HARRISBURG, Pa. - Pennsylvania is falling far short of its commitments to clean up local rivers and streams. That affects the quality of life for all of the Commonwealth's residents, and conservation groups say it has to change.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the state's progress on an agreement for cleaner water is far behind where it needs to be. Harry Campbell, executive director of the cbf.orgChesapeake Bay Foundation's Pennsylvania office, said the state has reduced the phosphorus from farm and residential runoff, but more needs to be done on nitrogen and sediment.

"These water bodies, these rivers and streams are vital to our economy, our health, our communities and quality of life," he said. "By meeting this challenge, we can put PA on a path for clean water for generations to come."

The good news, Campbell said, is that simple steps such as buffers next to the streams and better systems for handling animal and municipal waste have been proved to bring dramatic improvements in water quality. He said they can bring back impaired rivers and streams.

"Nutrient pollution as well as sediment pollution is a leading cause of that pollution," he said, "and agricultural runoff and urban/suburban runoff are two of the top three sources of impairment."

The Susquehanna watershed supplies half of the fresh water in the bay. Campbell stressed that Gov. Tom Wolf inherited the problem, but added that the state has to start leading a coordinated and aggressive effort by all the stakeholders.

Campbell said homeowners can take steps such as planting trees and gardens that slow down and filter runoff. Similarly simple steps by farmers can have a huge impact, he said.

"Getting cattle out of streams," he said. "When we remove them from the streams, plant some trees, some vegetation along that stream bank, give them an alternative watering source and design stream crossings, a number of environmental improvements occur."

Some farm lobbying groups, real-estate developers and their allies in office argue that the clean-water plans are a form of over-regulation. However, according to a study done for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, cleaning the waters would add more than $6 billion to the economy.

More information from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is online at cbf.org. EPA findings are at epa.gov.


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