DES MOINES, Iowa — Earlier this year, Iowa beefed up its "Nutrient Reduction Strategy" program to improve water quality, and farmers are weighing the costs and social risks of compliance.

Iowa's water quality is at risk due to runoff from farmland, primarily caused by storms and crop tilling. Those activities send nitrates and other chemicals into Iowa's waterways, which cause downstream problems and a host of health concerns, including potential birth defects, cancers and thyroid problems.

Katie Rock, policy associate with the Center for Rural Affairs, said water quality remains a contentious issue in Iowa, and a more comprehensive approach that includes conservation practices is needed.

"We found that a majority of farmers reported that they didn't feel social pressures to install new conservation practices,” Rock said. “But they did say that weather and shifting climate patterns are a big perceived threat to farmers' operations."

Rock said the study released by the center polled 52 farmers representing 41 of the state's 90 counties. She noted that respondents identified agricultural consolidation, fluctuating commodity prices, and nutrient and soil loss as other top concerns.

Rock said continued high nitrogen, phosphorous, bacteria and sediment levels in surface waters threaten public health and outdoor recreation. Research shows nitrate levels in Iowa's major rivers have more than tripled since the 1950s. But with increased farmer awareness, a slight decrease has been noted in recent decades.

Rock said understanding the needs, risks and barriers farmers face is critical.

"They are really focused on soil health,” she said. “If they can improve their soil health, they know that will get them through in the long run."

A Senate bill passed by the governor in January enhances Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy by providing more money to improve water quality. Rock said practices such as no-till and strip-till and the planting of cover crops help address Iowa's expansion of its watershed approach to water quality.


get more stories like this via email

National Rivers Month comes to an end this week and conservation groups said it is a reminder more action is needed to protect Idaho's rivers.

The state is home to more than 107,000 miles of river, providing drinking water, hydropower, tourism and recreational opportunities like rafting and angling.

Stephen Pfieffer, conservation associate for Idaho Rivers United, said only a small portion of the state's river miles have the strongest type of federal protections.

"Only 1% of the rivers here in Idaho are protected via Wild and Scenic River designations," Pfieffer pointed out. "There's a lot of opportunities to give more stretches of river, that people like to recreate on or might rely on, protections that they deserve."

Idaho is home to two of the eight rivers originally protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968: the Middle Fork of the Clearwater River and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. About 890 miles of river in Idaho are protected under the designation today.

The Snake River also flows through Idaho. The Biden administration has been studying four dams on the lower part of the Snake River in eastern Washington and their effect on fish populations migrating to and from Idaho. Last week, the administration announced the Columbia Basin Task Force to further examine the impact of those dams. Pfieffer said salmon and steelhead numbers are dwindling because of the dams.

"It all boils down to the fact that our wild salmon and steelhead don't have much time," Pfieffer emphasized. "But if we take these actions now we can get them to a place where populations can stabilize, and are in fact recovering, in the event of dam removal."

Supporters of the dams said they provide hydropower to the region, as well as enabling other uses for the river, like barging and irrigation.

Pfieffer added National Rivers Month is not only about threats to rivers, it is about enjoying what they offer.

"Idaho has so many amazing stretches of river and there might be an amazing stretch right in your backyard that's just waiting to be explored," Pfieffer observed.


get more stories like this via email

A New York City bill is a catch-22 for removing lead pipes. The so-called "Rotten Apple Bill" makes city property owners remove their home's lead service lines and threatens financial penalties if they fail to comply.

Up to 41% of water service lines have or may have lead in them.

Valerie Baron, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, applauded the bill's intent but argued there are better ways to address lead service lines. She said problems can arise when property owners organize line replacement work.

"You might be digging up the street six, seven, eight different times for example," Baron pointed out. "It's also confusing. It makes it difficult to get the proper health safeguards in place, and it's not cost-effective."

Baron contended an effective program requires a mandate for lead pipe removal with the city conducting the work at no cost to homeowners. The state has received funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to replace pipes. But she noted if New York City passes the buck to homeowners, they run the risk of being ineligible for the large pot of money. State dollars have been set aside for this purpose but they do not match federal funds.

Other concerns are the health hazards of removing lead pipes. Disturbing a lead pipe can dislodge little bits of lead and further contaminate the area. Baron noted creating a centralized program ensures a home's pipes are flushed properly and the water is filtered for six months. She stressed the bill's penalties could harm the wrong people.

"It would be a $1,000 fine if you don't get that pipe out," Baron emphasized. "We're concerned that either some landlords might choose to take that fine as the cost of doing business, or other families that couldn't afford the pipe replacement won't be able to afford that $1,000 either."

The push comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a new Lead and Copper Rule, which is expected to give municipalities nationwide 10 years to replace all existing lead pipes. There are some exceptions. The EPA's new rule could take effect in 2027.


get more stories like this via email

A Michigan nonprofit dedicated to keeping oil out of the Great Lakes is celebrating a major victory.

A federal Appellate Court has ruled that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's 2019 lawsuit against Canadian oil company Enbridge belongs back in state court.

Nessel's lawsuit aims to shut down part of the Line 5 petroleum pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac over concerns of a potential oil spill.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals discovered that Enbridge moved the case from state court to federal court more than two years past the deadline for changing jurisdictions.

Sean McBrearty is campaign coordinator for the group Oil and Water Don't Mix, and the Michigan director for Clean Water Action. He said the appellate court's ruling is justified, because Nessel sued Enbridge under the State Public Trust Doctrine and the State Environmental Policy Act.

"Essentially what the doctrine says is that the waters and bottom lands of the state are owned by the people," said McBrearty, "and it's the duty of the state government to care for them in perpetuity."

In response, Enbridge issued a statement that says in part that they are disappointed in the Appellate court's decision, and they believe "the case should remain in federal court given the clear and substantial questions of federal law raised by the attorney general's complaint."

Line 5 transports petroleum products from northwestern Wisconsin through Michigan into Ontario, threading through the Straits of Mackinac.

McBrearty underscored that his organization's concerns about the pipeline and the potential for a catastrophic oil spill are rooted in scientific evidence.

"We have a now 71-year-old pipeline, that was made to last 50 years," said McBrearty, "running every day through what scientists call the most dangerous spot in the Great Lakes for an oil spill."

Enbridge maintains that Line 5's safety is exclusively regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The case will return to Michigan's 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County.