U of I WQU Vol 1 No 1 Attachment Article #4

Idaho CES Water Quality Survey

The University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System is comprised of 146 professionals who work to improve the lives of Idahoans through an educational process that focuses scientific knowledge on issues and needs. There are 84 county faculty (84 FTEs), located in 42 of Idaho's 44 counties, and 62 specialists which comprise 48 FTEs.

Water quality is an important part of Extension's effort in Idaho. Water quality is both a presidential and a USDA initiative. Water is the lifeblood of Idaho. Our traditional industries -- agriculture, forestry, and mining are all water dependant. Even a large portion of tourist dollar revenues in Idaho are tied to attractions with water. We must protect water quality to maintain our high standard of living and uniquely rich quality of life in Idaho.

Extension has a tradition of working in areas that affect water quality. For instance CES employees provide accurate fertilizer ecommendations, pesticide information, or irrigation mamagement recommendations based on the latest research. These have a positive impact on water quality.

In 1990 we surveyed Extension faculty to document programming areas related to water quality and to quantify the amount of time put into these efforts.

The purpose of the survey was to document extension program efforts in water quallity, set priorities, assess strengths and weaknesses, and justify needs for additional resources. The survey also provided information for developing a directory of faculty expertise which will help coordinate extension actions in the future.

SURVEY RESULTS
The survey showed that aspects of extension programming are related to water quality. Fewer specialists are involved in water quality work than county faculty, but about 14 percent of both groups spent over half of their time (125 days/year) on water quality related work in 1990 (Table 1).

Table 1. Amount of total programming efforts spent on water quality in 1990.
Time Spent on Water Quality (days/year) County Faculty (%) Specialists (%)

No time 1.8 12.2

.25 - 25 days 39.3 41.5

25 - 75 days 33.9 17.0

75 - 125 days 10.7 14.6

>125 days 14.3 14.6

Table 1. Amount of total programming efforts spent on water quality in 1990.
Time Spent on Water Quality (days/year)	County Faculty (%)	Specialists (%)
No time	1.8	12.2
.25 - 25 days	39.3	41.5
25 - 75 days	33.9	17.0
75 - 125 days	10.7	14.6
>125 days	14.3	14.6

In 1990, University of Idaho extension faculty devoted over 6,000 employee days to programming in water quality related issues. Water quality programming efforts were placed into 6 categories:

Crop Management (57 percent of effort)
Livestock/Range Management (16.1 percent of effort)
House and Garden Chemicals (7.7 percent of effort)
Youth Programs (7.2 percent of effort)
Domestic Water (6.0 percent of effort)
Forestry (6.0 percent of effort)

The figures show that over one-half of the programming effort went towards crop managment and the least effort towards forestry.

The total time allocated to water quality related projects is equal to 24 full time employees (FTE=250 days/year). Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the FTE distribution of county faculty and specialists in the six categories listed above.

Table 2. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System time allocation to water quality programming by subject matter area.
FTE Allocation

Subject Area Days/Year Total County Faculty Specialist

Crop Management 3,425.1 13.7 7.0 6.7

Livestock/Range 968.9 3.9 3.0 0.9

House/Garden Chemicals 465.1 1.9 1.5 0.4

Youth 430.8 1.7 1.1 0.6

Domestic/Urban 360.9 1.4 1.0 0.4

Forestry 359.7 1.4 0.9 0.5

TOTAL 6,010.5 24.0 14.5 9.5

Table 2. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System time allocation to water quality programming by subject matter area.
		FTE Allocation
Subject Area	Days/Year	Total	County Faculty	Specialist
Crop Management	3,425.1	13.7	7.0	6.7
Livestock/Range	968.9	3.9	3.0	0.9
House/Garden Chemicals	465.1	1.9	1.5	0.4
Youth	430.8	1.7	1.1	0.6
Domestic/Urban	360.9	1.4	1.0	0.4
Forestry	359.7	1.4	0.9	0.5
TOTAL	6,010.5	24.0	14.5	9.5

Table 3. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System county faculty time allocation to water quality programming by subject matter area and district.
FTE Allocation

Subject Area District I District II District III District IV

Crop Management 1.6 1.4 2.1 1.7

Livestock/Range 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0

House/Garden Chemicals 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3

Youth 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3

Domestic/Urban 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4

Forestry 0.8 0.01 0.01 0.1

Table 3. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System county faculty time allocation to water quality programming by subject matter area and district.
	FTE Allocation
Subject Area	District I	District II	District III	District IV
Crop Management	1.6	1.4	2.1	1.7
Livestock/Range	0.5	0.6	0.9	1.0
House/Garden Chemicals	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3
Youth	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.3
Domestic/Urban	0.3	0.3	0.1	0.4
Forestry	0.8	0.01	0.01	0.1

SPECIALISTS
Extension specialists reported that 9.5 FTE's are currently devoted to water quality related programming. This effort comprises 39.6 percent of the extension's total water quality related programming effort. Approximately 19.8 percent of the FTE's attached to specialist positions are related to water quality. Specialist water quality FTE effort by program includes 6.7 for crop managment, 0.9 for livestock/range management, 0.4 for house/garden chemicals, 0.6 for youth, 0.4 for domestic/urban, and 0.5 for forestry.

Based on the total water quality programming by extension faculty, specialists do 48.9 percent of the crop management programming (6.7/13.7 FTE), 23.1 percent of the livestock/range management programming (0.9/3.9 FTE), 21.1 percent of the house/garden chemical programming (0.4/1.9 FTE), 35.3 percent of the youth programming (0.6/1.7 FTE), 28.6 percent of the domestic/urban programming (0.4/1.4 FTE), and 35.7 percent of the forestry programming (0.5/1.4 FTE).

Over 70 percent of specialists water quality programming efforts are in the crop management area. Significant efforts are directed at irrigation, nutrient, and pesticide management.

In general, specialists consider water quality programming efforts a high priority. With 77.5 percent of the specialists responding, 19.4 percent stated that they thought there should be more water quality programming, 80.6 percent said the level should stay about the same, and no one said it should decrease (Table 4).

Table 4. Response to survey question asking whether there should be more, about the same, or less water quality programming effort (by percent of response).
All Faculty Specialists Dist. I Dist. II Dist. III Dist. IV

More Programming 31.9 19.4 42.9 33.3 35.7 39.1

About the Same 66.9 80.6 57.1 66.7 57.1 60.9

Less Programming 1.2 0 0 0 0 0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 4. Response to survey question asking whether there should be more, about the same, or less water quality programming effort (by percent of response).
	All Faculty	Specialists	Dist. I	Dist. II	Dist. III	Dist. IV
More Programming	31.9	19.4	42.9	33.3	35.7	39.1
About the Same	66.9	80.6	57.1	66.7	57.1	60.9
Less Programming	1.2	0	0	0	0	0
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

COUNTY FACULTY
The survey also looked at county faculty by district. This information shows the percent of water quality related time spent on each of the six categories. County faculty spent nearly 50 percent of their water quality programming time in the crop management area. Figures show the differences in programming effort in the four districts.

District I covers the nine counties of northern Idaho. County faculty reported that 4.0 FTE's are devoted to water quality related programming. This effort comprises 16.7 percent of extension's total water quality programming effort and 27.6 percent of the county faculty water quality programming effort. District I water quality FTE effort by program includes 1.6 for crop management, 0.5 for livestock/range management, 0.4 for house/garden chemicals, 0.4 for youth, 0.3 for domestic/urban and 0.8 for forestry (Table 3).

Based on the total water quality programming effort by county faculty in all four districts, faculty in District I do 23.5 percent of the crop management programming (1.6/6.8 FTE), 16.7 percent of the livestock/range programming (0.5/3.0 FTE), 26.7 percent of the house/garden chemical programming (0.4/1.5 FTE), 33.3 percent of the youth programming effort (0.4/1.2 FTE), 27.3 percent of the domestic/urban programming effort (0.3/1.1 FTE), and 86.9 percent of the forestry programming effort(0.8/0.92 FTE).

Faculty in District I generally consider water quality programming to be of high priority. With 87.5 percent of the county faculty in District I responding, 42.9 percent stated that they thought there should be more water quality programming, 57.1 percent said the level should stay about the same, and none said it should decrease (Table 4).

District II covers the ten counties of southwestern Idaho. County faculty reported that 3.0 FTE's are devoted to water quality related programming. This effort comprises 12.5 percent of extension's total water quality programming effort and 20.7 percent of the county faculty water quality programming effort. District II water quality FTE effort by program includes 1.4 for crop management, 0.6 for livestock/range management, 0.4 for house/garden chemicals, 0.3 for youth, 0.3 for domestic/urban, and 0.01 for forestry (Table 3).

Based on the total water quality programming effort by county faculty in all four districts, faculty in District II do 20.6 percent of the crop management programming (1.4/6.8 FTE), 20.0 percent of the livestock/range programming (0.6/3.0 FTE), 26.7 percent of the house/garden chemical programming (0.4/1.5 FTE), 25.0 percent of the youth programming effort (0.3/1.2 FTE), 27.3 percent of the domestic/urban programming effort (0.3/1.1 FTE), and 1.1 percent of the forestry programming effort (0.01/0.92 FTE).

Faculty in District II generally consider water quality programming to be of high priority. With 78.9 percent of the county faculty of District II responding, 33.3 percent stated that they thought there should be more water quality programming, 66.7 percent said the level should stay about the same, and none said it should decrease (Table 4).

Water quality
efforts distribution by extension district in 1990

District III covers the eleven counties of central and south central Idaho. County faculty reported that 3.7 FTE's are devoted to water quality related programming. This effort comprises 15.4 percent of extension's total water quality programming effort and 25.5 percent of the county faculty water quality programming effort. District III water quality FTE effort by program includes 2.1 for crop management, 0.9 for livestock/range management, 0.4 for house/garden chemicals, 0.2 for youth, 0.1 for domestic/urban and 0.01 for forestry (Table 3).

Based on the total water quality programming effort by county faculty in all four districts, faculty in District III do 30.9 percent of the crop management programming (2.1/6.8 FTE), 30.0 percent of the livestock/range programming (0.9/3.0 FTE), 26.7 percent of the house/garden chemical programming (0.4/1.5 FTE), 16.7 percent of the youth programming effort (0.2/1.2 FTE), 9.1 percent of the domestic/urban programming effort (0.1/1.1 FTE), and 1.1 percent of the forestry programming effort(0.01/0.92 FTE).

Faculty in District III generally consider water quality programming to be of high priority. With 93.3 percent of the county faculty in District III responding, 35.7 percent stated that they thought there should be more water quality programming, 57.1 percent said the level should stay about the same, and 7.2 percent (one person) said it should decrease (Table 4).

District IV covers the thirteen counties of eastern Idaho. County faculty reported that 3.8 FTE's are devoted to water quality related programming. This effort comprises 15.8 percent of extension's total water quality programming effort and 26.2 percent of the county faculty water quality programming effort. District IV water quality FTE effort by program includes 1.7 for crop management, 1.0 for livestock/range management, 0.3 for house/garden chemicals, 0.3 for youth, 0.4 for domestic/urban and 0.1 for forestry (Table 3).

Based on the total water quality programming effort by county faculty in all four districts, faculty in District IV do 25.0 percent of the crop management programming (1.7/6.8 FTE), 33.3 percent of the livestock/range programming (1.0/3.0 FTE), 19.9 percent of the house/garden chemical programming (0.3/1.5 FTE), 25.0 percent of the youth programming effort (0.3/1.2 FTE), 36.3 percent of the domestic/urban programming effort (0.4/1.1 FTE), and 10.9 percent of the forestry programming effort(0.1/0.92 FTE).

Faculty in District IV generally consider water quality programming to be of high priority. With 82.1 percent of the county faculty in District IV responding, 39.1 percent stated that they thought there should be more water quality programming, 60.9 percent said the level should stay about the same, and none said it should decrease (Table 4).

The extensions most pressing needs in water quality were asked in an open ended question. The results of the question were broken down into 13 categories and sorted into specialists and the four districts of county faculty. The combined results of specialists and county faculty showed that 29.9 percent thought that education was most important, followed by organization of the water quality effort with 14.3 percent, and the use of agricultural chemicals with 13.6 percent (Table 5).

Table 5. Response to the Question: What do you feel are the Extension's most proessing needs in water quality? (percent of response for each category)
Category All Faculty Specialists Dist. I Dist. II Dist. III Dist. IV

Education

-farmers 12.9 10.4 19.1 15.8 13.0 10.3

-public 17.0 14.6 14.3 31.6 13.0 17.2

Organizational
(Agenda, funding, training) 14.3 12.5 9.5 36.7 13.0 6.9

Ag. Chem. Use 13.6 16.5 23.7 5.3 13.0 6.9

Research 7.9 8.3 0 0 13.0 13.8

Drinking Water Quality 7.9 8.3 4.8 0 4.4 17.2

Groundwater Quality 7.1 6.3 9.5 5.3 4.4 10.3

Water Conservation 4.3 4.2 0 0 8.7 6.9

Waste Disposal 3.6 2.1 0 5.3 8.7 3.5

Surface Water Quality 2.9 4.2 4.8 0 0 3.5

Tillage Practices 2.9 4.2 9.5 0 0 0

Non-point Source Poll. 2.1 4.2 0 0 4.4 0

Economics of Mgmt. 2.1 4.2 0 0 0 3.5

Point Source Pollution 1.4 0 4.8 0 4.4 0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 5. Response to the Question: What do you feel are the Extension's most proessing needs in water quality? (percent of response for each category)
Category	All Faculty	Specialists	Dist. I	Dist. II	Dist. III	Dist. IV
Education
-farmers	12.9	10.4	19.1	15.8	13.0	10.3
-public	17.0	14.6	14.3	31.6	13.0	17.2
Organizational (Agenda, funding, training)	14.3	12.5	9.5	36.7	13.0	6.9
Ag. Chem. Use	13.6	16.5	23.7	5.3	13.0	6.9
Research	7.9	8.3	0	0	13.0	13.8
Drinking Water Quality	7.9	8.3	4.8	0	4.4	17.2
Groundwater Quality	7.1	6.3	9.5	5.3	4.4	10.3
Water Conservation	4.3	4.2	0	0	8.7	6.9
Waste Disposal	3.6	2.1	0	5.3	8.7	3.5
Surface Water Quality	2.9	4.2	4.8	0	0	3.5
Tillage Practices	2.9	4.2	9.5	0	0	0
Non-point Source Poll.	2.1	4.2	0	0	4.4	0
Economics of Mgmt.	2.1	4.2	0	0	0	3.5
Point Source Pollution	1.4	0	4.8	0	4.4	0
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Overall water
quality programming effort distribution for specialists and
county faculty

Crop Management
Crop management practices in Idaho have a significant affect on water quality. Extension is working to develop farming practices which are both economically and environmentally sound. In 1990, 57 percent of extensions water quality effort was devoted to crop management. Most of the effort dealt with fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation management recommendation. The 1990 survey documented over 3,400 employee working days devoted to aspects of crop management impacting water quality. The following programs affect water quality.

Provide accurate pesticide recommendations which protect water quality (1,143 days/year)
Provide fertilizer recommendations for Idaho crops which maximize nutrient use efficiency, optimize economic yields, and protect water quality (681 days/year)
Provide irrigation management recommendations that maximize crop water use efficiencies, conserve water, and minimize erosion and leaching of agricultural chemicals into groundwater (573 days/year)
Provide information about erosion control to protect water quality from sediment and associated contaminants (287 days/year)
Provide economic assessment of crop management strategies to protect water quality (186 days/year)
Provide crop rotation information to more efficiently utilize residual soil nutrients (174 days/year)
Provide training on pesticide storage, handling, application, and disposal of pesticide containers (142 days/year)
Provide information and training about integrated pest management systems that improve pest control and result in reduced pesticide use (110 days/year)

Livestock/Range Management
Water quality issues that affect livestock also affect the general public. Extension is working with ranchers and range managers to increase animal productivity and protect water quality. In 1990 the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System spent 970 employee days working with water issues affecting livestock and range management. Specific programs included:

Provide information on grazing and riparian management to increase the productivity of the system and also reduce soil erosion, and protect water quality (448 days/year)
Provide economic assessment of management practices which protect water quality (160 days/year)
Provide information on current methods of livestock pest control which are both economically sound and environmentally responsible (153 days/year)
Provide information on dairy waste management which maintains water quality (123 days/year)
Provide information on how to maintain and protect water sources for livestock (92 days/year)

Forestry
Extension promotes forestry practices that are both economically and environmentally sound. In 1990, 360 employee days were devoted to water quality aspects of forestry and woodlot management. Specific programming areas include:

Provide information on sustainable forest production based on soil and water quality (146 days/year)
Timber management programs which consider water quality (138 days/year)
Provide information on erosion control and road building which will minimize soil loss and stream sedimentation (36 days/year)

Youth
Extension places an emphasis on youth programming. Several extension youth programs target natural resource education. In many cases these programs deal with water quality issues. Extension also works with teachers on natural resource educational efforts. Over 430 employee days were spent in 1990 on natural resource programming for Idaho youth. Youth programming mechanisms for water quality issues include:

4-H youth natural resource programs (192 days/year)
Natural resource camps which include water education programs (136 days/year)
Direct contact with classroom teachers for development of natural resource curricula (38 days/year)
Classroom education (34 days/year)
Future Farmers of America (FFA) programs (24 days/year)
Future Homemakers of America (FHA)

Domestic/Urban
Extension designs water quality programs as needed for urban and domestic target audiences. Projects range from laundry detergent recommendations to the safe disposal of household chemicals. In addition, information on water treatment, local sources of water, and factors affecting water quality are regularly provided. In 1990 extension devoted 335 employee working days to domestic/urban water quality issues. Specific programs included:

Laundry detergent recommendations which protect water quality (85 days/year)
Water sampling to determine water quality on a local basis (50 days/year)
Provide information on water storage and treatment (49 days/year)
Provide information on adverse health effects of poor water quality (42 days/year)
Provide information on how to evaluate water sources (41 days/year)
Disposal of waste water (33 days/year)
Proper disposal of hazardous waste (30 days/year)
Economic assessments of water use and associated treatment (15 days/year)

House/Lawn/Garden Chemicals
House, lawn, and garden chemicals can have a significant and large impact on water quality. Extension provides information and materials that relate proper storage, handling, and application techniques of household chemicals. Extension also provides information on lawn and garden chemicals. In 1990 the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System spent 465 employee days providing education on using household, lawn, and garden chemicals.

COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Extension shares its water quality expertise with other federal, state, and local agencies operating in Idaho. Extension has participated in several interagency water quality efforts over the past several months. Some of these projects include:

Series of workshops targeted at managing pesticides wisely were conducted across the state in early 1991 in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Commission, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Federally funded Demonstration Water Quality project in Cassia and Minidoka counties directed at implementing nutrient, pesticide, and irrigation best management practices (BMP's) in agricultural systems. Joint project with the Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Federally funded hydrologic unit project in Canyon, Gem, Payette, and Washington counties to assess impacts of agricultural practices on groundwater quality. Joint project with the Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.

SUMMARY
Over 90 percent of extension faculty reported water quality programming efforts in 1990 (Table 1). Twenty-five percent of county faculty and 29.2 percent of specialists spend in excess of 75 days per year on issues related to water quality.

Extension faculty devote 24 FTE's to water quality related programming (Table 2). Fifty-seven percent of the extension FTE's devoted to water quality deal with crop management. The rest of extensions effort is divided as follows: 16.1 percent to livestock/range management, 6.0 percent to domestic/urban, 7.7 percent to house/garden chemicals, 7.2 percent to youth, and 6.0 percent to forestry programming efforts.

Specialists provide 39.5 percent of extensions water quality programming FTE effort. The remaining effort comes from county faculty. Districts I, II, III, and IV account for 16.7 percent, 12.6 percent, 15.5 percent, and 15.7 percent of extensions water quality programming effort, respectively.

Extension water
quality effort based on faculty unit and by program category

Comments to webmistress: karenl@uidaho.edu

All contents copyright © 1997-2003.
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho.
All rights reserved.

Revised: January 3, 2003

URL: http://www.uidaho.edu/wq/wqu/attach4.html