Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - IOWA-TOPICS Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

IOWA-TOPICS Archives

October 2007, Week 1

IOWA-TOPICS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
IOWA-TOPICS Home IOWA-TOPICS Home
IOWA-TOPICS October 2007, Week 1

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
an Iowa Farm Bureau view of water quality
From:
Cindy Hildebrand <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements
Date:
Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:05:33 EDT
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 kB) , text/html (5 kB)
I thought this column from the IFB website might interest people  here.  
 
Cindy Hildebrand
 
***
 
WHAT IS NEWSWORTHY? 

Posted:9/28/2007 4:14:50 PM

By Laurie Groves  
I was 18 when I started my news career at a small radio station  in 
north-central Iowa. Twenty-two years, six radio and two television newsrooms  later; I 
can say that experience gave me an inside look at what makes issues  ‘
newsworthy’. The news business is evolving. In many ways that’s great. But,  
give-it-to-me-now bloggers and civilians armed with camera-phones have put good,  
solid journalists in competition for headlines. Simply put; sensationalism sells  
more newspapers than science.  
A recent front page Register piece featured a story and photo  with “
Warhol-ian” professional agitators who claim Iowa’s water is the ‘dirtiest  in the 
nation’ and Iowa livestock farmers are solely to blame. (Contrary to  their 
claim, we don’t have the dirtiest water, but I’ll get to that later). But,  what 
the public needs to know is what are these aquatic life standards? What  will 
that cost me as a taxpayer? 
First, the truth behind their claim that “Iowa has the dirtiest  water in the 
country.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says 34 states  have more 
impaired waters than Iowa. The EPA also looked at water system  violations 
and, as reported in the Spring issue of Men's Health magazine, out of  100 other 
U.S. cities, Des Moines ranks in the top 20 for the cleanest drinking  water. 
 
Since 34 other states (even those with relatively no livestock)  have greater 
water quality issues than Iowa, livestock cannot be the sole cause.  
According to the DNR, there are more than 700 Iowa communities (many of them  close to 
Des Moines) that don’t even have wastewater treatment facilities.  
The DNR reports say that nearly 75 million gallons of raw human  sewage was 
discharged more than 200 times in Iowa so far this year. That’s in  addition to 
those 700 communities putting raw, human sewage into our rivers,  lakes and 
streams daily. Livestock facilities have reported eight discharges,  with the 
DNR website only listing the amount of waste for two of them; 1,500  gallons. It
’s illegal for farmers to discharge waste of any amount and any kind  of 
discharge isn’t good, but I can tell you after walking beans barefoot in a  field 
fertilized with hog manure and being a reporter during the Floods of ’93,  
doing live reports in floodwaters with human sewage, needles, snakes and rats  
floating by; the latter (personally) had a much higher ‘gross-out’ factor! 
As for enhancing Iowa’s water, according to a recent Center for  Rural 
Development (CARD) scientific water quality study, farmers have spent $435  million 
for seven major conservation practices (planted filtering grasses and  trees 
and restored watersheds, etc.), to reduce nitrates up to 28 percent and  
phosphorus up to 58 percent in the last 10 years.  
But in order to meet the EPA’s guidelines for ‘aquatic life  standards’ 
(more water bugs in more streams, even those considered drainage  ditches for 
storm water runoff), Iowans would need to reduce phosphorus (an  element that 
naturally occurs with decaying plants) by more than 40 percent and  nitrates (an 
element the occurs naturally from the breakdown of plants, animals,  fish and 
waste from humans and animals) by more than 25 percent. CARD  researchers say 
that would cost almost $613 million a year statewide, and we  would still not 
meet the standards if we experienced a huge rainfall! Not only  is that a lot 
of money for water bugs – it’s more than the annual budgets of the  three 
state universities combined! Maybe a better question to ask is, what is  
reasonable and where CAN we get the most bang for our buck? 
Perspective. That’s what it comes down to. That, and working  together. 
Remember; real news is about truth and it only happens when you’re  getting both 
sides of the story. 
***




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp









ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV