Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library

584
A soil loss tax would shift tho entitlement from farmers to tho
public. Under such a tax, farmers would be allowed to Interfere
with the public right but would be required to compensate (pay
tax to) tho public. Tho public's entitlement would bo protected
undor a liability rule. A reallocation of the entitlement away
from faraors would likely be strongly opposed by the farnors,
especially because of their sudden loss of a valuable right
(right to lose soil) without any compensation for that loss. In
fact, thoy would have to pay for the loss of soil.
Alternatively pollution entitlement could be loft In the hands of
farmers but the rule would bo changed to require compliance by
farnors with pollution control rogulations In return for
guaranteed cost sharing assistance. This is tho type of change
which has been oade in the soil conservation program in Iowa
(Iowa Code Sec. 467 A). In this case, the farmer remains
entitled but is protected by a liability rule. Such a change
would be expocted to reduce pollution significantly as compared
to the current program. A mandatory pollution control policy
would not go unchallenged by farmers. Given adequate cost
sharing assistance, farmers could bo forced to comply. Iowa's
soil conservation statute was challenged. Tho court concluded:
...the tost is whether tho collective benefits (to the
public) outweigh the specific restraints imposed (on tho
individual)... It is important thorefore to consider tho
nature of the public interest involved and tho impact of the
restrictions placed on defendants use of thoir land...It
should take no extended discussion to demonstrate that
agriculture is important to tho welfare and prosperity of
this stato. It has been Judicially recognized as our
leading industry... Tho stato has a vital interest in
protecting its soil as the greatest of its natural
resources, and It has aright to do so. ..Whilo this
(legislation) imposes an extra financial burdon on
defendants, it is one tho stato has a right to exact. The
Importance of soil conservation is best illustrated by tha
state'8 willingness to pay throe-fourths of the cost. ..The
remainder to be paid by defendants...is still substantial,
but not unreasonably so. A law doos not become
unconstitutional bocauso it works a hardship...(Woodbury,
1979).
It appears, thon, that whore a significant need for pollution
control is comblnod with a willingness to compensate the farmer,
a mandatory program could be legally enforced.
A mandatory program which required pollution control but did not
provide cost sharing assistance (or provided limitod cost sharing
on a first coao-first served basis, as with the current program)
would reallocate the pollution entitlement from farnors to tho
public. Tho publics entitlement would bo protected by a