doesn't rill erosion------and that is the subject of my recent inquiry to NRCS-------still have to at some point provide evidence of loss of dirt?

I can see where bare ground would be more subject to dirt movement------the splatter of a hard rain, etc., and therefore the cover crops and no till would be better from that perspective.

BUT------ doesn't the dirt still have to move in order for there to be a problem?

If rill erosion moves the dirt, say, 15 inches---------then a field cultivator is going to move a lot of that dirt.........to fill up, so to speak, the eroded areas, just due to the carrying effect of the implement.

And.........we use cover crops to the extent of growing better cover crops than commodity crops-------but that was given no regard...........".....terraces.......are the ultimate solution.."

We'll put in the damned terraces, just to keep peace, but it's really hard to swallow when I see our soft ground soaking up rain to the point of seldom seeing runoff of any extent, and the neighbors having gully erosion up the shaft, with tons of soil in the fencelines, etc...............and just farming the crap out of the hills.

I do, however, reserve the right to install Cat tracks marks on the forehead of any NRCS agent who wants me to put a bend in the terraces that can't be negotiated with even a 4rn planter................that will be the "straw".