it possible for land operators to employ production systems that are less erosive. Such a system would probably reduce output but could stabilize commodity prices that would affect farm income in the long term.

A second group of policy options that could affect soil erosion programs in the future involves creation of private conservation markets (Napier, 1994). Such approaches would be more acceptable to landowner-operators because they would receive money for selling specific rights to land resources. A market system could be developed for landowners to sell row cropping rights to farmland that contributes to environmental degradation in specific watersheds. Since a very small percentage of crop land contributes the greatest percentage of water-borne erosion, very little land would have to be permanently retired from production to achieve many national environmental goals. Landowners could retain all other rights to land resources under this type of conservation approach.

Wetlands have been shown to be very useful for trapping sediments and nutrients eroded from cultivated farmland. However, most wetlands have been eliminated during the past 200 years. Swamp buster provisions of the Conservation Title of 1985 prohibit further reduction of wetlands by taking the right to modify wetlands from landowners. This regulatory approach has proved problematic for many landowners who have legitimate reasons to drain existing wetlands. The creation of a private wetland market system could result in positive outcomes for all affected populations. Markets for constructed wetlands could be established that would permit developers and landowners who wish to drain wetlands the opportunity to do so, assuming that they construct comparable wetlands at another site. This type of market system could result in landowners making a large amount of money on a per-acre basis by selling the right to build a wetland to developers. Developers could save millions of dollars via such a trading system with the removal of legal barriers to construction. Society would benefit because environmental quality would be maintained (Napier et al., 1995).

Regardless of the policy approach that will be used to motivate landowner-operators to internalize agricultural pollution, it is almost certain that some form of coercion will be required to encourage adoption and continued use of soil and water protection practices at the farm level, at least in the near term. Given the present high grain prices, it is highly likely that landowner- operators will be strongly encouraged by market forces to withdraw land from set-aside programs and to adopt production maximizing systems. Unfortunately, farming systems that maximize production have been shown to bring about degradation of soil and water resources. If ethanol production continues to increase the demand for grain and the international market for grain remains stable, farmers will be strongly motivated by the market system to go back to the production systems of the past that produced huge quantities of farm commodities but at a horrendous environmental cost. It is highly unlikely that economic subsidies contained within the 2008 Farm Bill will be sufficiently high to motivate landowner-operators to continue participation in conservation programs. It is highly probable that millions of acres of environmentally sensitive crop land will be withdrawn from conservation programs and farmed from fence row to fence row to maximize production.

Conclusions

Soil conservation programs and policies are in the process of radical change in the U.S. It is not a question of whether or not change will occur but rather what the nature of the change will be. Given recent history, it is highly probable that regulatory approaches will be more extensively employed in the future unless landowner- operators assume greater responsibility for reducing the incidence of environmental degradation associated with soil erosion. Another option is the creation of private market mechanisms for addressing soil erosion problems and subsequent degradation of water quality. The latter option is much more desirable from the perspective of social acceptability. However, such an approach will demand much greater creativity on the part of interested groups. Regardless of the choice of implementation strategy chosen by society, landowner- operators will be expected to assume a much greater proportion of the costs of controlling environmental degradation produced by soil erosion in the future. This will almost certainly occur if recent economic conditions are continued into the future.

— Ted L. Napier

See also

Agricultural Programs; Agriculture, Alternative; Agronomy; Cropping Systems; Environmental Protection; Land Stewardship; Policy, Environmental; Soil; Theology of Land; Tillage

References

• Halcrow, H.G., E.O. Heady, and M.L. Cotner, eds. Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions, and Incentives. Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society Press, 1982.
• Lovejoy, Stephen B. and Ted L. Napier, eds. Conserving Soil: Insights From Socioeconomic Research. Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society Press, 1986.
• Mueller, D.H., R.H. Klemme, and T.C. Daniel. “Short- and Long-Term Cost Comparisons of Conventional and Conservation Tillage Systems in Corn Production.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40 (1985): 466-470.
• Napier, Ted L. “The Evolution of U.S. Soil Conservation Policy: From Voluntary Adoption to Coercion.” Pp. 627-644 in Soil Erosion on Agricultural Lands. Edited by J. Boardman, D.L. Foster, and J.A. Dearing. London, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1990a.
• Napier, Ted L., ed. Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society Press, 1990b.
• Napier, Ted L. “Potential for Public-Private Partnership in Ecosystem Management.” Pp. 243-249 in Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.
• Napier, Ted L. “Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Production Systems at the Farm Level and the Need for New Policy Directions.” Journal of the World Association of Soil and Water Conservation. J2 (2007): 25-38.
• Napier, Ted L, Kelly McCutcheon, and Jennifer Fish. “Factors Affecting Natural Resources Conservation Investments of Lower Big Walnut Creek Residents in Ohio.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 63 (2008): 18-28.
• Napier, Ted L., Sam E. McCarter, and Julia R. McCarter. “Attitudes of Land Owner-Operators Toward Participation in a Wetlands Trading Market.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50 (1995): 502-510.
• Napier, Ted L., Silvana M. Camboni, and Samir A. El-Swaify. Adopting Conservation on the Farm: An International Perspective on the Socioeconomics of Soil and Water Conservation. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press, 1994.
• Napier, Ted L., and Tracy Bridges. “Adoption of Conservation Production Systems Within the Upper Region of the Scioto River Watershed in Ohio.” Journal of Food, Agriculture, and Environment 1 (2003): 287-294.
• Putnam, J. and K. Alt. “Erosion Control: How Does It Change Farm Income?” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42 (1988): 265-267.