Regarding Mississippi flooding and the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, this paragraph is like an overlooked oasis surrounded by the desert of command and control vs voluntary solutions (I'm thinking about taking a creative writing course):
Mr. Vilsack said that farmers had come a long way toward understanding their effect on ecosystems downstream and that what they needed were government incentives and creation of private markets — where, for example, farmers who do a lot of conservation could receive payments from farmers who do not — to help them improve environmental safeguards while they also keep food production high.
via www.nytimes.com
Farmers don't want command and control and environmental groups don't want voluntary programs. Economic incentive based policies are (a) a compromise or (b) the best of both worlds. Government policy could cap the amount of fertilizer used in a watershed, with fertilizer permits distributed to farmers, etc (see above). This would avoid mandates that farmers don't like, allow them to choose their own production methods and still achieve the desired pollution reduction.
