Pew Oceans Commission Pollution Nutrient Hearing Afternoon session
The first speaker of the afternoon was a Mr. Mosier of American Waterworks,
a provider of drinking water throughout the U.S. As a water provider you
don't always have a choice of what supply to use, and removing pollutants
from water is necessary. Prevention is better than removal. Uncontrollable
growth of algae and plants causes problems as do microbial pathogens,
pesticides, etc.
Now is the time to address nonpoint sources. Nitrate is a problem in the
business because of the 10 ppm (parts per million) limit. When ingested at
high levels it can be fatal to infants. Removal requires a special process.
He gave two examples, first the city of Streeter, Illinois, which takes
it's water from the Vermillion River. They have to blend water from
offstream reservoirs with the river water to meet the standard. When
nitrate levels are high it still goes above 10ppm, and bottled water is
provided for customers. They have been working with the farming community,
but it has not solved the problem. t was so severe this summer that they
had to use a nitrate removal process, at a cost to customers of an extra
$50 a year.
The second example was Tiffin, Ohio, which takes its water from the
Sandusky River. Because the river exceeds nitrate limits they drilled
wells and blend the water in order to succeed in staying within the health
limit. They are also working with the agricultural community to control
runoff.
Excess ammonia running off into the water is not toxic to humans but
interferes with good disinfection.
Chlorine is potent in a free state but when ammonia is present, forms
chloramine which is much less effective. That means they have to remove
the ammonia before they treat the water. The process creates an excess of
carcinogenic byproducts.
He then talked about the problems with plants and algae. When they die,
they settle to the bottom but also produce dangerous levels of toxins that
are a threat to humans. Treatment to remove algae is available but not
greatly effective and does not address the toxins.
Microbes cause disease outbreaks. There were deaths in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin from microbial contamination from runoff. He repeated that many
of the by products of this process are carcinogenic.
Cryptospirodosis is a disease that can be prolonged and fatal due to
dehydration.
Pesticides and herbicides are consistently found in drinking water. It is
believed that an excess of these substances causes genetic mutations. It is
best not to allow them in waters to protect aquatic life as well as humans.
When there is sufficient rain there are sewage overflows into waterways.
He has heard it said that pollutants should be released into the
water. This is objectionable to him, because it is more effective to
remove something in a concentrated state than when it is diluted.
Technology and responsible management is needed as well as better
coordination between the EPA and others. There is a need for funding for
studies for treatment facilities.
He had three suggestions: stricter regulations for point source emissions,
better enforcement of existing regulations, and addressing nonpoint sources.
Susan Heathcote of the Iowa Environmental Council was the second speaker.
We know that here in Iowa we are contributing to problems. We are also
concerned about the quality of water here in Iowa. It is important to
tackle these problems. In order to do that we need more federal and staff
resources.
She showed a landuse map of Iowa showing that 60% of the state is in
rowcrops. In the south there is some pasture and rolling hills. Some of
these lands are in CRP. However, at the same time, a large ranch covering
parts of two counties recently went bankrupt and the person who has
purchased the ranch plans to plant corn and soybeans. Federal programs are
behind this decision. Even while some land is being restored we are still
fighting the inappropriate conversion of land into cropland.
We need to continue to protect forested areas along the rivers. Forest
accounts for 7%of Iowa and water 1%. 1% is urban and 1% barren. Iowa has
always been a high source area for nutrients going to the Gulf. Together
Iowa and Illinois account for as much as 35% of the pollution in the
Gulf. In Iowa most of this is from agricultural land. Iowa raises one
fourth of all the hogs in the U.S. and is number one in layer hens.
We have lost cropland fertilizer needed to grow crops. Manure is the best
fertilizer and should not be a liability in a state that grows crops that
need fertilizer. But producers are allowed to treat manure as a waste
product to be disposed of. It should be a value-added product, why do we
allow it to be wasted, turned into a liability rather than an
asset? Money. You can put a lot of animals into very few buildings close
together, cluster facilities in an inappropriate concentration. All of
these facilities treat manure as a waste product. It goes into lagoons,
nitrogen goes up into the air as ammonia and comes down in rainfall,
polluting our waters. This doesn't make sense in Iowa.
Other areas don't have cropland to use the manure. We could recycle every
bit of this waste.
She showed another map showing corn soybeans and hog concentrations and
pointed out that this is remarkably similar to the areas that are known to
contribute to hypoxy. There used to be more diversity, for example, there
were once apple groves in Iowa.
A NAQUA study looked at nitrate and phosphorus levels and found that
eastern Iowa had levels that were higher than other corn belt states and
both were greater than the rest of the U.S. CAFOS contribute additional
nutrients to streams. The concentration of livestock is directly related
to nitrogen and phosphorus in the water.
Comparing the early 1900 levels to today we see that these are human
induced problems. The good news is that we recognize that we have a
problem. We also have some tools. There are strong partnerships forming
within the state. We have a plan that was two years in the making,
developed by a federal/state taskforce. This plan would start the process
of addressing the problem.
When are we going to implement the plan? Are we going to pull it off the
shelg and implement it? A federal/state task force needs to continue to
oversee it and watershed groups need to work toward this goal.
There needs to be a lot of flexibility in doing this, we should let
innovation be a part of it.
We need to diversity our landscape. We can't continue to have just corn,
soybeans, cattle, and hogs. We need to have more buffers on major rivers
and smaller streams as well, bring additional crops into the crop rotation
cycle.
A second strategy is to improve farm practices. Fall application of
nutrients should not be allowed. We loose a lot more nitrogen when we
apply in the fall. There should be nutrient management plans for all farms
so we can account for how we budget our nutrients. We should identify
areas where we can improve for both crop and livestock producers.
A big percent of nitrogen is volatilized into the air. Inputs and outputs
should be figured and a fee placed on what you loose. We need to put
natural filters back into the landscape.
Questions
How can Mr. Mosier suggest specific ways in which there can be better
coordiation of programs in the EPA. He said that a certain amount of
herbicide residual is expected to occur in water when the herbicide is
approved. This information is considered confidential and should at least
be shared with sister agencies to help guide drinking water suppliers.
Susan Heathcote was asked if she ever employed the judicial route to get
things moving. She said IEC has never litigated because their primary
focus is to work on policy issues. When you get into litigation it damages
relationships. She doesn't want to eliminate that option, however.
Has there been statewide polling about public appreciation of nitrates to
see if they think it is a problem? There is a very high level of concern
in Iowa about the quality of drinking water. In 1997 there were beach closings.
Peggy Murdock
|
