Tag Archives: clean water act

Protect Our Waterways – support the proposed Clean Water Act rules

The U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have proposed new Clean Water Act rules that clarify - not broaden - which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act, including headwater streams and wetlands adjacent to rivers.

The U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have proposed new Clean Water Act rules that clarify – not broaden – which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act, including headwater streams and wetlands adjacent to rivers.

As reported in today’s Des Moines Register, Governor Branstad’s office recently submitted a letter to the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regarding the proposed Clean Water Act rules.

The Iowa Environmental Council disagrees with Governor Branstad’s characterization of the rules in his letter and his assertion that the rule should be withdrawn. We strongly support the rules, which clarify which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act, including small headwater streams that flow into larger rivers and to wetlands adjacent to these rivers.

These small streams and wetlands help reduce flooding, supply drinking water, filter pollution and provide critical support and habitat for fish and wildlife in downstream waters.

Iowans want clean water, and these rules advance that goal. We believe that the stakeholder meetings convened by the Governor should have included representation from groups who support federal protections for our waters, including people who drink, fish, swim and boat in our waters. As we know all too well in Des Moines, many pollutants affecting the quality of our drinking water  come from small streams that flow into the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, in some cases crossing state borders. A strong Clean Water Act is needed that clarifies these headwater streams are protected.

Help protect some of our country’s most important waters. Submit your public comments to the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of the proposed Clean Water Act rules today. Public Comments are being accepted through Friday, November 14.

Public hearings are underway on CAFO clean water rule

Two fish in an Iowa waterway died during a manure spill.

Manure spills can wreak havoc on aquatic ecosystems. According to the Council’s 2012 analysis, illegal manure spills killed more than 1.2 million fish in Iowa in the prior ten years.

For over a year, the Iowa Environmental Council has been supportive of an effort to protect Iowa’s waters from harmful manure spills.  We have advocated for strong protections of Iowa’s waters and compiled data on the harm manure spills have caused to Iowa’s waters.

The next chapter of this ongoing story takes place this month as Iowa’s Environmental Protection Commission is working to complete required updates to Iowa’s rules governing how Clean Water Act permits are issued to agricultural facilities.

Under law, Iowa’s flexibility in this rulemaking is limited.  Iowa code does not permit the rules to be more stringent than specific federal requirements, and so what has been proposed is simply directly incorporating federal policy into Iowa’s rules “by reference.”

A public comment period on the proposed rules is now open through May 13.  According to the public notice for the rulemaking (which begins on page 24 of this .pdf), comments may be submitted using this method:

Any interested person may make written suggestions or comments on the proposed amendments on or before May 13, 2014. Written comments should be directed to Gene Tinker, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, 502 E. 9th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0034; fax (515)281-8895; or e-mail gene.tinker@dnr.iowa.gov.

In addition, six public hearings are set related to this rulemaking from May 6 to May 13:

  • May 6, 2014 6 p.m.
    Lime Creek Nature Center
    3501 Lime Creek Road, Mason City
  • May 7, 2014 6 p.m.
    Clay County Administration Building Boardroom
    300 W. 4th Street, Spencer
  • May 8, 2014 6 p.m.
    Carroll County Courthouse Meeting Room
    114 E. 6th Street, Carroll
  • May 9, 2014 11 a.m.
    Wallace State Office Building Fourth Floor Conference Room
    502 E. 9th Street, Des Moines
  • May 12, 2014 6 p.m.
    Northeast Iowa Community College Dairy Center, Room 115
    1527 Highway 150 South, Calmar
  • May 13, 2014 6 p.m.
    Washington County Conservation Board Education Center, Marr Park
    2943 Highway 92, Ainsworth

Dead Zone Decision: Court Ruling Forces EPA Action on Mississippi River Pollution

The U.S. District Court in Eastern Louisiana ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to determine within six months whether to set new limits on the pollution that is fueling the dangerous algae growth choking the waters throughout the Mississippi River basin, the Gulf of Mexico and waters across the country.

Image shows a thick mat of green algae with the text "Let's clean this up!"The suit, filed a year and a half ago, challenged EPA’s denial of the Mississippi River Collaborative’s 2008 petition to EPA asking it to establish quantifiable standards and cleanup plans for nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The suit charged that EPA had unlawfully refused to respond to the question posed to it, which is whether such federal action is necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act.  The court agreed with plaintiffs, holding that the Agency’s refusal to provide a direct answer was unlawful.

The result is a win for Iowans and others living up and down the Mississippi River who support clear, deliberate action to clean up polluted waters.  Here’s how Ann Alexander, lead attorney on the case at the National Resources Defense Council, described the result:

“In the simplest terms, the court ordered EPA to remove its head from the sand and make a decision whether to be part of the solution or part of the problem.  It’s a short and satisfying answer to a long and decidedly unsatisfying history of dithering inaction by EPA.”

At issue, Alexander explains, is EPA’s responsibility to ensure standards for cleaner water are put in place according to a reasonable timeline.  Alexander explains EPA has been clear about whether the standards are important:

“EPA has been acknowledging for more than a decade that this problem is severe, calling the nationwide damage from algae pollution a “sobering picture and a compelling reason for more urgent and effective action.”  More to the point, EPA has repeatedly gone on record saying that states have not done enough to solve the problem…”

But the federal agency has dithered on whether the standards are legally necessary–a finding that would trigger EPA’s responsibility to work quickly with states to set needed standards.

Perhaps shaken by the fierce industry opposition to its effort to set such limits in Florida, EPA simply refused to answer our question, saying only that setting federal limits if they were necessary would be a lot of time and trouble.

The Court’s decision, issued Friday does not tell the Agency how to address the problem, only to make a decision on the issue. However, EPA has repeatedly acknowledged the severity of the problem and stated that federal intervention is appropriate because states are not doing enough to solve it.

Plaintiffs in the suit included Gulf Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Iowa Environmental Council, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Prairie Rivers Network, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Tennessee Clean Water Network, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Sierra Club, and NRDC.  Attorneys at the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, NRDC, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center brought the case.

230+ organizations call on President Obama to protect America’s waterways from livestock waste

The Iowa Environmental Council has joined with more than 230 organizations from 30 states to urge President Obama to protect our nation’s waterways from animal waste produced by industrial livestock operations.

Food animals in the United States generate up to 1 billion tons of waste every year, which often contains nutrients, pathogens, sediment, antibiotics, and metals such as copper or arsenic. That waste contaminates some of our most prized waterways, such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Mississippi River, as well as streams, estuaries and wells. It also can taint drinking water, kill fish, and close beaches, harming human health and local economies.

Read the letter from human health, environmental, faith-based, farming, community, animal protection, sporting, environmental justice, and student groups after the jump.

Continue reading

Gulf Dead Zone signifies lack of action by EPA, states

2013-deadzone-measurement-NOAA-map

This week, scientists from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium completed their annual measurement of the Gulf of Mexico’s Dead Zone, which measured 5,800 square miles, larger than the state of Connecticut.

The Dead Zone is an area of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River which is oxygen-deprived due to excess nitrogen and phosphorus pollution coming primarily from agricultural sources throughout the Basin as far north as the River’s source in Minnesota, and including the state of Iowa.

Image shows a thick mat of green algae with the text "Let's clean this up!"In addition to causing the Dead Zone in the Gulf, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution harms waters throughout the Mississippi River Basin and its tributaries, threatening wildlife and recreation as well as the safety of drinking water.

“Record-high nitrate pollution levels in May through July have forced the Des Moines Water Works to use a nitrate removal system and blend water from other sources just to deliver safe drinking water to over 500,000 Iowans,” said Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, a member of the Mississippi River Collaborative.

The annual Dead Zone measurement makes the size of the nitrogen and phosphorous pollution problem in the Mississippi River Basin clear, and Iowa’s contribution of nitrogen and phosphorous that feeds this problem is among the largest of any state.

Continue reading