DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowans are being asked to use last month's catastrophic flooding as leverage to renew conversations about prevention and state water quality, since climate-change experts warn such incidents will become more frequent.

Flooding in 2008 led state lawmakers to create the Iowa Flood Center to mitigate the effects of future flooding. Three years ago, the federal government also got involved, providing nearly 100-million dollars to the state for the Iowa Watershed Approach.

East and West Nishnabotna Rivers Watershed Coordinator Cara Marker-Morgan says new tools identify problems and create a timeline for solutions.

"The idea of this watershed plan is to slow the water down in the north, and to help it saturate into the ground rather than barreling down the river straight for a community that's right on the river," says Marker-Morgan.

Governor Kim Reynolds announced the formation of the Flood Recovery Advisory Board earlier this week, requesting $25 million in state funds over the next two years for infrastructure repairs and housing. She noted, however, that much of the estimated $1.6 billion in money for recovery will need to come from the federal government.

Katie Rock, policy associate with the Center for Rural Affairs, says Iowa's Watershed Approach and Nutrient Reduction Strategy are progressive measures, but believes this year's floods provide another wake-up call.

"A lot of experts are saying, and reminding people, that this is the new normal in Iowa,” says Rock. “In 2018, Iowa experienced rainfall 38% above what's normal, so it's time to have an honest conversation about how we respond."

As a watershed coordinator, Marker-Morgan notes there are many communities in Iowa where the landscape has lost its natural resilience to floods, but funding to fix the problem remains a challenge.

"Landowners, and especially farmers, they don't always the funds to do these other things,” says Marker-Morgan. “But the practices aren't necessarily new. We all have done terraces or ponds. It's just the approach of doing it at a full watershed level; that is what is new."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says nearly two-thirds of the lower 48 states face an elevated risk of flooding through the end of May.

Minnesota will soon hold public hearings on proposed water permit changes as it seeks to get control of nitrate pollution from industrial farms.

This week, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency released its plan to overhaul standards for a pair of water permits issued to the largest animal feedlots in the state. The main focus is livestock operations in areas vulnerable to groundwater pollution. The farms would have to adopt certain practices related to manure application in the fields.

Joy Anderson, supervising attorney at the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, calls the plan a commonsense approach to a pervasive problem. She hopes the public takes notice of what is happening.

"People who care about Minnesota's drinking water, people who care about the swimability and fishability of our water," Anderson explained.

Organizations like hers urged residents to speak up during public hearings scheduled for July. Comments can also be submitted to the agency until Aug. 9. The proposed changes are expected to face strong pushback from those representing so-called factory farms. Despite the hope from plan supporters, the changes would only apply to about 5% of livestock feedlots in Minnesota.

Past efforts to enact modest permit changes resulted in outcry from industrial ag interests. Anderson admitted the proposed changes cover a limited number of farms but added they send a signal regulators realize the scope of the contaminated water crisis linked to nitrate pollution.

"This is sort of a first step," Anderson asserted. "It tells us the MPCA is at least a little serious about making some changes."

Her group hopes what is unfolding now leads to rule changes covering all the state's 17,000 feedlots, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations. This week's move follows a recent order from the federal Environmental Protection Agency for Minnesota to clean up contaminated drinking water in the southeastern part of the state, caused by farm runoff.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. House of Representatives will likely vote this summer on a version of the Farm Bill, which passed through the committee process last month.

Some farmers and ranchers are concerned about cuts to climate-smart programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which distributed more than $31 million to South Dakotans last year. The program and three others have been funded by Inflation Reduction Act dollars since 2022, when President Joe Biden approved nearly $12 billion for the national programs over four years.

It could change under the House version of the Farm Bill, which instead proposes increased subsidies for large-scale operations.

Tanya Svec, a member of Dakota Rural Action who helps run her in-laws' small cattle farm in Deuel County, which received a grant this year, said it is appropriate the program provides opportunities for small-scale farms to get grants, rather than just the large-scale operations policy tends to favor.

"That's really helpful for those small economies and keeping things local and building some resiliency into the farming communities," Svec explained.

Svec pointed out the business is currently finalizing a grant to fund a water system to help the operation with rotational grazing, a practice benefiting landscapes by letting some pastures rest while others are in use. It allows native plants to grow and protects watersheds. Demand for the program exceeded supply in 2023. Of the nearly 1,500 South Dakota applicants, only 27% were accepted, according to a report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Svec observed more people sought out her farm's beef during and since the pandemic, which exposed supply-chain issues. She sidesteps big industrial distribution by marketing directly to customers.

"We like to raise cattle in a particular way," Svec stressed. "It's hard to be rewarded for going the extra mile for not using antibiotics, for grass-fed grass-finished beef if you remain in the standard agricultural system."


get more stories like this via email

When Minnesota farmers watch their crops grow this summer, some will monitor land that has better soil health. It's because of a fairly popular conservation tool, and supporters are calling for more "real-time" data to measure progress.

Cover crops are plants grown between commodity crops to prevent soil erosion and nitrates from flowing into nearby waterways, harming water quality and natural resources. In recent years, Minnesota has emerged as one of the better-performing states for participation.

Jon Stevens has adopted the practice for his farm operation north of the Twin Cities.

"There's been years that we've just phenomenal corn yields while you're standing in 10 to 12 inches of beautiful oat grass," he said, "and we did it with reduced fertilizer inputs."

Stevens said that's good news for local creeks that connect with the St. Croix River.

The latest Census of Agriculture, released this year, showed a 17% increase in cover-crop acreage compared with 2017. The growth rate has slowed, however, and the report only comes out every five years. The National Wildlife Federation and other groups want to see a more consistent national effort to track participation, making it easier to guide assistance.

Federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture help cover expenses for farmers who agree to plant cover crops. Stevens said they have become more flexible, but he suggested certain types of messaging to convince those still on the fence.

"Sign up a five- or ten-acre parcel [of land] and get your cover crops perfected on that five or 10 acres," he said, "and then you can just step into full-scale."

Stevens indicated that approach might help avoid turning off farmers who run into obstacles after making big cover-crop investments. There's also research indicating this practice doesn't always translate to higher yields, but Stevens said that way of thinking needs some fine-tuning.

"We've been taught decades of 'maximize your yield,'" he said, "and it's like, 'Nope, that system doesn't work that way.' You're going to reduce tillage costs."