Five Questions with Matt Lechtenberg of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

The Soil and Water Outcomes Fund helps partner companies and federal, state, and local governments achieve their sustainability and environmental goals within a framework that enhances cost efficiency and reduces risk on any single entity by bundling together multiple conservation outcomes and partners. 

The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) was the first state agency to enter into an agreement to purchase water quality outcomes through the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund.  

A national leader in soil health, water quality, and nutrient reduction efforts, IDALS provides farmers with technical assistance and financial support to undertake practices that steward lands and local waterways for future generations of Iowans. 

We recently spoke with Matt Lechtenberg, water quality initiative coordinator with IDALS about the department’s experience partnering with the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund.  

The following Q&A has been lightly edited for length and clarity.  

Why did IDALS choose the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund as a demonstration project? 

The Soil and Water Outcomes Fund is an innovative approach. We [IDALS] have built and adapted from traditional models of conservation. As this space has evolved, we are trying to evolve with it as well. There are inherent differences in delivery mechanisms that can be utilized to deploy practices.  This [Soil and Water Outcomes Fund] is one that can really fit, especially on the management practices side.  

Also, we really looked at how it could leverage outside resources, and essentially buyers. For so many years, we’ve been a strict commodity-based market where we pay for bushels of grain. As those markets have changed and more is demanded of those markets, being able to adapt and reward farmers for the steps they are taking based on their production methods is important.  

[The Soil and Water Outcomes Fund] also is streamlined; and that’s a big one. It directly ties to changes on the landscape but is not overly burdensome and still focuses on results.  

The Soil and Water Outcomes Fund has an integrated approach to water quality and soil health that pulls a couple levers – management practices, opening new markets, economic livelihoods. Was this attractive given the overlap between IDALS mandate and SWOF goals? 

We value partnerships and that leveraging opportunity because it needs to be more than just a publicly financed effort. Having private partners come in and bring in additional resources, at the end of the day we get more done.  

These changes in production methods have costs. There has to be value for the producer.  

Looking at soil health, economics, all of those factors, then providing that data to a land owner or a farmer to make an informed decision, they can see the dollars and cents. And they also see the impact, the outcomes that would be provided. 

The land owners and farmers are still the ones making those decisions and are the primary drivers for those changes. 

What did you learn from your first year working with SWOF in 2021? What has it been like to work with the SWOF team? 

Going into it, with a demonstration, you don’t really know what you are going to get until you have everything in place and you go start talking to people. For sure, we saw that there is plenty of demand out there.  

The team at the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund did a good job of projecting what they were going to be able to deliver and providing a proof of concept. Part of what they were trying to do is leverage and bring in additional partners and resources and they have done a good job of that.  

They have been able to secure interest from growers on the ground. There have been a lot of things that the team has been able to navigate and have some pretty strong results. I applaud them for all that effort and what they got done in that first year.  

Our [IDALS’] traditional approach is one-on-one individual agreements with a land owner to do a practice. There is paperwork, there is an individual that manages that in the local soil and water office, there is a whole team behind it on accounting, conservation planning, and things like that.  

The Soil and Water Outcomes Fund puts all those buckets together and streamlines it. 

Instead of individual checks to individual growers, reimbursing them for their expenses on installing some of these practices, we have that taken care of with the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund. It streamlines the work significantly for our staff. It is an easier way to get more acres that complements our existing programs as well.  

This is maybe more for growers with a little bit of experience with these types of practices and are ready to take that next step. They don’t need as significant hand holding or have a lot of questions about management of cover crop or management of no till systems. The Soil and Water Outcomes Fund is a good hand off, a good complement to some of these traditional programs where we have had success getting folks introduced to these concepts. They don’t need to go through those steps again after 3 years or 5 years of doing this. 

What have you done for me lately is the theme of a lot of our programs here. We want to see how that demand is going to grow and position them for the future because we know there are going to be those opportunities out there to showcase this project. 

Is there something in particular about the SWOF approach that you would like to see more widely adopted? 

One of the big things that the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund has done is streamline the process and get us outside of our traditional public program mindset. It gets us closer to how ag retail or how a for-profit business would work. You are marrying those approaches. There is an inherent difference in how the two operate.  

At the end of the day we all want to advance these concepts and practices on the landscape. If we keep that as the focus we have room to operate and have some give or take in how a program runs.  

More paperwork, more steps in a process – whether perceived or reality – creates barriers to implementation. Streamlining things as much as possible while preserving the intent is important – at the end of the day it is about changes on the landscape that are having positive impacts on nutrient reduction, soil health, and those types of things. 

This is where the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund has been able to work and demonstrate that there are programs out there. Reaching more growers, reaching more acres is the biggest thing we see as a positive. 

What are you looking forward to in 2022 with SWOF and/or other demonstration projects? 

In general, with our demonstrations we want successful projects. At the end of the day, it’s all about getting the practices on the ground.  

 Successful projects are ones that are well positioned to get additional funding should we have the state appropriations to do it. The other side of successful projects is bringing in outside resources to give them legs on their own. Whether it’s private, federal funding, or whatever else.  

 We’ve committed to another year with the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund. We could potentially look at scaling up in subsequent years. With everything that is going on with federal support and private investment, we are open to those opportunities and seeing where that goes.  

 We are optimistic on the future of this, but there is a lot we don’t know about what the future holds. We want to support in any way that we can, whether it’s with dollars or bringing in outside support.