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.

Rosenberg: Questions linger about effectiveness of new state water plan

Thursday morning, Karl Brooks, Region 7 Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, released his agency’s comments (.pdf) on Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, a new attempt to take on the state’s widespread nitrogen and phosphorous pollution problem.  While Administrator Brooks called the strategy “a great start,” he went on to recommend numerous changes to Iowa’s plan.

After reviewing EPA’s comments, Iowa Environmental Council executive director Ralph Rosenberg made the following statement:

Ralph Rosenberg is the executive director of the Iowa Environmental Council.

“The Iowa Environmental Council has consistently called on state government leaders to set clearer goals for establishing accountability and measuring success for cleaner water not only for the Gulf of Mexico but also in Iowa’s rivers and lakes.  Iowa’s strategy fails to set measurable goals and compounds this problem by omitting a concrete implementation plan.    Without a better plan, Iowans will lack confidence meaningful action will occur.

“Now, the EPA, too, has pointed out numerous areas where Iowa should state more clearly what it hopes to accomplish, and by when.  The agency also restated its belief that clean water standards, or numeric criteria, ‘are important tools for effective water quality management of nutrient pollution,’ an approach Iowa’s strategy seeks to avoid or discredit.

“State officials have provided Iowans until January 18 to comment on the strategy, which was developed mostly behind closed doors over two years.  After that date, I am hopeful the state will announce an open, participatory public process to resolve serious lingering concerns over whether Iowa’s strategy is designed to deliver clean water.”

Among the additions and clarifications the EPA requested be included in Iowa’s plan are:

• More detail about how conservation systems “could be targeted for use on the most vulnerable lands,”
• More information on the benefits of agricultural best management practices, rather than just the costs,
• A schedule for implementing “accountability and verification measures,”
• More detail about “explicitly… how progress will be monitored/measured,” and
• “specific action steps, milestones and timelines for implementation of actions included in the strategy.”

Rosenberg also outlined the Iowa Environmental Council’s position on the Nutrient Strategy in a recent opinion piece in the Des Moines Sunday Register, and the Council maintains a website with resources related to the strategy.

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).

In Iowa and nationwide, algae problem ‘definitely growing’

Big Creek Lake was one of several Iowa lakes where public advisories concerning algae blooms were issued this summer.

As hot, dry conditions and low water levels persisted across Iowa this summer and turned vegetation across the state dry and brown, you might have noticed an unusual amount of green in Iowa’s rivers and lakes.

That’s because conditions were right in Iowa this summer to support large amounts of algae growth in our waterways, which often appears as green scum lining the edge of a river or lake.

At best, the algae is a nuisance, making wading or swimming in the water less attractive.  At worst, algae blooms can threaten the health of people and animals.

Blue-green algae, known as cyanobacteria, can release toxins that cause allergic reactions, skin, eye or throat irritation, or breathing difficulties, according to a fact sheet on blue-green algae prepared by the Iowa Department of Public Health.

Across the country, the problem of blue-green algae is “definitely growing,” according to Jeffrey Reutter, director of the Stone Laboratory at The Ohio State University, who was quoted by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

“The blooms occur in nearly every state, peaking in August and September. And although no national agency tracks the blooms, experts say they are getting worse, driven by fertilizer and manure runoff into lakes and streams combined with a warming climate,” wrote reporter Jessica Marshall.

Reducing runoff pollution in Iowa’s waters—sometimes called “non-point source pollution”—is the Iowa Environmental Council’s top clean water priority.

a widespread pollution problem

Solving this problem will take a lot of work.  The scope of America’s algae problem is large enough that NASA’s Landsat-5 satellite can see it from space.  In the image below, taken about one year ago on October 5, 2011, a large algae bloom is clearly visible in Lake Erie.

Landsat image created for NASA’s Earth Observatory by Jesse Allen and Robert Simmon, using data provided courtesy of the United States Geological Survey.

According to NASA, “The green scum shown in this image is the worst algae bloom Lake Erie has experienced in decades. Such blooms were common in the lake’s shallow western basin in the 1950s and 60s. Phosphorus from farms, sewage, and industry fertilized the waters so that huge algae blooms developed year after year. The blooms subsided a bit starting in the 1970s, when regulations and improvements in agriculture and sewage treatment limited the amount of phosphorus that reached the lake.”

But last year, a wet spring swept a wide array of pollutants—including phosphorous, a common fertilizer—into the lake, and the algae returned.  Invasive zebra mussels may have also played a role in Lake Erie.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has called nitrogen and phosphorous pollution “one of America’s most widespread, costly, and challenging environmental problems.”  The agency is working with states, including Iowa, to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in rivers, lakes, and streams.

Above:  An EPA produced video explains the nature of the nutrient pollution problem.

a need for urgency

But progress to address the problem has been slow.  That’s why, this March, the Iowa Environmental Council joined other environmental groups up and down the Mississippi River in a pair of legal actions intended to compel the EPA to take a stronger stance on this pollution problem.

Partnership among states in the Mississippi River Basin is critical, because combined, the 31 states in the basin send excess nutrients down the Mississippi River that creates the so-called “Dead Zone,” an area in the Gulf of Mexico largely devoid of life.

In March, Susan Heathcote, the Iowa Environmental Council’s water program director, criticized the pace of EPA’s efforts to work with states to establish pollution limits for nitrogen and phosphorous in waterways.

“EPA isn’t exercising its authority to ensure states put standards in place, and meanwhile, Iowa has backed away from its own efforts to do so.  Even though EPA has repeatedly said how important these pollution limits are, the agency’s current strategy is failing to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act,” Heathcote said.

The Iowa Environmental Council will continue its efforts to work with cities and towns, farmers and landowners, and all Iowans to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution that is keeping Iowa’s waters brown and green, not clear and clean.

Meanwhile, if an algae bloom interfered with your enjoyment of Iowa’s rivers and lakes this summer, feel free to share your story in the comments below.

Environmental groups sue EPA over Dead Zone pollution

Today, the Iowa Environmental Council joined with other environmental groups in a pair of legal actions to compel the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the nitrogen and phosphorous pollution degrading water quality in Iowa, the Mississippi River Basin, and the Gulf of Mexico, where this pollution causes the Dead Zone, an area larger than the state of Connecticut that is devoid of marine life.

This pollution comes from 31 states in the Mississippi River Basin, but according to the US Geological Survey, nine states, including Iowa, are top polluters, contributing more than 75 percent of the pollution reaching the Gulf.

“This is a massive, multi-state problem, but the EPA has not accepted its responsibility for leadership on this issue, and state responses–including in Iowa–have languished as a result,” said Marian Riggs Gelb, executive director of the Iowa Environmental Council. “In addition to the Gulf Dead Zone, excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous from farm runoff and sewage treatment plants wreak havoc here in Iowa as well, threatening drinking water, recreation in our lakes and rivers, and aquatic life here and downstream.”

In response, a coalition of environmental groups including the Iowa Environmental Council are challenging EPA’s denial of a 2008 petition asking EPA to establish quantifiable limits and cleanup plans for nitrogen and phosphorous pollution.  Separately, the Council and other groups are seeking to compel EPA to finally respond to an even older petition – a 2007 request that EPA modernize its decades-old pollution standards for sewage treatment plants and include nitrogen and phosphorous removal in those standards.

In 1998, the EPA called on states to adopt specific limits on nitrogen and phosphorous pollution and threatened to enact its own limits if states had not complied by 2003. Every state along the Mississippi River, including Iowa, missed that deadline.  Since that time, EPA has softened its expectations, telling states in a 2011 memo that if a state is trying to reduce its contributions to the pollution problem, the state’s plan for implementing necessary standards can be “flexible.”

“EPA isn’t exercising its authority to ensure states put standards in place, and meanwhile, Iowa has backed away from its own efforts to do so.  Even though EPA has repeatedly said how important these pollution limits are, the agency’s current strategy is failing to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act,” said Susan Heathcote, the Iowa Environmental Council’s water program director.

Operating under EPA’s framework, Iowa has stopped its efforts to implement specific pollution standards.  Last year, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources cancelled a nearly-finished rulemaking effort to set standards limiting pollution in lakes just as the new limits neared final approval.  Then, early this year, DNR set aside its schedule for developing nutrient standards for rivers and streams over the next three years.

Instead, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) are working with stakeholders to develop a state nutrient reduction strategy focused on nitrogen and phosphorous.  The new strategy will incorporate efforts to reduce nutrient pollution from cities, industries, and Iowa farms.

Heathcote said that although her organization supports Iowa’s work to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution, Iowa’s reduction efforts must also include the clearly identified pollution limits that the Council and its Mississippi River Collaborative partners called for in their petition to EPA.

This is particularly important to secure reductions from unregulated agricultural sources. “In talking with farmers about this issue, we’ve heard that they want to know how nutrient pollution harms waterways, the extent to which their farm contributes to the problem, and what steps they need to take to do their part to solve the problem,” Heathcote said.

“If farmers agree to make voluntary land management changes under the nutrient reduction strategy, they need to know if their actions will be successful or not.  Without these science-based pollution standards in place, we have no good basis on which to answer that question,” she said.

Heathcote explained that without necessary standards, Iowa’s nutrient strategy may try to organize efforts around pollution reductions that are too small to meet the state’s water quality needs.

“We have to be honest with ourselves right from the start about the level of participation necessary from all Iowans to solve these problems, and that’s what these standards will help us accomplish,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Dead Zone in the Gulf returns each summer, and has doubled in size since 1985.  Iowa waters also suffer, as algae blooms and toxic cyanobacteria cover lakes, rivers and streams in green slime and threaten the health of people and animals who drink or swim in the water.

“It’s not acceptable for us to have no real plan for setting these nutrient standards in Iowa, but unfortunately, I see no reason why this pattern will change unless the courts direct EPA to reconsider its approach.” Gelb said.