This is progress.
Has anyone contacted the gulf states that are affected by Iowa nutrient
runoff?  I would think a lawsuit from those states against the farmers or
the state of Iowa would move things along.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:06 AM Debbie Neustadt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Watershed group may boot metro counties
> Donnelle Eller
> Des Moines Register USA TODAY NETWORK
> Edited for the listserv. Highlights are in bold. Text is in blue. It is
> long because it is in the Sunday Register. I believe I hit the high points
> with the blue text color. I added a few sentences for those of you outside
> of Iowa. There is important information toward the end.
>
> * Supervisors in seven Iowa counties have passed resolutions seeking to
> push Polk and Dallas counties out of their watershed management coalition.
> The city of Des Moines is in Polk county and Dallas county is directly
> west. The Racoon River flows through both counties.*
>
>  A fear of costly government mandates is behind the push. Some link the
> effort to the bitter urban- rural divide that emerged after Des Moines
> Water Works sued three north Iowa counties five years ago over high nitrate
> levels in the Raccoon River. “I wouldn’t say we distrust” urban leaders,
> said Paul Merten, a supervisor in Buena Vista County, one of three counties
> sued in 2015. “But there’s concern and caution.”
>
> The possible split of the North Raccoon River Watershed Management
> Coalition has real-world implications:
> *The river is a source of drinking water for more than 500,000 urban and
> rural residents. And the coalition seeks to reduce flooding, which caused
> millions of dollars in damage last year in Des Moines after a storm dumped
> nine inches of rain over two hours.*
>  Statewide, flooding has caused $18 billion in damage over nearly three
> decades, and scientists expect heavy rainfall to occur with greater
> frequency. Buena Vista, Calhoun, Carroll, Palo Alto, Pocahontas, Sac and
> Webster counties have passed resolutions saying they will not support the
> proposed North Raccoon watershed plan if Dallas and Polk counties remain
> part of the coalition.The north Iowa counties claim the Iowa Department of
> Natural Resources’ watershed map incorrectly includes Dallas and Polk
> counties, an assertion the agency and several coalition members say is
> false.
>
> The coalition, which has 40 members, is expected to vote on the proposed
> watershed plan on Friday. *Several north Iowa county supervisors disagree
> with the plan’s goal to cut the Raccoon River’s nitrate levels by 48%. They
> favor a 41% reduction goal, which they say is more realistic, less costly
> and in line with a state plan to reduce nitrate levels. Merten said he and
> other north Iowa officials worry the voluntary plan could become mandatory
> — either through legislation or other legal action.*
>
>  “We were blindsided by the lawsuit,” Merten said. “People are a little
> bit wary.”Jonathan Gano, Des Moines public works director and a member of
> the coalition, said the north Iowa leaders’ “dramatic change of heart”
> caught him and others by surprise. “ The disappointing part to me,” Gano
> said, is that the resolutions jeopardize “our opportunity to work directly
> together. ... We all live here.”
>
>  Financial frets
>
> *The North Raccoon River watershed coalition received nearly $3.7 million
> from a $97 million U.S. Housing and Urban Development grant to the state in
> 2016 to cut flood risks and improve water quality in nine watersheds across
> Iowa. But the North Raccoon watershed has struggled to spend the $2.9
> million available for improvements. *The grant pays 90% of project costs.
> Concerned the money would go unspent, the state decided earlier this year
> to redirect about $1.3 million of the Raccoon watershed’s money to Dubuque.
>
> One of the challenges, officials said, is that the grant requires the
> money to be spent in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties, with the focus on
> flood-reduction structures, such as terraces, ponds and wetlands. Those are
> typically more difficult projects to tackle.“ That was free money they
> could have used. Little projects, big projects, projects on the ground,”
> said Mark Hanson, a Dallas County supervisor who is on the coalition and
> its past chairman.
>
> Supervisor Clarence Siepker said Pocahontas County joined the coalition in
> large part to take advantage of the grant money. They planned to use most
> of it to re- establish Swan Lake near Laurens, a 324-acre project that
> failed to come together because a nearby landowner declined to participate.
> The project would have cut nitrates, stored water during heavy rainfall to
> reduce flooding and provided wildlife habitat and recreation for residents.
> Siepker said Pocahontas officials proposed reducing the size of the
> project, among other options, to spend the money, but engineers said they
> didn’t meet the grant requirements. “It’s been very frustrating,” he said,
> adding that over time, plans for the proposed project went from a
> “full-blown lake” to a shallow lake, then to a wetland. “Still, we thought
> we could do it.”
>
>  Ted Smith has agreed to work that will stabilize stream banks on land in
> the watershed. He said more landowners would have participated in the
> program if the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit hadn’t happened. “ There’s a
> trust issue,” he said. “No one wants to partner with someone they don’t
> trust. “But it’s a shame, because we want Des Moines to know that we care
> up here,” he said. “We’re trying to do the right thing. … We can do this
> voluntarily. We just need a little more time.”
>
> *In 2013, Iowa adopted a plan, called the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, to
> cut 45% of the nitrogen and phosphorus that leaves the state and
> contributes to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico each summer. The plan is
> voluntary for farmers, who are responsible for shaving 41% of nitrogen and
> 29% of the phosphorus levels.* Cities, businesses and other
> point-sources, which fall under government regulations, are responsible for
> the remaining reduction. There is no deadline for completing the goal.
>
> But Alicia Vasto, an Iowa Environmental Council water policy specialist,
> said the Raccoon watershed division makes “it difficult to say that the
> state’s voluntary approach is the way to go.”
>
>  Pushing boundaries
>
> *Don Etler, a retired engineer who represents Palo Alto County on the
> watershed coalition, said Iowa DNR incorrectly included Polk and Dallas
> counties in the watershed when the group was created in 2017.The name of
> the North Raccoon River changes to the Raccoon River just south of Van
> Meter,* prompting the claim that the urban counties are improperly
> included in the watershed. “ The DNR made a mistake,” Etler said.The
> supervisors’ resolutions say Dallas and Polk counties would have nearly 60%
> of the watershed’s population, but little of the 2.1 million farm acres
> where most of the flood and water- quality improvements would go. “We
> cannot support a plan which hands over the control of the entire
> (watershed) to the metro communities,” Pocahontas County supervisors wrote
> to the coalition in its public comments about the plan.
>
> * Allen Bonini, a DNR watershed improvement supervisor, said the state
> used the U.S. Geological Survey map, *which was part of the agreement 36
> cities, counties, soil and water soil conservation districts signed to
> become part of the coalition three years ago.Palo Alto County, Des Moines,
> West Des Moines and Adel joined the coalition later.*“Here, three years
> later, these resolutions pop up, claiming that DNR used the wrong map,”
> Bonini said. “ That’s factually incorrect.”*
>
>  The Iowa DNR and Iowa Economic Development Authority, which administers
> the HUD grant, sent letters to the county supervisors noting actions they
> can take. One option is to create their own watershed management authority
> within the North Raccoon watershed coalition. Members of the watershed can
> seek to amend the coalition agreement to reflect a smaller watershed, but
> all 40 members would need to agree to the change, the Iowa economic
> development agency told supervisors.
>
> *Katie Rock, a Polk Soil and Water Conservation District representative on
> the coalition board, believes the real concern lies with the 48.1% nitrate
> reduction in the proposed watershed study. (Katie Rock is the Sierra Club
> Beyond Coal organizer for Iowa.)*
>
> The vote to use the higher target was controversial, Rock said, with only
> a few of the large group representatives at the meeting.
>
>  At least now, she said, coalition members are beginning to have honest
> conversations about the study and why they’re part of the coalition.
> Lingering anger over the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit is part of the
> reason for some. “As a member of the coalition put it, ‘if I’m not at the
> table, I’m on someone’s plate,’” said Rock, the coalition’s secretary.
>
>  Voluntary vs. mandatory
>
> Etler, the retired engineer, said rural Iowa counties have reason to be
> concerned about the proposed watershed plan becoming the foundation for
> mandatory action.
>
> The Iowa Supreme Court dismissed the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit in
> 2017 against Sac, Buena Vista and Calhoun counties, but an Iowa Citizens
> for Community Improvement and Food & Water Watch lawsuit filed last year
> seeks similar outcomes.
>
> Des Moines Water Works sought regulatory oversight of farmers, saying
> underground drainage tiles funnel high levels of nitrates from farm fields
> into the Raccoon River, requiring the utility to spend millions of dollars
> removing the nutrient so the water is safe to drink. Iowa CCI and Food &
> Water Watch want limits on the nitrogen and phosphorous pollution entering
> the Raccoon River as well as a moratorium on new and expanding hog
> confinement facilities.Attorneys for the state said the lawsuit would
> require “a dramatic shift from present- day agricultural practices” and
> create “substantial uncertainty and grave concerns for every member of
> Iowa’s agricultural economy.”The Iowa Supreme Court is weighing whether the
> lawsuit can proceed.The environmentalists’ lawsuit would “ legally impose
> what this plan proposes,” Etler said. “ That directly affects the Raccoon
> River watershed.”
>
>  *Merten and others say they’re concerned about the cost farmers and
> landowners in their counties could face.Consultants writing the proposed
> watershed plan estimate that cutting nitrate levels 41% in the North
> Raccoon, matching the state’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, would cost up to
> $1.5 billion over 20 years. Etler said cutting nitrate levels 48% would
> double the costs, a per-acre expense that would climb from $700 to $1,500.
> Carroll County supervisors said the proposed 48.1% nitrate reduction goal
> is far higher than other targets. For example, the nitrate goal on the Des
> Moines River at Des Moines is 34% and the Cedar River at Cedar Rapids is
> 35%. But the 48.1% nitrate reduction target does match a state goal for the
> Raccoon River. Debbie says:The reason it is higher is because the Racoon is
> the biggest source of nitrates in the Gulf of Mexico. *
>
> Gano and others said the watershed won’t reach either 41% or 48.1%
> reduction in nitrate levels over the study’s 10year life. But setting the
> goal at 48% would qualify the watershed for additional federal money that
> the state administers for impaired waterways. “It’s almost a moot point,”
> Gano said. “We won’t get there in 10 years. This is a generational problem,
> and it will require decades of work.”
>
>  Stronger together
>
> Despite the northern Iowa counties’ challenges to the coalition’s
> membership and study targets, supervisors say they’re committed to reducing
> nutrient losses. And Gano, Rock and other coalition members are hopeful the
> group will be able to continue working together. Already, the coalition has
> reduced the percentage of land the study proposes retiring in flood-prone
> areas. Vasto, the Iowa Environmental Council water specialist, said the
> state’s watershed management authorities are probably the best way to
> address water quality problems.
>
>  Parts of the Raccoon River struggle with high levels of nitrogen,
> phosphorous, fecal bacteria and sediment that make it unsuitable for people
> to use the water to drink, swim and play in.Agriculture is the primary
> source of the pollutants, the proposed watershed plan says, with hundreds
> of animal feeding operations and thousands of crop acres in the mostly
> rural region.
>
>  Bonini said nothing binds the counties or cities to the plan. But the
> boards and councils that adopt the plan can get in line for state or
> federal money that helps leaders “address local problems.”The northern
> counties “ have put a lot of voice into what they don’t want,” Rock said.“I
> hope we can figure out what they do want.”
>
>
> --
>
> Debbie Neustadt
> Des Moines, Iowa
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to
> [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]&body=SIGNOFF+IOWA-TOPICS>,
> or visit Listserv online
> <http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?SUBED1=IOWA-TOPICS&A=1>. For
> all the latest news and activities, sign up for Sierra Club Insider
> <http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra-club-email/insider>, the Club's
> twice-monthly flagship e-newsletter. Listserv users are subject to the
> Sierra Club's Terms and Conditions <http://www.sierraclub.org/terms>.
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to [log in to unmask] For all the latest news and activities, sign up for Sierra Club Insider (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra-club-email/insider), the Club's twice-monthly flagship e-newsletter.