If Iowa wants to ensure its Nutrient Reduction Strategy is working to curb farm runoff, a new report from an environmental group says it needs to do a better job of monitoring water quality around the state.

The Iowa Environmental Council noted that since 2013, Iowa has committed nearly $100 million toward water-quality projects. That includes keeping an eye on the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus entering waterways from sources such as agriculture. Despite the investments, said Alicia Vasto, associate director of the council's water program, agencies involved have yet to implement an approach to see if the efforts actually are improving the water.

"We believe that if there was monitoring, if there was more information available, that it would demonstrate current efforts are not where they need to be and we need to adjust the strategy," she said.

The report recommended collaboration on a monitoring framework that would include tools such as in-stream sensors, and the results made available to the public. In a move aligned with other states along the Mississippi River, the reduction strategy seeks at least a 45% reduction in total nitrogen and phosphorus loads.

The state departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture did not provide comments for this report before deadline.

While groups such as hers push for more information, Vasto said there are signs that Iowa's water-quality situation is getting worse. This includes more algae blooms that make the water less safe for recreation.

"It just kind of lowers the average quality of life for Iowans that we can't go out and access and enjoy our public waterways," she said, "because there's this pollution that is making them toxic."

A 2018 study by the University of Iowa found a nearly 50% increase over two decades in the amount of nitrogen pollution flowing from the state to the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, state lawmakers passed a major extension of funding for its strategy, but Vasto said unless monitoring improves, that money could be going to waste.

Twenty-one counties in New York are under a drought watch, which could become the norm as climate change heats up the planet.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, a drought watch is the least severe on the drought monitoring scale. For now, public water suppliers start conserving water and urge people to reduce their water use.

The National Integrated Drought Information System classifies this as a moderate drought. Sylvia Reeves, the system's Northeast regional drought information coordinator, said these "pop-up droughts" have been typical in the last two years, in the entire Northeast.

"We've seen more frequent drought events that have lasted anywhere from six months to a little over a year," she said. "And, those events typically have come on in what we call a 'flashy' form - rapid onset of drought conditions and rapid intensification."

Reeves added that if several different indicators of groundwater, surface water and wells don't change, drought conditions could be upgraded to "severe." That's what New York faced in summer and mid-fall 2020. These conditions aren't generally bad enough to cause wildfires, but grass and brush fires could be forces to contend with.

During droughts, it isn't just about needing water for small things such as brushing your teeth or doing laundry. It's about making sure vital crops are irrigated thoroughly and having a decent supply of groundwater.

As weather gets more extreme, droughts could be more prolonged, said Alison Branco, director of climate adaptation for The Nature Conservancy of Long Island.

"What we're going to see is, not a huge change in the overall amount of rain we receive - a little increase, but not a ton," she said. "But it's going to come in less frequent, more severe bursts; like big heavy storms and not so much like that slow, steady rain."

She added that there could be periods of drought between rain events, but groundwater sources won't be able to replenish as quickly. Branco, a Long Island resident, said she feels the infrastructure to pump groundwater isn't equipped to meet the high demands a drought would create. However, she said, New York is not at risk of the kinds of lengthy droughts seen in California and other Western states.

Water experts will gather next week in Nashville to talk about the state of stream restoration, at the first national stream restoration conference.

Tennessee's heavy agricultural economy means the state's waterways are at risk for increased sediment.

Ken White, chair of the stream restoration nonprofit Resource Institute, said implementing strategies to reduce sediment and restore natural flow to streams improves water quality, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation.

"More sediment in the rivers is not good," White explained. "Because every city and county or municipal organization that supplies clean water to a community, they have to pay for more chemicals, it's harder to clean the water for everybody to use for cooking, drinking, bathing."

Experts will discuss urban and rural restoration, dam removal, construction, flood plain reconnection, and habitat improvement.

Adam Williams, president of Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting, said residents are increasingly aware of the link between healthy water and reducing erosion and sedimentation, and are feeling the effects of climate-related flooding and extreme weather on local waterways.

"Meeting landowners, knocking on doors and finding willing landowners to participate in grant-funded work," Williams outlined. "Putting in riparian buffers, explaining to residential, commercial, agricultural landowners in ways to use best management practices to stabilize their creeks."

White added stream restoration can improve community health, increase property values and spur local economic activity.

"We don't even hesitate to buy sunscreen before we go to the beach, or we're out in the sun," White noted. "The more we can educate water professionals, in order to have quality water for decades to come, we're gonna have to do a better job of being good stewards and managing what we have now."

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, more than half of rivers and streams in Tennessee are considered impaired.

By Kristi Eaton for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Northern Rockies News Service for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

A coalition of groups focused on water rights filed a brief in June with the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to keep the court from narrowing the definition of federally protected waters.

Waterkeeper Alliance, San Francisco Baykeeper, Bayou City Waterkeeper, and nearly 50 additional Waterkeeper groups from across the country filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the case Sackett v EPA.

The clean water advocates are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling about the scope of wetlands protected under the landmark Clean Water Act.

The central question in Sackett v EPA is what standard should apply to determine protection for wetlands that are adjacent to traditional navigable waters and their tributaries. The petitioners in the appeal have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling that adjacent wetlands, including those on their Idaho property, merit federal protection, which would advance a narrow interpretation of the CWA. The amicus brief contends that, to achieve the law's objective, it must protect all waters that make up aquatic ecosystems, not just navigable waters. The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall.

"Idaho has unique geographical and hydrologic features that form 'closed basins' which would be excluded from federal pollution protection if Clean Water Act jurisdiction was reduced by constricting the definition of which 'waters of the United States' are federally protected," said Buck Ryan, executive director of Snake River Waterkeeper, in an interview with The Daily Yonder. "We joined in filing the brief to ensure these waterways - which are critical to water quality in the Snake River as well as for endangered species like bull trout - enjoy the federal statutory protections Congress intended in drafting the Act."

The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 to protect the health of the waters of the United States, promote healthy aquatic ecosystems, and regulate the discharge of pollutants into waterways.

In states like Idaho, Ryan said, "where industry and ag-friendly legislatures offer the bare minimum in terms of clean water safeguards, the federal Clean Water Act is the preeminent (and in many cases, only) guarantee of legal protection for rural communities to have fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water."

Kelly Hunter Foster, senior attorney with Waterkeeper Alliance, said many iconic and significant waters across the country lack continuous surface connections to traditionally defined navigable waters and could lose federal clean water protections that have been in place for nearly 50 years if the court were to adopt the petitioners' navigability theories.

"Congress originally designed the CWA to broadly protect all waters of the United States-not only those used for commercial navigation. The scope cannot be narrowed if we are to ensure the integrity of the law and the health of our waterways," Foster said in a press statement.

The Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the CWA occurs as the court has revisited long established precedents. Last month the court ruled that the Clean Air Act does not give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency blanket regulations against power plants. The Clean Air Act, initially passed in 1963 and revised many times since, was one of the nation's first and most influential environmental laws.

Waterkeeper Alliance Chief Executive Officer Marc Yaggi called the court's interpretation of the Clean Air Act a "gift to polluters and will pose a major threat to clean water."

"The majority's new major questions doctrine handcuffs the federal government's ability to respond to emergencies that weren't specifically contemplated at the time statutes are passed," Yaggi said in a press statement. "The idea that our current dysfunctional Congress might be expected to more directly authorize EPA to broadly 'tackle' the climate emergency is absurd. This sets a dangerous precedent not just for EPA and our climate, but for all agencies and future emergencies."

Albert Lin, a law professor at the University of California Davis who specializes in environmental and natural resources law, said in an interview with The Daily Yonder that the Clear Air Act and Clean Water Act cases seem to be asking two different questions. The Clean Air Act case used the major questions doctrine, he said, and he believes it's unlikely that will be the case in the Clean Water Act case.

"It seems unlikely given that the sort of question at issue in the Clean Water Act case, the extent of the government's regulatory authority over wetlands is an issue that the agencies - EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers - have been grappling with for decades," he said. "And that it's not the sort of situation as in West Virginia vs. EPA, where you had, at least the way the court puts it, EPA asserting this apparently new authority over how kind of energy is produced and distributed and generated."

Also in June, the Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which provided a constitutional basis protecting the right to abortion services.

Kristi Eaton wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email