Iowa’s Water Problem Is No Myth, It’s a Warning

May 21, 2013

By Hal Herring

An algae bloom caused by nitrate pollution on Iowa's Big Creek Lake, located northwest of Des Moines, in summer of 2012.

The next time you find yourself jugfishing along the Mississippi River, or lying in your hammock on your old house boat in southern Louisiana where the freshwater hits the salt, pump up the old Coleman lantern and throw open your tattered old copy of D’Aulaires’ Greek Myths, and read the story of Cassandra. You do remember, don’t you? The beautiful prophet whose ears were licked clean by snakes, so that she could hear the future? No matter how accurate her predictions (including the destruction of Troy by way of the super-warriors hidden inside the gift of the Trojan horse) nobody ever listened to her. Ever.

Sometimes, that’s how a conservation reporter feels, too.

Perry Beeman of the Des Moines Register reports that the Des Moines Water Works, the drinking water supplier for around a half-million people in central Iowa, is operating the world’s largest nitrate-removal water treatment plant in an effort to provide clean water to its customers in the face of record-breaking levels of nitrate pollution pouring into the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers. The pollution is agricultural fertilizer run-off, firehosed into the rivers by all the channelized creeks, drained former wetlands and tiled fields in the region.

Funny, isn’t it, how when we scorn our responsibilities to the natural systems that support our every aspiration, the bills just keep going up, the losses just keep coming? The water treatment plant, the Register reports, was built in 1992 at a cost of $4 million. It costs $7,000 a day to operate.

From the Register story:
The predicament shows that voluntary conservation efforts on farms aren't working and do not bode well for the future of the area's water supply, said Water Works General Manager Bill Stowe. He added that the nitrates primarily come from crop fertilizers, and that better field drainage systems have worsened the situation.

“We are off our playing field. We haven’t seen this before,” Stowe said.

“The issue is the quality of the water in the Raccoon and the Des Moines. This trend is absolutely off the scale," Stowe said.” It's like having serial tornadoes. You can deal with one, you can deal with two, but you can't deal with them every day.

"The state's Nutrient Reduction Strategy, with its emphasis on the voluntary measure, clearly isn't working,” Stowe said. “And our ratepayers are paying significantly to remove nitrates.”

The Nutrient Reduction Strategy was a voluntary plan originally intended to help address the nitrate pollution that was flowing downstream and causing the monstrous Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. But the faraway Dead Zone is the least of the worries of Iowa residents now, as nitrate levels on the rivers soar to more than double the standard set for safe drinking water by the EPA. Such pollution is linked to a variety of illnesses, as described in this story about California’s struggles with the problem: The story points out that high nitrate levels in drinking water have been linked to thyroid cancer, skin rashes, hair loss, birth defects, and fatal blood disorders in infants.

Not to sound callous, but for those of us who fish and hunt, such illnesses and deaths are the canaries in the coal mines of our world. We already know that you cannot drain the wetlands, plow under the last native grasses, and pour anhydrous ammonia along channelized creeks without dire consequences to, at first, fish and wildlife, and then, naturally, to us all. We hunters and fishers already know this: you cannot destroy your environmental capital without racking up huge and ugly debts. We are the witnesses. We are the Cassandras of our time.

As to the voluntary nature of the plans to solve the problem, according to the Des Moines Register story, “Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey has said the voluntary measures are the best bet for action, because they avoid court challenges that regulations bring and avoid ‘one size fits all’ solutions.”

If Iowa’s Agriculture Secretary is so concerned with the potential cost of lawsuits, we might ask him to consider the price tag of a lawsuit drawn up by a coalition of the Gulf states, for pouring down upon them the nitrates that feed the algal blooms and destroy their fisheries and tourist attractions and water quality.

When we refuse to take responsibility for our actions and we hurt and cost others, somebody pays. In this case it is the rate payers hoping like heck that the water they pay more for will not give their kids thyroid cancer. It’s the hunters and fishermen who can’t eat the fish they catch, or who find no ducks or pheasants to hunt and so abandon the lifestyle and no longer buy the licenses. It’s the poisoned people and fish downstream, and the commercial fishermen in the Gulf who go bankrupt. Eventually, people will grow tired of paying for and being sickened by others’ pollution and the lawsuits will fly. Before that happens, though, the losses will mount.

It’s not easy, being a Cassandra. When you read the myth, there by the lamplight, with the cicadas droning and the fish splashing off the bow, don’t skip the part where Cassandra goes stark raving mad.

Credit: Photo courtesy Iowa Environmental Council

Comments (24)

Top Rated

All Comments

from Dcast wrote 3 weeks 2 days ago

Well Done Hal! As you and other regulars to this site know I and few others have been trying to tell everyone about this yet it fell on deaf ears until you started on the issue. I'm glad you're finally taking on the cause, because there are many out there screaming to the deaf about this to no avail.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tritonrider wrote 3 weeks 2 days ago

Thanks Hal great read. This is farmers flushing money down the toilet, it blows my mind. Any rational farmer does tons of soil samples and plans fertilization at the minimum necessary levels, preferably getting it plowed in ASAP to keep it in place and maintain the nitrogen content. Then later picking your spots to top/side dress when it's dry and going to stay that way for a while otherwise it ends up doing this and it's NOT cheap. Being responsible is actually cheaper too. Makes me want to beat my head; a lot!

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from HuskerHunterFisher wrote 3 weeks 2 days ago

Excellent article! I grew up on a farm in Nebraska and still help my Dad in the summer. He and I try to be as conservation-minded as possible, since we both love to hunt and fish, but, to be honest, we could probably do more.
Nonetheless, I am always amazed that farmers claim to be "stewards of the land", which I take to mean they practice good conservation methods, but, for many of them, their "stewardship" ends where their rows of crops end. If something doesn't directly impact their crop yields you can talk until you're blue in the face, but they won't listen.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from the Preacher wrote 3 weeks 2 days ago

This sounds suspiciously like "GREEN" news.

If it is environmental it must be socialist. next they'll be wantin' to take my guns.

No room here for multiple perspectives. my way or the highway...

but hey of this is true... shouldnt we all want more govt regulation? esp in the environmental protection arenas?

But but but, fox news tells me that the EPA is evil. and de regulation is key.

but nitrate pollution is real?? oh I dont know what to believe... i will just wait for Anne Coulters opinion. that generally rings true enough.

1500$ hospital bill for what turned out to be an ear infection for my son... whats wrong with modern public health care again.??/ oh well ,, fox news will tell me.

hey.... if nitrates are in the water from food production runoff, isnt it in my food too?? what does nugent want me to think?

-1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from ENO wrote 3 weeks 2 days ago

Hal...I really appreciate this article. Living in the midwest this is something that has caused me concern for years. Right now agriculture is booming and that is great for the farmers. But we have to count the true cost. Agricultural run-off is a huge problem.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Michael Chilton wrote 3 weeks 2 days ago

Thank you for bringing more attention to this issue. As an Iowan I'm very concerned. Farming is the backbone of our economy, but if we don't take care of our soil and water we'll no longer be able to produce crops like we have in the past. I'm also concerned as a fisherman. I fished the Middle Raccoon River yesterday without a bite. This river was once a trophy smallmouth bass fishery. We need a better solution than what is currently in place. It's not working.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

The Preacher, You Sir are a moron! 1st off Hal has been leaving politics out of his articles for what I see as multiple reasons. 1st of which (as I see it) is to keep dumbass comments like yours from polluting F&S's website. 2nd of which(as I see it)is to unite different the two parties for conservation purposes. I'm sure I could be wrong but he has taken a more moderate tone lately and it has worked for him. If you want pro socialist left-wing nonsense you still have Bob Marshall to rally behind. When a political argument is brought up in an article it opens the door to opposing political argument however it was not until you commented. As for a portion of your argument on the EPA, they do a good job in many aspects. However they have many major flaws, I have to work with them on a daily bases in my job and it is many of times like banging your head against the wall, you achieve nothing but a headache followed by dismay! As for the article Hal wrote he is spot on with the farming practices, but not only do we have issues with fertilizer we also have problems with herbicides and pesticides polluting our land and water. You can look the other way and start your conspiracy talk nonsense but this is a real issue. This isn't global warming talk (which in itself is political), drilling/fracking, etc... we are talking about a real issue that goes unnoticed by average Joe's everyday. This not only is effecting Iowa it's effecting all farming states, my state Ohio has a major issue with this also. Not only do many places have issues with herbicides, pesticides, & fertilizers they also have microbial and siltation pollution from runoff of livestock farms, septic systems, tank storage, and many more areas. All of this goes for the most part unchecked until something major happens, you can't say that for businesses. Businesses have the most restrictive EPA policies put on them. They have to provide SWPPP, BMP, detention/retention, various permits, inlet/outlet protection, and various other things to long to list. Yet farmers for the most part get a free pass to do all this without so much as a bat of the eye, try drilling or fracking. I'm not blaming farmers for all pollution but they are the largest environmental polluter.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from DSMbirddog wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

Here is another observation regarding Iowa farmers, having hunted in this state for over 45 years. Some farmers take great pleasure and delight in refusing to let you hunt their ground even after asking politely. But they are more than willing to let their precious soil erode and start it's journey downstream to someone else's property.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Proverbs wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

Some farmers use much more fertilizer than necessary. The salespeople constantly yammer about higher yields with such-and-such a rate of application, but the truth is, according to considerable research, that much more fertilzer than crops can reasonably absorb/benefit from are being dumped in a chase after bigger profits.

Even homeowners should do their part by fertilizing at minimal rates, if needed at all. Your local cooperative extension will happily give you free information about what is needed in your area. Most home applications for commercialy-manufactured fertilizer is a waste of time and money, and can be harmful to the environment.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from JeremyV wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

Some farmers do over apply their fertilizer, but most do not. Iowa soils actually produce nitrogen. Tile drained soils produce even more and move the nitrogen quickly to waterways. Even though our soils produce nitrogen it is not enough to support 250 bushel/acre yields. Research shows that if all fertilizer application was stopped, it would drastically improve the water quality, but would still not achieve clean water goals. It would however have drastic effects on the world food supply. It is not an exaggeration that Iowa feeds the world. Crops are planted in April/May. They don't reach a significant size until June. Historically that would have been July. The crops have stopped growing well before the end of October. That means that the soil is for all real purposes barren almost 8 months of the year. Farmers are starting to grow cover crops so that something is growing the rest of the year. I think cover crops have a lot of potential, but will still not solve the problem. The seed for that cover crop has to be grown somewhere, which means less crop and higher food prices. Truly this is just an extremely complicated problem. As a hunter and fisherman I would love to see better water quality now. It makes very nervous to hear talk about voluntary conservation not working. We will never be able to achieve our goal through regulation. There is way more land, landowners, and farmers than there is regulators.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Cowboy_mo wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

I remember first hearing the argument over commercial fertilizer use and pesticides ruining our world back in 1972 as a Sophomore student in Agriculture at the University of Missouri.

My Ag Economics professor had an answer to the problem. He said, all we have to do is stop using these chemicals, get rid of all our mechanization and return to farming using horses and only using manure for fertilizer. Now that that problem is solved, who can tell me which half of the world's population are we going to allow to starve to death? The environmentalists didn't have an answer to question number 2. Thus, we still have problem number 1.

Someone earlier suggested that farmers of today are insensitive to the problem or stupid because they purchase and spread fertilizer without testing the ground and by failing to plow the fertilizer into the ground. Much of today's farmland NEVER sees a plow! It is called No Till and it came about during the 1970's to save fuel tillage costs and to "conserve" the topsoil.

Folks, you are seeking SIMPLE solutions to very complex problems. Now, if you want to really solve the problem and make a boat load of money, I suggest you invent a process to filter the excess nitrates from the water, recover said nitrates, and recycle it as agricultural fertilizer.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tritonrider wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

Nitrogen fixing cover crops sure aren't anything new and are a long standing critical tool in managing for sustainability. They slow erosion, fix the nitrogen in place, provide good fertilization when plowed in before planting the core crop and greatly reduce the amount of additional chemical fertilizer needed. Yeah it's more work and costs a little more in the long run but is another tool in NOT having barren soil unless you are swamping it in additional fertilizer. Rotations, Fallow, etc... are all part of being responsible, just not part of grabbing the biggest profit the quickest.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from CmdrDick wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

I know zip about Iowa's waters, but I know plenty about cleaning water and so do the Chinese. They introduce Water Hyacinths into every moving body of water. The floating plants have deep root systems that remove HUGE amounts of nutrients from the water. The plant multiplies quickly to fill the desired area, then the Chinese spray the plants with a chemical that stops them from multiplying. They spend the season getting larger and working better, then die in the winter freeze. The plants can be removed with automatic equipment and used as fertilizer. Of course, that could never work in this country because it would eliminate too many entrenched government workers whose responsibility it is to SAVE us all from whatever kind of doom they can dream up.

-2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Jon Breitbach wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

While I am sure some farmers are getting quite wealthy, many are not and put little or no fertilizer down because they are doing whatever they can to keep the bank from taking the farm. Family farms grow fewer every year, and the population grows every year. Saying its "all so-and-so's fault" is a common theme. Instead of telling someone else to fix it, why not buy a farm and prove how good a job you can do growing anything you want with no regard for your bank account.
Simple facts are if your not making money your either gonna loose the farm, (or have so much money to waste you bought it for hunting on anyway, and like the tax write-off.)

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tritonrider wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

John if that's aimed at me our family's farm is about to hit the century mark in a couple of years and is doing just fine at the moment. You're right about the volatility and the only way to survive that is to be flexible at the right time. We had to get out of the Dairy side about 30 years ago. We shifted more into market crops, and then adapted with the locally grown push, others have gone increasingly organic here. That's where our region has gone. We're fighting to get several small slaughterhouses opened, there used to be a bunch here, and that will really bring some of the cattle back too.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

Nitrogen is not as much a problem as phosphorus. Nitrogen can be easily reduced by planting turf grass barriers, swailes, dividers, etc.... Bioswailes are a good way to reduce nutrients. In Ohio it has been studied and determined that residential pollution contributes to 10% of the water pollution due to nutrients and the rest from farmers. One of the things they noticed that surprised me was farms using natural fertilizers (animal waste) had higher rates of pollution due to runoff. Commercial fertilizers using slow release formulas were the best for the environment because it reduced the rate at which the fertilizer is released to more closely match the needs of the plant allowing it to absorb a considerable amount more than the massive dump of animal waste.

The Scott's Company a leading provider of residential and commercial lawn fertilizers has announced they are removing phosphorus from their fertilizer to help mitigate the damages their fertilizers are doing to our waterways. This will have a significant environmental effect on my state of Ohio virtually eliminating the 10% the residents contribute.

Another thing is phosphates are in all kinds of household chemicals some desperately require them while others do not and those should be removed from those products.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from wisc14 wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

i agree with dcast, this is a major problem
a reservior in central wi has had major fish kills in 2 of the last 5 years due to the problem of runoff from farm fields. instead of addressing the problem we just keep putting in new aeration systems.

with spring in full swing everywhere i look i see people spraying lawns and "green lawn" businesses treating lawns so there isn't a single dandelion. is it any wonder why rates of cancer in children (even in our dogs especially young dogs) is ever increasing?

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 3 weeks 1 day ago

Cowboy Mo, I will answer #2. If you live in an area that doesn't support plant life or sustenance then leave if you do choose to stay there then you accept the consequences. Every country in the world has the ability to support their populace, however not every country in the world has a supportive government. Look at the Continent Africa they have many places to grow produce to help out their own but they have such corrupt governments and people in general there is no hope. I see no reason to support other nations outside of natural disasters. By supplying these people with this welfare we are not helping them better themselves and we are only empowering their government take more control over them. Africa is such a prime example we continue to pump billions and trillions of dollars to help these people and have they got anywhere in the last century? No because the aide we give them is confiscated by their government and rebels and used against them. I know I sound uncaring but I'm looking beyond the sob stories of Hollywood.

So my answer in short is each continent and individual countries should be on their own.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Horseapples wrote 3 weeks 22 hours ago

Many good comments about the issue. The simple proverb about an ounce of prevention is still true. Even though cover crops and soil testing cost a little up front, the savings in water treatment and avoided fertilizer costs only make good economic sense. If we only worry about our own bottom line and our own lot lines, we'll never recognize that everybody is "downstream" from someone else and we are subject to their selfishness or selflessness as well. Keep raising awarness Hal even if it feels like you are waging a losing battle.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tritonrider wrote 3 weeks 18 hours ago

Dcast I wasn't aware of the higher rate with natural fertilizers but it's not really surprising since lots of farms spread it while the ground is hard, maybe even frozen since it's a slower time in early spring and you aren't getting equipment stuck. The problem is that it sits through all the spring rains and lots runs off until things dry out enough so it can be plowed or harrowed in. Chicken manure in particular tends to be really liquid and susceptible to this problem. We almost always applied our own with the plan being to get it mixed in within 48 hours of being spread at a maximum. The great thing about slow release commercial fertilizer is that you can absolutely have it tailored to match your soil testing results and planned crop on that field, that year. If the effort is put in it's a great and responsible way to supplement the raw organic whether it's a cover crop tilled back in or manure. It's also a functional primary approach with no other fertilizer since you can absolutely tailor right down from macro nutrients, to micro, to adjusting the PH to give you exactly what you need to sustain the piece of ground. Costs more to get the Extension Service lab involved to do all the testing and recommend a healthy program, also a lot more time consuming to do all the sampling and planning field by field but it's really awesome to have the fields healthy, the production sustainable, rabbits and other critters in the windbreaks and along the drainage ditch corridors which most farms here in the Valley have. Smaller fields, lots of wooded/brushed corridors. Lots of wooded parcels that are family wood lots, or what would be marginal fields that are used for hardwood timber in another long term cycle.
Really proud of the farmers that have managed to survive here and how well they take care of the land especially since the demand for our tobacco which was famous has pretty much dried up. They've shifted gears and gone to other crops. The shocking thing to me is the new wave of progressive/organic/environmentalists who have taken over old farms that were running, or buying and reviving old farms that were just waiting to be developed. The other great thing is that very few of those here are being posted. Almost all of them allow hunting and fishing with no hassle. Hope that becomes the new national norm.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Carl Huber wrote 2 weeks 6 days ago

We have a problem with a few grass chocked ponds on Long Island. They are introducing grass eating Carp to remedy the problem. Keep in mind these are Land Locked ponds and there is no chance of migration.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Cowboy_mo wrote 2 weeks 5 days ago

Dcast, if we choose your simple solution to #2 (let those people who have corrupt governments starve) we bankrupt the country we live in. If the U.S. only produces enough food to feed the U.S. our trade deficit would probably quadruple since the main thing we export anymore is agricultural products. By the way, your premise that every country out there has the ability to produce enough food to feed its population in incorrect. Think Iceland, Greenland, Libya, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Again, let me restate, there is NO SIMPLE SOLUTION to complex problems like this.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tleichty1989 wrote 2 weeks 3 days ago

I grew up in Iowa hunting and fishing. The numbers of pheasant have dropped significantly and typically no one fishes the rivers. There is a growing issue arising in the conservation of Iowa. I think a lot of it has to do with awareness. Iowan farmers really do not know how they are effecting the ecosystem, nor do they know how to stop it. On top of that farmers make a decent wage but to change there farming method to save the eco system is a far fetched idea for them as it comes out of their pocket. Also Iowa produces more corn than any other state and actually produces more corn than most COUNTRIES. (ex. 3 times more than Mexico) so in all actuality the strategy needs to start from the top down. Our government really doesn't care about the water ways because we have a huge operation running out of that state. It takes people making a ruckus to start making a change. That starts with calling your local state office and writing letters to the "man" that we need to see change. The problem does not lie solely with the farmers of Iowa. Conservation is everyones responsibility.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Woods Walker wrote 1 week 2 days ago

Glad to see that some also reference the fertilizer that is put on lawns (and golf courses). This use of fertilizer is ever growing and, in my humble opinion, a complete waste - we fertilize lawns only to have to mow them more frequently (causing more air pollution) and have more lawn waste rotting. With urban sprawl and more acres of lawns surrounding our lakes and rivers, it is no wonder we have algal blooms and nitrate polluted waters. While farmers do deserve scrutiny and some blame for the situation, at least they are producing something useful in return (unlike lawns).

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Active Interest	SKI \| Skiing \| Skiing Business \| Scuba Diving \| Sport Diver \| TransWorld Ride BMX \| TransWorld Business \| TransWorld Motocross \| TransWorld SKATEboarding \| TransWorld SNOWboarding \| TransWorld SURF \| TransWorld WAKEBOARDING \| WaterSki
Travel	Caribbean Travel + Life \| Destination Weddings & Honeymoon \| Islands \| Florida Travel + Life
Lifestyle & Epicurean	Garden Design \| SNOW \| Saveur
Marine & Aviation	Boating \| Boating Life 360 \| Cruising World \| Fly Fishing in Salt Waters \| Flying \| Marlin \| Marlin University \| Sailing World \| Salt Water Sportsman \| Sport Fishing \| Yachting
Outdoor	Field & Stream \| Outdoor Life \| SHOT Business \| Cycle World
Parenting	Babytalk \| Parenting \| Conceive \| Working Mother
Technology	Popular Science \| Science Illustrated \| Sound + Vision \| Popular Photography \| American Photo
Entertainment/Events	Warren Miller Entertainment \| World Entertainment Services \| World Sports & Marketing

Search