It’s easy to forget all the publicly funded services on which Iowa businesses, health and personal lives rely.
Funding for education — our public universities, community colleges, and state aid to local schools — consumes more than 60 percent of Iowa’s budget. Realistically, there simply is no way to reduce General Fund spending without touching education.
We expect and rely on safe, well-maintained roads and highways. We need water that is clean and drinkable. We enjoy parks that are kept neat and safe by public funds.
Budgeting requires tough choices, even when the economy is thriving. Balancing a budget in tough times — when needs are greater than usual — is even more difficult.
Iowa has cut quite a bit already. Further reductions would come at a price that might not be so apparent on a sheet of paper. But they would become clear as Iowans move about their daily lives.
The quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers that are applied to corn and soybean fields dwarfs that of lawns and golf courses.
How many of you have been in a conversation about Iowa’s water quality that went something like this?
Person 1: Iowa’s waters really are filthy.
Person 2: They sure are. I know a lot of that is because of our state’s agriculture and all the fertilizers that farmers use.
Person 1: That’s probably true, but you know what is really a problem? The fertilizers my neighbors are always putting on their grass. They put so much on all the time and sometimes even in the rain. Why? For a lawn that they never use?
Person 2: You’re probably right. I just drove across the river downtown and it was so gross. And I saw several lawn chemical companies out this morning.
If you’re anything like me you’ve probably heard people downplay the role of agriculture in degrading our waters and shift the focus to our urban areas. I recently had dinner with a small group of environmentally aware citizens and a conversation much like the above occurred.
I asked the group what percentage of the applied fertilizers in Iowa are put on farm fields and got responses ranging from 50 to 80 percent. It just so happened that I knew the real answer and it was way higher than the guesses I heard.
IPP’s latest report focuses only on the chemical fertilizers that are applied to the state’s farm fields, lawns and golf courses. It conclusively shows that the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers that are applied to corn and soybean fields dwarfs that of lawns and golf courses. It isn’t even close. Roughly 98% of the nitrogen and phosphorus applied in fertilizers goes on the state’s farm fields.
On average the pounds applied per acre of these fertilizers are higher on lawns and golf courses but the total area that receives treatments is so miniscule relative to the acres of corn and beans in this state. In addition, these fertilizers are applied to areas that have plants that can immediately use the nutrients, whereas many fertilizers are applied to crop fields that do not.
This is not to say that lawn fertilizers in urban areas are blameless. Indeed, in some urban watersheds they may be a significant source of the nutrient pollution entering Iowa’s waters, but overall it’s safe to say that agriculture is where the vast majority of the nutrients that start as applied fertilizers originate. Throw in manure applications and the relative contribution of agriculture gets even larger.
Can that be changed? With cover crops, perennial crops, better cropping practices, and improved nutrient management plans among other things, that gap can be narrowed. Narrowing that gap will bring with it improved water quality. That is something we can all celebrate.
Can we, with any scientific validity, directly attribute any flood, heat wave, snowfall, hurricane or drought to climate change? Not yet. But the fact remains that the sorts of rainfall patterns Iowa has seen recently, and many of the extreme weather events seen across the world are exactly what climate models predict, as noted by a recent report from Environment Iowa.
I’ve heard it said that climate change is “loading the dice” toward making certain extreme weather events more likely to occur. What this means for Iowa is that we now have to prepare for more frequent major floods, but also be ready for even larger floods.
What can we do? There are no simple answers and clearly the solution is going to involve a combination of things. Iowa is taking the right steps by developing some excellent resources for municipal officials and local residents. But does the political will exist to make the difficult choices? Should we allow development in flood plains? (The Cedar Falls city council has decided to say no.) Should we build more levies around cities to protect them (but push flooding on to communities downstream)? Should we prohibit a net increase in runoff from any development site? Should we require or even pay farmers to reduce runoff from their fields?
In both rural and urban areas, healthy soil is the first line of defense against flooding as it can slow, store and clean prodigious amounts of rainfall and runoff. Unfortunately, as outgoing DNR Director Rich Leopold noted in an excellent and sobering editorial, our soils are not healthy. We’ve lost, and continue to lose, huge amounts of topsoil from our croplands and the soils in our urban developments aren’t really much better than concrete at holding onto water.
Healthy soil means cleaner water, less flooding, excellent crops and — quite possibly — dice that are a little less loaded. That’s a win-win-win-win for everyone.
While water quality has fresh international attention brought by the enormity of the BP disaster, we also need to be looking at what we’re doing right at home, little by little and day by day.
Today’s Cedar Rapids Gazette editorial spotlights the work of four West Branch Middle School students in illustrating for their community the water-quality impacts of drug disposal.
In West Branch, a small town east of Iowa City, the team of Kara Fountain, Allison Kusick, Gabby Salemink and Megan Tadlock brought awareness to the effects of everyday actions on our environment, actions we take for granted maybe just because of tradition.
Then, when we realize the impacts, we have to find acceptance of that reality, find a way to break old habits and find the willingness to adopt new solutions. Much of public policy works that way.
A couple of reports from the Iowa Policy Project underline the issues examined by the West Branch students. One report, last December, notes that pharmaceuticals are one segment of a class of organic water contaminants that are found from everyday household use and tend to resist traditional wastewater treatment. A previous report, in 2006, noted that Iowa water is not tested for many chemical compounds that had not been considered as contaminants — among them prescription drugs for humans and animals, as well as cosmetics, dyes, preservatives and detergents.
In short, we need a better understanding of what’s going into our water supplies, and what is worthy of concern. While water quality has fresh international attention brought by the enormity of the BP disaster, we also need to be looking at what we’re doing right at home, little by little and day by day.
The West Branch students, under the supervision of retiring science teacher Hector Ibarra, are among those adding to knowledge about these issues for all of us. They worked with the University of Iowa Hygenics Laboratory to look for traces of discarded medicines in processed sewer water. As the West Branch Times noted, they also hosted a day for local residents to bring unused and old pharmaceuticals to be incinerated.
These students are an example for all Iowans, let alone leaders among students, in their willingness to explore and put what they’ve learned into practice.
It is only a matter of political will to set strong water-pollution limits that are enforced, and to try out some innovative programs.
A new report researched for us by economics professor Cathy Kling and PhD candidate Subhra Bhattacharjee of Iowa State University documents that Iowa’s water quality is poor, primarily because of agricultural pollution, and evaluates two newer approaches for improving water quality that have been used in the Midwest.
One of the primary findings of this report is that no matter how well we structure our water-quality programs, if they are not backed by tough pollution limits they will not improve water quality.
Governor Culver last week in his Condition of the State message did not mention Iowa’s significant water-quality problems. Obviously, Iowans are suffering from being out of work and being involved in wars abroad, and those issues rightly take precedent.
However over the last several decades, whether or not we are in a bad budget year, Iowa has not taken the measures necessary to improve our water quality.
Given the current poor economic climate, Iowa could take steps to improve water quality without impacting our budget. We could heed one of the primary recommendations of this report and increase our limits on pollution. That would not cost the state anything.
Further, the researchers learned many lessons from the two programs they studied for this report: water-quality trading and wetland banking. They created a significant list of dos and don’ts for how to structure these programs in Iowa and recommended that we establish pilot projects to try out these approaches. Taking such measures would allow us to begin improving water quality at a very small cost to the state.
The point is there are ways to address water quality, even without a significant state expenditure. It is only a matter of political will to set strong water-pollution limits that are enforced, and to try out some innovative programs. Iowa needs to find this will to improve our lousy water quality and thus quality of life and economy.