Meeting clean water goals requires greater commitment to livestock facility inspections

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

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is poised to take on a major EPA-mandated inspection effort to ensure thousands of Iowa livestock facilities are not discharging manure into Iowa’s waters.  But as DNR prepares for this new responsibility, it does so with far fewer staff than necessary, said Ralph Rosenberg, the Iowa Environmental Council’s executive director.

---

Take action on this issue by telling your state representatives Iowa needs enough livestock inspectors to adequately protect our rivers and lakes.

---

“Since 2009, Iowa has substantially reduced the number of livestock facility inspectors protecting the state’s rivers and lakes to the point where we are already concerned about inadequate oversight,” Rosenberg said.  “Now, with this much-awaited round of new inspections set to begin, the under-staffing at DNR demands urgent attention.”

---

The Council has prepared a new fact sheet on the need for more livestock inspectors, and we offer an interactive map of the impact harmful manure spills have had in your county in the last decade.

---

The new inspection effort is necessary after the federal Environmental Protection Agency identified numerous shortcomings in Iowa’s Clean Water Act oversight of livestock facilities last summer.  A draft agreement between the EPA and DNR calls on the state agency to complete enhanced inspections of about 8,000 facilities, reaching 20% of the operations—almost 1,600—each year for five years.

Rosenberg said 13 inspectors, a number that restores past staff reductions and more closely matches DNR’s own initial assessment of its need, would better align the agency’s resources with the size of its task.

“This is not an effort where DNR can drop everything, catch up quickly, then move on,” said Rosenberg.  “Completing the new inspections requires a multi-year commitment from the DNR which will put substantial pressure on the department’s resources.  Providing adequate staff is critical so the department can still meet its other responsibilities.”

Rosenberg explained the DNR originally indicated it would seek 13 additional staff members; after the Governor’s budget provided lesser funding, DNR has suggested it will attempt to re-focus its priorities to move forward with fewer staff.  Rosenberg said the Council and its partners are concerned that without the 13 additional staff, DNR could be forced to weaken its efforts in other areas, such as responding to livestock producer questions and citizen complaints, to complete its new task.

“Protecting water quality in Iowa’s rivers and lakes is the responsibility of state government,” Rosenberg said.  “We have to provide our state agencies the resources they need to enforce existing laws.”

According to previous analysis by the Iowa Environmental Council, manure spills killed more than 1.2 million fish in Iowa waters in the last decade, including 24 spills that killed more than 10,000 fish in a single incident.  Findings from that analysis are summarized on the Council’s website, iaenvironment.org.

In draft plan, EPA sets high bar for Iowa’s enforcement of livestock clean water standards

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

After issuing a report last summer (.pdf) criticizing shortcomings in Iowa’s handling of clean water rules related to livestock facilities, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has issued a draft work plan (.pdf) for Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources to improve its oversight of large livestock facilities.

If carried out, the work plan would advance significant new protections for clean water in Iowa, which has suffered significant blows from livestock-related manure spills.  Last year, the Council detailed these impacts with a special report on ten years of livestock manure spill data.

Click the image to view an interactive map of manure spills in your county.

According to that analysis, manure spills killed 1.2 million fish between 2001 and 2011; 42% of spills where manure reached water resulted in no documented monetary penalty issued by the Iowa DNR.

EPA’s proposed work plan includes plans for proactive inspections of Iowa livestock facilities which the Iowa Environmental Council and scores of its individual supporters called for during a public comment period on the issue.

Under the plan, DNR would complete inspections of approximately 8,000 animal feeding operations in the state to assess whether they require permits under the Clean Water Act.

In addition, under the plan, DNR would set new procedures for stronger inspections of livestock facilities to determine whether each facility discharges manure into nearby waterbodies.

Iowa law requires that confinement livestock facilities in Iowa be designed not to discharge pollutants to waterways; enhanced inspections will reveal whether or not that is the case as a facility operates.

To maintain progress on the plan, DNR would complete approximately 1,600 (or 20%) of the facilities each year over five years.  Other rulemaking processes would begin immediately, with the goal of new restrictions being effective early in 2014.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ response to the draft plan is not yet clear.  The agency previously indicated it would pursue additional funding for livestock facility inspectors in the legislature this year.

However, DNR’s proposed staff increases would serve only to restore personnel cuts the agency has made in recent years due to budget reductions.  The Iowa Environmental Council is concerned that additional staff may be needed beyond DNR’s request.

Ultimately, if the Iowa DNR fails to meet the EPA’s expectations for progress, the federal government could take control of the state’s Clean Water Act permit program.

The Council will continue to monitor this dialogue between state and federal officials to ensure Iowa’s rivers and lakes receive the protection from manure spills that Iowans expect.

New state strategy on Iowa’s most widespread water pollution problem cries out for more accountability, greater citizen input, and stronger solutions

Last month, after a two year effort, an interagency state government team released a 197-page strategy for reducing nitrogen and phosphorous pollution that harms water quality in Iowa and downstream. Here are five key facts you need to know about the document:

1.  The strategy’s approach for addressing agricultural sources of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution (also referred to as non-point source pollution) will fall short of creating significant, sustainable, statewide improvements in Iowa’s waters. The strategy’s approach to engaging farmers is neither substantially different nor better from what is already happening in Iowa.

State officials have proposed replacing Iowa’s current all-voluntary conservation efforts with new “aggressive” all-voluntary conservation efforts.  The strategy does not clearly define how farmers who contribute to Iowa’s nitrogen and phosphorous pollution problem will be held accountable for helping to solve it.  It proposes a range of improvements to current conservation programs, but they are vague and lack timetables and clear goals.

The strategy’s authors emphasize benefits of all-voluntary conservation programs without providing evidence of why these methods, which have fallen short of protecting our waters in the past, will be successful now.

The strategy argues that significant improvements to voluntary conservation programs can be made without any initial increases in state funding—despite noting that existing funds for landowners to implement conservation practices “are often limited and oversubscribed” (p. 19).[i]  The lack of a plan for obtaining additional funding for voluntary conservation efforts with initial costs as high as $1.2 billion to $4 billion (p. 4) raises still more doubts about whether the plan can succeed on a comprehensive, statewide basis.

2. The strategy does not set specific goals for lower nitrogen and phosphorous pollution levels in local lakes and rivers.  These goals are necessary to ensure the strategy solves water pollution problems facing rivers and lakes in Iowa as well as downstream.

The authors of the strategy make clear that Iowa’s nutrient strategy was written to reduce Iowa’s contributions of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution to the Gulf of Mexico by 45%.  However, the strategy fails to list either short-term or long-term goals for water quality improvements for Iowa’s rivers and lakes.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s framework for state nutrient strategies (the “Stoner memo”) calls on states to set numeric goals to limit nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in waterways.  To motivate Iowans to invest in substantial and sustainable improvements in water quality, Iowa needs these goals, which are based on benefits to Iowa waters.  The nutrient strategy evades this responsibility, promising only to “[evaluate] the need for nutrient water quality standards” in the future.

Further, while the strategy describes the challenges of establishing these numeric goals at great length, it does not mention that in 2011, Iowa nearly finished a process to set numeric criteria for recreational lakes which was tabled pending completion of additional research.  Despite the considerable progress Iowa had made when work stopped, the nutrient strategy does not call for resuming this effort now or in the future.

3. The strategy contains useful research about what it will take to clean up Iowa’s waters.

As part of the nutrient strategy, an Iowa State University-led team of researchers examined how successful different practices on agricultural land are at reducing nitrogen and phosphorous pollution. Almost all of their work is on practices already in existence and to some extent followed by a portion of Iowa farmers. Their findings provide important insight on the benefits of greater use of these practices and about how Iowa can focus its limited resources to achieve the best results.  Having this information centralized in one place gives Iowa a good “road map” to make significant progress on nitrogen and phosphorous pollution now.  In addition, continuing research by the team will help make Iowa’s pollution control efforts even more effective over time.

4. The strategy proposes new mandatory standards for how cities treat their wastewater to reduce pollution levels.  However, these improvements will likely not solve Iowa’s larger pollution problem unless they are accompanied by more effective participation by agriculture.

The strategy lays out a plan for reducing the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous released by large municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities where it is determined that the additional treatment is technically feasible and affordable.  This new treatment to remove nitrogen and phosphorous would be required, not voluntary, under the Clean Water Act permits that these facilities must currently obtain.  The proposed changes in the strategy could reduce point source nitrogen releases by many wastewater facilities by two thirds and phosphorous releases by three quarters.

At the same time, the strategy recognizes that point source pollution is a much smaller contributor to Iowa’s overall problem than non-point source pollution (Table 1).

Table 1: Sources of nitrogen and phosphorous discharged from Iowa to the Gulf of Mexico
	Wastewater treatment plants and other point sources	Agricultural and other non-point sources
Nitrogen	8%	92%
Phosphorous	20%	80%
Source:  Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, p. 7.

Even if cities add nitrogen and phosphorous treatment to their wastewater plants and raise their customers’ rates to pay for it, the vast majority of the problem will remain unsolved without effective programs and real results on the non-point source/agricultural side.

5. The Iowa Environmental Council is working hard to ensure the voices of Iowans like you who value clean water are heard in this debate.

Most Iowans have not had an adequate opportunity to comment on this strategy, and it appears input has been artificially limited to a select few interest groups.   The Council believes that this plan can only be stronger when all Iowans have the opportunity to contribute to it.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship and its partners released the new nutrient strategy with only a short 45 day public comment period.  The Council is preparing comments on additional elements the strategy should include to secure the results for clean water Iowans expect.  In addition, over the next few days, the Council will provide additional guidance to members of the public who wish to submit comments on the strategy via our action alert system.

---

[i] According to a Department of Agriculture press release, on December 6, Secretary of Agriculture Northey announced his request that Governor Branstad include $2.4 million in additional funding for agricultural conservation in FY-2014 and $4.4 million in additional funding in FY-2015.  The nutrient strategy (p. 12) identified $15.1 million in state funding for conservation programs the legislature approved for the current fiscal year (FY2013).  Even with the increased funding, the nutrient strategy suggests much more would be needed to achieve its target result of a 45% reduction in pollution reaching the Gulf of Mexico.  According to the strategy, “annual costs” of implementing the strategy “including initial investment and operating cost, range from $77 million per year to $1.2 billion per year” (p. 4).

A look back: Iowa’s progress toward clean water

In honor of the 40th anniversary of the federal Clean Water Act, the Iowa Environmental Council is taking a look back at our work to successfully implement that important law.  The article below originally appeared in the Council’s newsletter in 2010.

Since 1995, the Council’s public policy advocacy work has helped to protect water quality in a variety of ways—e.g., closing all of the most-polluting agricultural drainage wells in Iowa, birthing a statewide volunteer water quality monitoring program, passing new rules to clean up leaky underground petroleum storage tanks, establishing a state fund for watershed improvement projects, etc. There have been many milestones of progress in our 15 years of public policy work on behalf of Iowa’s water quality. But probably our most difficult and prolonged work has been to bring Iowa into compliance with key elements of the federal Clean Water Act, passed 40 years ago in 1972.

The Council’s work on this began in 1999 when asked to serve on the Iowa DNR’s Water Quality Standards Advisory Group. Fast forward to 2004 when, frustrated with minimal progress and, in some cases, weakening of water quality protections, the Council joined with Iowa Sierra Club, Hawkeye Fly Fishing Association, Environmental Law and Policy Center and Midwest Environmental Justice Advocates to request assistance from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With the help of the EPA, we were able to work with the Iowa DNR to identify and agree upon three key elements of the Clean Water Act that, if implemented, would improve Iowa’s water quality standards and lead to significant reductions in pollution of our lakes, streams and rivers…

ONE:

Revise Iowa’s water quality standards in order to make rivers and streams safe for swimming and fishing, and for aquatic life.

Until recently, 83 percent of Iowa’s river and stream miles were classified as having a “General Use.” And even though people recreated and fished in these waters, Iowa’s water quality standards for these General Use streams were insufficient to make the water safe for swimming and fishing. Nor did the standards protect aquatic life from toxic pollution. These were clear violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

A persistent campaign, led by the Iowa Environmental Council and its partners, resulted in new water quality standards which more than doubled the river miles in Iowa protected for aquatic life and increased 10-fold the miles of rivers and streams protected for recreational uses. Regulators were required to limit pollution in all perennial streams so people could safely swim in them, canoe on them, and fish in them—without getting sick. A major success!

Unfortunately, by the end of the legislative session that same year, groups representing the regulated community convinced lawmakers to pass a bill requiring the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to first assess whether a stream mile was actually being used for fishing and swimming, before the new standards could be applied. This cumbersome task is still underway today and it is still unknown whether the federal Environmental Protection Agency, who has final authority, will ultimately allow Iowa regulators to exempt certain stream segments from pollution limits.

Be assured, on behalf of Iowa families who want to be able to fish, swim and otherwise safely play in urban and rural streams and rivers, the Council and its partners are monitoring and weighing in on DNR stream assessment decisions.

TWO:

Eliminate the illegal “protected flow” provisions in Iowa’s water quality standards.

Until 2006, approximately 400 Iowa streams were assigned a “protected flow,” an arbitrary water level at which pollution controls did not apply.  The new standards adopted in 2006, described above, also eliminated this loop hole.

THREE:

Revise Iowa’s antidegradation rules to be in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act. Success!

(See our full story about this issue, posted yesterday.)

A Water Quality Success Story

In honor of the 40th anniversary of the federal Clean Water Act, the Iowa Environmental Council is taking a look back at our work to successfully implement that important law–work that continues even today.  The article below originally appeared in the Council’s newsletter in 2010.

After 11 years of meetings, letters, delays, legal work, and public hearings, clean water advocates gathered in room 116, of the statehouse in Des Moines, on Monday, February 8, 2010, to witness what they hoped was the final step in adopting clean water “anti-degradation” rules for Iowa.

Heavy snowfall and travel warnings kept some supporters away, but most, who had invested years in the effort, were there, including Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council; Brad Klein, an attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center; Neila Seaman, Director of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club; and Wally Taylor a lawyer for the Sierra Club.

Richard Leopold, once director of the Iowa Environmental Council, now sat with legislators at a massive wood table that took up most of the space in the room. As Director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Rich was there to ensure that legislators knew of all the countless hours and all the ways in which the public—environmentalists and the regulated community included—had worked with the DNR to shape the new rules that were meant to help stem the trend of declining water quality in Iowa.

The Friday before, Governor Chet Culver had sent a letter to the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee expressing his “strong support” of the new rules.  Now his representative, Jim Larew, sat at the table with Rich and the legislators on the Committee, listening to comments—both for and against the rules—from legislators and the public.

Given enough time, water can wear away just about anything, even stone

With the passage of the federal Clean Water Act in 1972, states were required to enact Antidegradation rules by 1985, in order to prevent the further pollution of lakes, rivers and streams in the nation. Iowa adopted rules, but in 1997 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency informed Iowa that its rules were weak and violated federal law. Repeated delays in rewriting the rules led a coalition of environmental organizations – Iowa Environmental Council, Hawkeye Fly Fishing Association, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law & Policy Center – to file a Petition for Rulemaking with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 2007. This compelled the State to act immediately to initiate the rule-making process. Over a period of two years, a dozen meetings  were held around the state to gather public comments, rule revisions were made in reaction to the comments, and a hearing before the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission was held.

From the beginning of the rulemaking process in 2007, Iowa Environmental Council staff traveled to various parts of the state, educating Iowans about Antidegradation rules and encouraging them to attend public comment meetings and mail written comments to the DNR. Members of lake protective associations in northwestern Iowa, river advocates from central and northeastern Iowa and people from around the state who care about water quality sent hundreds of letters and attended local meetings in support of the rules. In the end, over 900 Iowans provided the DNR with feedback about the rules.

At the December 2009 meeting of the state’s Environmental Protection Commission, the revised rules were approved. One step remained: a review of the rules before the Administrative Rules Review Committee, a committee of the Iowa Legislature.

The opposition

At public and private meetings the regulated community—businesses and wastewater treatment facilities that are required by law to obtain a permit to discharge into rivers and streams—made their concerns heard. The League of Cities, Rural Water Association, and Iowa Limestone Producers Association were the primary objectors. Their fear: increased costs of doing business.

In response, the DNR made modifications to the rules and at meetings and in correspondence repeatedly explained that the rules only applied to permits for new or increased levels of pollution. They also explained that the rules provided permit applicants with opportunities to work with the DNR and community members to consider reasonable, less degrading alternatives to discharging pollution directly into streams or to determine if social and economic considerations might “justify the degradation” to the stream.

On the morning of February 8, 2010, all members of the Administrative Rules Review Committee (ARRC) were present: 10 legislators including Democrats and Republicans, Senators and Representatives. The Committee heard testimony from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), associations opposing the rules, and environmental advocates supporting the rules. Approval was not needed from the Committee—but the Committee could delay or stop the rules if they judged them to be “capricious, unreasonable or beyond the jurisdiction of the DNR authority.”

After public testimony and soon after the Committee began to discuss the rules it became clear that fear, incited by misinformation, had many ARRC members concerned. Representative Linda Upmeyer, from Garner, had received a phone call the previous evening from someone who feared the rules would prevent him from being able to sell his home. Senator Wally Horn, from Cedar Rapids, had received a call from someone who claimed the DNR was just trying to “go after” limestone producers to “run them out of the state.” Senator Merlin Bartz, from Grafton, expressed his concerns and made a formal motion to object to the rules.

The vote

In the hour that followed Rich Leopold addressed legislators’ concerns.

“These rules allow us to give thoughtful consideration on future impacts to water quality in Iowa and to how we can work more closely with citizens to identify ways that allow our economy to thrive while, at the same time, protecting and enhancing our environment,” said Leopold.

Jim Larew, chief legal counsel for the Governor’s office, provided remarks on behalf of the Governor. He noted that even the representative for the limestone producers had stated that morning that their experience of working on the rules with the DNR had been a positive one. Clearly, he told the Committee, the DNR was not trying to run anyone out of the state, be “capricious, unreasonable or go beyond the jurisdiction of their authority.”

Larew went on to express the Governor’s wish that “the Administrative Rules Review Committee not stand in the way of Iowa’s progress on this important front.”

“While the implementation of  these rules will not involve any additional cost to the State of Iowa, it will potentially yield enormous benefits—both to the assured enjoyment of our waterways, and also in terms of economic development to those areas of our state that host citizens who travel there for recreational purposes,” said Larew.

Needing six votes to carry the objection, Senator Bartz was given a last opportunity to persuade his colleagues to vote against the rules.

Ultimately, voting to “object to the rules were Senators Merlin Bartz, Linda Upmeyer and David Heaton and Representative James Seymore.

Senators Wally E. Horn, Thomas G. Courtney and John P. (Jack) Kibbie and Representatives Marcella R. Frevert, Tyler Olson and Nathan K. Reichert voted against the motion to “object.”

The motion had failed.

The final rules

Iowa now has Antidegradation rules that will help stem the trend of declining water quality in all lakes and streams. The rules allow for community growth and industrial expansion while controlling and treating wastewater to avoid unnecessary new pollution.

Included in the rules is the designation of Outstanding Iowa Waters for six lakes and 32 stream segments. This designation provides additional protections for these few remaining water gems. Examples include West Lake Okoboji in Northwest Iowa and South Pine Creek in Northeast Iowa—one of Iowa’s best cold water trout streams and home to the last surviving population of native Iowa Brook Trout.

Little time to celebrate

After the vote, advocates gathered outside room 116, quietly expressing joy for a positive decision and gratitude for colleagues and supporters who continued, like water on rock, to wear away at  the obstacles in their path.

But advocates had little time to celebrate before needing to roll up their sleeves again. That same morning, the House Agricultural Committee had unanimously passed a bill that was designed to gut Iowa DNR rules regarding the application of manure on frozen and snow-covered ground, a major cause of water pollution in Iowa.

“…and the water comes again.”