We all have an obligation to clean up our rivers lakes and streams and no sector can be exempt. It is not a voluntary matter.
I put up a new map at the IPP office this morning. It’s a big one — about 4 feet by 6 feet, and it’s impressive on a wall.
What makes it more impressive comes when you think of what that map represents, some 36 million acres of land, and to think of how those acres are used, and what we are doing to protect them.
Even though it’s mainly a road map, we see those roads plotted on a landscape that we know is mostly farmland — rivers, lakes and streams running through it, and dominated by it.
Each five years the United States Department of Agriculture puts out a census of agriculture. The last one from 2012 shows just how agriculture dominates our land. About 24 of the 36 million acres are in cropland nearly all corn and soybeans — though even more land is agricultural since activities like grazing push the total of ag land well beyond 30 million acres. Cropland, woodland and pasture make up so much of the landscape that the category house lots, ponds, roads, wasteland, etc. makes up only 1.4 million acres, or less than 5 percent of the total.
IPP pointed out in a 2010 report Solution to Pollution: It Starts on the Farm that so little land in Iowa is devoted to urban uses (lawns or golf courses) that even if urban application rates of Nitrogen and Phosphorous fertilizer were much higher than that on farms, only 2 percent of the pollution from land application of fertilizer comes from lawns and golf courses.
When sewage treatment plants are included in the urban share of nutrient pollution, agriculture still dominates.
So the take-away message — water pollution in Iowa comes from agricultural land. We all have an obligation to clean up our rivers, lakes and streams and no sector can be exempt — particularly the biggest one. It is not a voluntary matter.
Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project
While our report dealt with urban wetlands, many of the questions from the media folks who participated in our call-in news conference were about agricultural wetlands. That is no surprise since so much of the water pollution problems in Iowa come from the farm.
IPP pointed out that reality in a 2010 report that can be found on our website: Solution to Pollution: It Starts on the Farm by Andrea Heffernan, Teresa Galluzzo and Will Hoyer, released in September 2010. That report pointed out that so little land in Iowa is devoted to urban uses (lawns or golf courses) that even if urban application rates of Nitrate and Phosphorus fertilizer were much higher than that on farms, the fact that two-thirds of Iowa land is in corn or soybeans means that only 2 percent of the pollution from land application of fertilizer comes from lawns and golf courses.
Agriculture still dominates even if you include sewage treatment plants in the urban share of nutrient pollution (see graph below).
So the takeaway message — water pollution in Iowa comes from agriculture. We all have an obligation to clean up our rivers, lakes and streams and no sector can be exempt. It is not a voluntary matter.
We need a strategy that recognizes the serious water quality problem we have and offers a realistic approach to addressing it. This must be more than a goal — but a guarantee to all Iowans.
There are three principal problems with the Governor’s proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategy, and they can be summed up in three words: Talk is cheap.
Solutions to this problem start with enforcement, and that takes money. The state of Iowa shortchanges water quality, underfunding it even compared to what we did a decade ago. Our March 2012 report, Drops in the Bucket: The Erosion of Iowa Water Quality Funding, found that this water-quality funding decline came despite greater needs for water protection and public willingness to fund it.
Second, inadequate enforcement of environmental rules for Iowa’s livestock industry has resulted in the state’s censure by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and this threatens our ability to write permits and otherwise enforce our obligations under the Clean Water Act. The strategy bases enforcement on voluntary acceptance of state rules. This has not worked.
Finally, it says much about Iowa’s commitment to water quality — or lack of commitment — when the state proposes a major nutrient reduction strategy and offers no new money to get the job done. The strategy proposes nothing to make sure Iowa does better in assuring clean water for its residents, for states downstream, and the future.
In short, we need a strategy that recognizes the serious water quality problem we have and offers a realistic approach to addressing it. This must be more than a goal — but a guarantee to all Iowans.
Posted by David Osterberg, Executive Director Tweet
There is no question that if EPA simply accepts the agency’s agreement to try to do better, water quality will not improve in this state.
Tonight (October 18) in Des Moines, Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks will meet with Iowans to hear comments and concerns about a new work plan by the state Department of Environmental Resources to bring Iowa into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Below is a letter outlining remarks prepared by IPP Executive Director David Osterberg for tonight’s meeting.
The meeting is at the State Historical Building, 600 East Locust Street, Des Moines, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Oct. 17, 2012
Stephen Pollard, Water Enforcement Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
RE: Public comments on Iowa DNR’s response to EPA’s Water Quality findings
Dear Mr. Pollard:
The Iowa Policy Project is a nonprofit research organization located in Iowa City. We wish to make the following comments about the response by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to your report of inadequacies in the state NPDES program. We limit our remarks to the question of staffing and funding the agency.
The DNR acknowledged that it has given less attention to water quality problems caused by animal feeding operations — see quote below:
“Since 2007, the DNR has had a significant reduction in its animal feeding operations staff. To better meet our responsibilities, the DNR needs both an increase in staffing and to reprioritize workloads.”
While the DNR did not explain to you the extent of the deep reduction in agency field staff they have answered elsewhere.
“The scope and complexity of confinement program work increased disproportionately beginning with legislation in the late ’90s. With this, public awareness of environmental issues also grew, resulting in a significant increase in local demand for education, compliance assistance and compliance assurance. To address these needs, animal feeding operations field staffing gradually increased to a high of 23 by SFY 2004. In SFY 2008, four staff people were shifted into a newly established open feedlots program. Then in the fall of 2009, as General Fund expenditures declined, confinement staffing was reduced again. This reduced staff numbers from 19 to 11.5. Further reductions leave the total of field staff for confinement work at 8.75 full time equivalents. This reduction means that the DNR will not be able to maintain an adequate level of compliance and enforcement activity in confinements.”
Thus the 2011 DNR report demonstrates that the envisioned 13 staff-person increase would only bring numbers back to approximately the 2004 staffing levels — before the addition of many more confinement operations.
Underfunding of water quality programs is not limited to animal agriculture. An IPP report from March 2012 demonstrated an overall decrease in water quality funding of $5 million over the decade. Drops in the Bucket: The Erosion of Iowa Water Quality Funding found that this water-quality funding decline came despite greater needs for water protection and public willingness to fund it. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2012docs/120301-water.pdf
Given this underfunding by the Iowa Legislature, there appears to be no basis for the agency’s belief that it will get approval for 13 more staff members. First, the request must be made in the Governor’s proposed budget that will be drawn up in January of next year. Second, the Legislature must agree to this increase without endangering other water quality programs.
EPA should help the agency in bargaining with a legislature that has shown itself to be less concerned with water quality protection than tax cuts. EPA should tell the DNR that if it fails to get a proposed increase in staff in the Governor’s budget and also to have the request authorized by the General Assembly, there will be consequences. These must be severe consequences commensurate with the funding being sought — that is, EPA should establish a minimum number of staff additions that will be required. Absent that it should state that it will withdraw the authorized NPDES program from DNR. There is no question that if EPA simply accepts the agency’s agreement to try to do better, water quality will not improve in this state.
Thank you for your attention to improving the quality of water in our state.
David Osterberg, Executive Director, The Iowa Policy Project
“It’s not like we don’t have options. We do. Public policy can make a difference in protecting the environment.”
Iowa’s deteriorating water quality is a lingering problem that never seems to make it to the front burner of political campaigns or elected leaders’ agendas in the State Capitol. The Des Moines Register’s editorial today asks — and answers — the fundamental questions:
Why is our water so dirty? The state’s agricultural businesses, including 7,000 animal feeding operations, is a significant reason. Why do they do so much damage to the environment? Elected officials let them.
It’s not like we don’t have options. We do. Public policy can make a difference in protecting the environment, through tough and effective regulations that recognize the air and water belong to all of us, and by helping folks do a better job with targeted incentives.
Unfortunately, as the Register suggests, elected officials in Iowa have passed up opportunities in both the regulatory and incentive arenas to enhance Iowa’s water quality. The Iowa Policy Project through the years has noted many of the issues and presented constructive policy options. Here is a selection of those reports:
IPP also showed this year how environmental protection funding has waned in Iowa — even when voters specifically told lawmakers with a referendum in 2010 that environmental protection is an area where they want to see funding directed. As we found:
While legislators and other elected officials will always proclaim their commitment to clean water, they have not over the past decade demonstrated that commitment through the state budget. In fact, once inflation is taken into account, funding for many programs the state relies upon to monitor, protect and improve waterways has dropped by 25 percent or more. …
Over time, this slow erosion in the purchasing power of these programs is likely to contribute to deteriorating Iowa water quality, if it has not already done so. When funding is scaled to FY13 appropriations, the slow decline in spending on water programs becomes more evident.
Competitions and “keeping up with the Joneses” can spur people to take advantage of the many energy-saving programs Iowa utilities already offer.
IPP last week released a report that highlights how capitalizing on a better understanding of human psychology and behavior can drive energy efficiency and conservation in Iowa.
We initially got interested in the idea after hearing about the extraordinary results from a competition in Kansas last fall. We would love to see something similar happen in Iowa and are working to make that happen.
Apparently the idea of using competitions to spur energy efficiency and other beneficial behaviors has others excited as well. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu spoke on NPR last week about an initiative to get kids excited about energy efficiency. Chu said:
“In my wildest dreams, what I’d love it to be is sometime in not-too-distant future there’ll be kind of a — like a March Madness, there’ll be a lot of schools challenging other schools in their local areas for who’s going to make the most improvement in saving money and saving energy.”
Schools shouldn’t just be the only competitors. Entire towns can compete against one another. College campuses can compete. Churches. Businesses. Next-door neighbors. The truth is, we all want to “keep up with the Joneses” and if we know that the Joneses next door have a similar house and are paying less every month for their electricity then we’ll want to make the changes the Joneses made. Over time these will add up to significant savings in money and reductions in pollution and reduced need for new baseload electricity plants — whether they be coal, gas or nuclear.
Competitions and “keeping up with the Joneses” can spur people to take advantage of the many energy-saving programs Iowa utilities already offer. Many monetary incentives are out there already to replace old appliances, insulate your attic, install solar panels or upgrade your HVAC equipment. Haven’t taken advantage of those programs yet? Contact your utility to find out more. If you have reaped the benefits call your utility and ask for more!
Iowa does not have a reputation for having great water quality, but it could be worse.
My job here at IPP requires me to think a lot about water. Iowa does not have a reputation for having great water quality, and there are certainly plenty of threats, but it could be worse. As Thanksgiving approaches here are a few things I’m thankful for:
2) We have adequate water (for the most part). You don’t have to go too far to find areas where water quantity is a serious concern, like in Nebraska and Wisconsin. Travel further, to places like Florida and the American southwest and the issues get even more serious. Certainly increased chances of drought in the Midwest are recognized as a possibility with climate change, but to date we’ve avoided drought for a few decades.
3) We don’t (yet!) have major oil pipelines running across our state. It just so happens that they rupture occasionally like this one did in Michigan. A few years ago, Wisconsin had an oil pipeline break, too. And now there’s a pipeline proposed that would cross Nebraska.
4) While we’ve seen our fair share of flooding in parts of the state, we’re not going to see the problems that coastal cities will as sea levels rise.
5) We don’t have acutely toxic groundwater like this city in California does.