HARRISBURG, Pa. - Over a two-year period in Pennsylvania, farmers have managed 100,000 acres worth of on-farm practices that reduce polluted runoff from entering local streams and the Chesapeake Bay. Measures such as restoring stream-side forests, special management techniques of fertilizers, and planting protective vegetation called cover crops on fields that grow crops in the summer but would otherwise be bare in the winter, take advantage of conservation programs in the Farm Bill.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) calls it Conservation That Counts and says it's an investment that pays off exponentially. Lamonte Garber, Agriculture Program Manager for CBF in Pennsylvania, specified what that means.
"It's conservation that counts in that Pennsylvania and other states around the Chesapeake Bay are required to implement a wide range of water-quality practices and report on those practices every two years."
Garber declared that farmers in Pennsylvania and all over the nation have shown a willingness to put conservation into practice on their lands, but they can't invest what they don't have.
"They need the certainty of a renewed five-year Farm Bill, that needs to get passed by September 30 this year, in order for them to proceed with the conservation projects that they want to do," he said.
Garber poined to the importance of providing the same kind of investment in water infrastructure as in road and bridge infrastructure.
"The conservation programs in the Farm Bill represent the biggest water-quality improvement program
in the nation," he said. "It helps us maintain a clean-water infrastructure for our streams, our lakes and Chesapeake Bay."
Garber said that because conservation funding accounts for less than 6 percent of the Farm Bill, it isn't getting the attention that nutrition programs and crop insurance do. He stated that currently, only one of every three farmers who turns to the federal government for conservation help is getting it, because of funding limitations.
get more stories like this via email
A piece of Arizona legislation, with bipartisan backing, is aiming to bring better oversight and protections of groundwater, across five basins in rural Arizona.
The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Priya Sundareshan - D-Tucson - explained that the Rural Groundwater Management Act of 2025 would create water-management programs that would have a say over conservation efforts, and would strive to reduce groundwater use while improving the state of aquifers.
SB 1425, and its mirrored bill in the House, would also create local councils to monitor the basins.
Sundareshan said the bill is intended to protect folks from out-of-state entities that flock to Arizona for its lack of regulation, ultimately leaving communities dry.
"Residents whose wells are going dry, their foundations are cracking because the groundwater has been depleted so much that the aquifers are settling," said Sundareshan. "You have large-scale industrial agriculture that has moved in because of the complete lack of regulation."
Similar legislation failed last legislative session.
Sundareshan recalled that under the Republican majority at the state Legislature, the bill has not yet been heard in committee, and this week is the last week for such action.
She added that people's ability to continue living in small Arizona towns depends on water availability, and called on policymakers to act.
New data finds that most Arizonans - about 72% - believe inadequate water supply is a serious problem, according to the 2025 Conservation in the West Poll.
Sundareshan said the last time significant water legislation was passed in the state was in 1980, with the Groundwater Management Act.
"But it only really protected the urban areas, and it set up a process for further management of other areas in Arizona," said Sundareshan. "But it only created two tools - the active management area approach, and the other tool created is the INAs, the irrigation non-expansion areas."
INAs are created when the Arizona Department of Water Resources determines there is not enough groundwater in a given area to provide a "reasonably safe supply for irrigation," on cultivated lands, therefore having no need to establish an active management area.
Sundareshan said these tools cap the expansion of agricultural acreage in the state, but don't do much to manage the consumption of groundwater.
get more stories like this via email
Minnesota is giving its water quality standards a fresh look. With public input in their hands, officials are under pressure to add language about nitrate levels, a move some said is long overdue.
Nitrate pollution is often tied to farm runoff containing fertilizers and animal waste. There are standards for drinking water but conservation groups want a nitrate standard for lakes and rivers.
Trevor Russell, water program director for Friends of the Mississippi River, said the effort has been building for more than 15 years but final action has been hard to come by. While it is difficult to keep waterways perfectly clean, he pointed out it is helpful to have scientific thresholds.
"We want them to be relatively healthy for fish and other aquatic life," Russell explained. "That's what we're managing for when you set a water quality standard."
His group was encouraged to see wording on the topic in a draft proposal. Russell hopes the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency can hold off political pushback and not exclude it from the final plan. Public comment just wrapped up and the plan will soon be sent for federal review.
Minnesota has been aggressive in other ways to curb nitrate pollution, for which Russell gives the state credit.
The farming sector might not be overjoyed at the potential of a new nitrate standard but Russell noted many producers have joined the movement to limit their runoff. Still, he said even with actions like these, getting the problem under control will not be easy.
"About 15% of nitrogen application to Minnesota's farm fields is going to run off into our waters no matter what farmers do," Russell acknowledged. "It is the nature of nitrate and it is the risk that comes with our reliance on summer annual cropping systems that need to be fertilized."
If a nitrate standard is included, Russell emphasized Minnesota has a robust monitoring system in place to detect excessive levels, spurring a likely cleanup response. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency said updating the standards is required every three years. It also covers bacteria, which can make the water unsafe for swimming, as well as so-called "forever chemicals" from industrial waste.
Disclosure: Friends of the Mississippi River contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Environment, and Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A new study by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality found nitrate levels have continued to rise across the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area.
The report found about 40% of the wells tested exceed the limit of safe nitrate levels for drinking water. Exposure to nitrates can lead to blue baby syndrome, birth defects, thyroid problems and cancer, among other things.
Kaleb Lay, director of policy and research for the advocacy group Oregon Rural Action, said the state has known about the high levels of nitrate in the area for decades but has not done enough to address the issue.
"The state's approach has been basically just voluntary measures to reduce groundwater pollution," Lay explained. "Unsurprisingly, what we've seen ever since is nitrate levels continue to go up."
Lay pointed out synthetic fertilizer, liquefied manure and wastewater are the main sources of nitrate pollution in groundwater. Factory farms, including a major dairy supplying the brand Tillamook, spread their waste on Oregon fields. Lay added the contamination disproportionately impacts low-income Hispanic communities, many of whom work on the polluting farms.
Oregon Rural Action started testing wells in 2022, Lay noted, and has found disturbing levels of contamination.
"Hundreds of people were drinking water that was polluted by nitrates and had no idea," Lay reported. "They hadn't been warned about it."
A good place to start reining in the problem, according to Lay, is to collect more data. Senate Bill 747 would require farms 200 acres or larger to report how much fertilizer they use. It would allow the state to identify overuse and advise where farmers could use less fertilizer.
In written testimony, Oregon farmers opposed to the bill said they do not overuse fertilizer and are burdened by too many regulations.
get more stories like this via email