Montana officials have denied a petition asking the state to designate the Big Hole River as "impaired" by pollution.

Two conservation groups collected data over five years and found levels of nutrients in the Big Hole River exceeded thresholds, in some parts, by twofold or threefold, which could harm aquatic habitats, contaminate drinking water and affect fishing and other tourism business. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality said the petitioners used the wrong metrics.

Guy Alsentzer, executive director of the conservation group Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, said it is an example of politics "undermining good science."

"At minimum, we feel that the state owes us a written explanation, with some detail, about exactly why it believes it can deny a petition that has clearly satisfied the scientific basis for developing a pollution cleanup plan," Alsentzer explained.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality argued the petition's data does not abide by a state law passed in 2021. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, however, officially disapproved of the law.

Alsentzer has requested the EPA weigh in, adding once high nutrient levels are proven, it is up to the Department of Environmental Quality to determine the causes.

"In the case of most Montana rivers, it's going to be a combination of human land use patterns," Alsentzer noted. "Sometimes it's subdivisions, sometimes it's septics, sometimes it's a municipality and sometimes it's farm fields or big cattle feeding lots."

Alsentzer stressed keeping waterways healthy is both "good common sense" and "good economics." According to the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Beaverhead County's hunting and angling economy adds an estimated $74 million to area households annually and $167 million to businesses and organizations.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental advocates have warned President Donald Trump's proposed budget could cripple restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.

Federal agencies have long partnered with six watershed states to protect its waterways.

Harry Campbell, science policy and advocacy director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the cuts would severely affect Pennsylvania and beyond. He added the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Chesapeake Bay Program, faces a 54.5% budget reduction, from $9.1 billion to $4.2 billion.

"This would eliminate critical state grants and other support mechanisms that Pennsylvania relies upon in working with farmers, upgrading wastewater treatment plants and improving fisheries that are so critical to the healthy condition of our urban streams but also to our economic vitality," Campbell outlined.

Campbell noted the EPA supports states in improving water quality by funding projects and offering low-interest loans for upgrading drinking water and wastewater systems. The agency also offers scientific guidance, helps develop monitoring and reporting systems and, in some cases, aids in enforcing pollution-reduction measures.

Campbell pointed out numerous other federal agencies are facing major funding cuts. For Pennsylvania, he contended, the most significant is the U.S. Geological Survey, set to lose $564 million in funding, which could halt research on the effects of climate change and eliminate or curtail essential water quality monitoring.

"This is the type of research that is looking at what is happening on the ground in our local communities, on our farms, in our streams," Campbell emphasized. "And trying to ascertain ways that we can utilize science and information to make informed decisions about the future of those communities."

Campbell noted the U.S. Department of Agriculture and local conservation programs provide crucial support to farmers by helping them design and implement conservation practices. The efforts improve water quality, soil health and herd health while reducing flooding and farm input costs. Proposed budget cuts could threaten the programs and the environmental and agricultural benefits they deliver across the region.

As Colorado and other Basin states relying on the shrinking Colorado River work to reduce water use, new data showed just how much water is helping prop up factory farms.

Amanda Starbuck, research director for the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, said the biggest draw is coming from thirsty alfalfa farms, producing hay for livestock living in confined feedlots and dairy stalls.

"In 2024, alfalfa farms in the Colorado River Basin used over 2 trillion gallons of water," Starbuck reported. "This is enough water, to put it in perspective, to supply the water needs for 40 million people for three and a half years."

In 2024, alfalfa farms in Colorado soaked up more than 418 billion gallons of water, up 41% from 2022, the largest increase across all Basin states. It amounts to a third of the state's entire Colorado River allocation and enough water to supply the city of Denver for 38 years. Defenders of factory farming have argued the practice is necessary to feed the nation's growing population.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have until the end of 2026 to match water use with what the Colorado River can actually deliver after decades of drought exacerbated by climate change. Starbuck pointed out plants used to feed livestock generate more calories than meat or milk.

"Factory farms are not a very efficient way to produce calories," Starbuck argued. "If feeding people were really the top concern here, we would be growing more food for direct human consumption."

In 2022, Colorado's 193,000 dairy cows living in confinement operations consumed nearly 7 billion gallons of water, a 20% increase from 2017 and also the largest increase among Basin states. It is enough to supply indoor water to half a million people. Starbuck added untreated wastewater at factory farms can also affect water supplies.

"Both wastewater from cleaning out stalls, but also a ton of waste in the form of manure," Starbuck outlined. "That leads to runoff and that will also pollute major water systems that feed into the Colorado River."


get more stories like this via email

New research at Iowa State University shows elevated nitrate levels have an outsize effect on the state's most vulnerable populations.

Studies show exposure to nitrates can increase the risks of birth defects and various types of cancer.

ISU Water Resources Assistant Professor Liu Lu said nitrates, which are prominent in ground and surface water near commercial agriculture operations, exceed safe levels, and affect Iowa's most vulnerable.

"Such as people of color," said Lu, "low-income populations, elderly, and also children."

Despite their negative health impacts, the Iowa Environmental Council reports only 4% of public water utilities in Iowa have nitrate removal systems.

The data show the presence of nitrates in the water is especially high in rural communities, and Liu said northeast Iowa's Blackhawk County stands out in her research.

"This county has very high nitrate in their treated water," said Lu. "They also have very high social vulnerability. So, people living in that county are disproportionately exposed to high nitrate in their drinking water."

Her research includes an interactive map that shows which parts of the state have the highest nitrate pollution in their groundwater.

Liu's work was published in Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology.



get more stories like this via email