Abstract
The paper explores the severity of the problem of soil erosion and a variety of approaches to the problem. The typology of approaches includes doing nothing, individual party litigation, the state's invocation of public trust doctrine, and the state's exercise of its police power. The Reinvest in Minnesota Program reflects the state's exercise of its police power and addresses the problem of soil erosion by retiring marginal land from crop production through conservation easements. Programs such as Reinvest in Minnesota also reflect a certain ethic about the land.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker, K.E. 1985. The new federalism: Time for states to pull the plow in soil conservation.South Dakota Law Review 30: 546–73.
Batie, S.S. 1982. Policies, institutions and incentives for soil conservation.Agricultural Law Journal 4: 77–97.
Brown, L., and E.C. Wolf. 1984.Soil erosion: Quiet crisis in the world economy. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.
Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1984.Farm policy: The politics of soil, surpluses, and subsidies. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 1950 ed., s.v. “Nuisances.”
Edgerton, W. Telephone conversation with author, 13 October 1987.
Egerstorm, L. 1987. Programs to pay farmers to idle marginal land.St. Paul Pioneer Dispatch 28 September 1987, p. 3.
Frey, R.M. 1987. Cyclical developments in agriculture: Another round of hardscrabble existence. Unpublished manuscript.
Geertz, C. 1963.Agricultural involution: The processes of ecological change in Indonesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hiatt, R. T. 1986. The SCS and soil erosion.South Dakota Law Review 31: 435–52.
Hunz, S. 1987. “Sodbuster and Swampbuster Act” affects farmers' ability to get USDA program benefits.Farmers Legal Action Report 2(2): 6–8.
Korczak, K., and M. Gran. 1986. RIM: Reinvest in Minnesota.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41: 314–16.
Lazarus, R.J. 1986. Changing conceptions of property and sovereignty in natural resources: Questioning the public trust doctrine.Iowa Law Review 71: 631–716.
Malone, L.A. 1986. A historical essay on the conservation provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill: Sodbusting, swampbusting, and the conservation reserve.University of Kansas Law Review 34: 577–97.
Raup, P.M. 1985. Structural change in agriculture in the United States. Staff paper P85–41. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota.
Smeins, D.R. 1982. Moser v. Thorp Sales Corporation: The protection of farmland from poor farming practices.South Dakota Law Review 27: 513–27.
St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch, 28 September 1987, p. 3.
Troeh, F.R., J.A. Hobbs, and R.L. Donahue. 1980.Soil and water conservation for productivity and environmental protection. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Yannacone, V.J., Jr. 1975. Agricultural lands, fertile soils, popular sovereignty, the trust doctrine, environmental impact assessment and the natural law.North Dakota Law Review 51: 615–53.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mark Frey, R. To everything there is a season: Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) and soil conservation. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 1, 291–304 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01826793
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01826793