These three talks finish up the March 4th material, but do not be sad, 
there are still March 5 and 6!  More is coming.  I recommend the talks on 
Standards and the last one on Challenges as having a few interesting 
tidbits.  The talk on programs is not particularly interesting from my 
perspective, but  someone on the list might be fascinated by such.

Peggy Murdock

Water Quality Conditions in Iowa
John Olson, Iowa DNR

What we mean by water quality has to do with chemical, physical and/or 
biological characteristics and appearances can be deceiving. He mentioned 
calls he has received about brown water in southern Iowa streams, that as 
far as they know, have been like that from the beginning. Another mistake 
was made when a farmer discharged apparently clean water from his lagoon 
and caused a fishkill.

Your perspective is important.  Historically, problems were severe prior to 
point source controls and are better now.

Water quality is defined differently for different waters depending upon 
the beneficial uses, such as swimming aquatic life, and drinking water. If 
a water body fully supports its intended levels of use it is defined as 
excellent.  If it fully supports those uses but is threatened, it is 
classified as good.  Impaired waters are those that partially support the 
designated uses (fair) or do not support their uses (poor).  The EPA has 
suggested that waters that fully support their uses and are threatened 
which show a declining trend also be placed on the impaired waters list.

Impairment is a convention of the clean water act section 305(b).  It 
indicates some type and level of water quality problem relevant to the 
designated uses and is often misrepresented as polluted, fouled, or 
unhealthy which is not true.  Most have moderate impacts and continue to 
support their uses. Unfortunately, officials who want to be able to get 
funds in order to remedy these problems often tend to overstate the case, 
which leads to misunderstanding on the part of the public.

The water quality 305(b) assessment is better than it used to be.  Bias is 
being eliminated. Its assessment methods are sometimes questioned by both 
the U.S. EPA and the Iowa DNR.  Data quantity and quality are 
concerns.  Water quality criteria don’t exist for some important 
parameters, such as nutrients and sediment but it is the only process we have.

Most non-point sources of pollution have a natural component.  Agriculture 
is the most common land use and the most commonly reported source.  Urban 
suburban is less widespread but often have more severe impacts.

The agricultural contributions to water quality impairments are nitrate, 
from nitrogen, algae, from phosphorus, sediment, which fills lake basins, 
pesticides which contaminate drinking water, and bacteria, which has 
impacts on swimming.

Nitrate is a threat to drinking water uses and poses health risk to 
infants.  In Iowa, four river reaches and one lake are impaired for 
nitrate.  This impacts both Des Moines and Cedar Rapids. Land surface also 
influences the concentrations of nitrates. Some parts of the state don’t 
have high levels of nitrates. There is strong evidence of an increase in 
nitrogen over the last fifty years as nitrate is one of the few parameters 
with data dating back to 1945.  At that time there was a  modest 
increase.   When testing started again the increase was four fold.

The biggest problem is in the Des Moines Lobe - the South Skunk, North 
Raccoon and East Fork of the Des Moines rivers. It is difficult to use 
these for drinking water. However, few communities in Iowa  use surface 
water for drinking.

Climate influences water quality as well and is responsible for differences 
from year to year.

There are no aquatic life criteria yet in Iowa water quality standards.

Phosphorus is the second most common cause of lake impairment.  It is 
directly related to other impairments such as organic enrichment, fish 
kills, algae and turbidity. .  There are no criteria for phosphorus in Iowa 
water quality standards yet and no evidence of an increase over the last 
twenty years.  This may or may not be a good thing.  The data from 1987 to 
2001 shows  no trend.  When animal feeding operations grew they expected 
but did not see a trend. There is already enough phosphorus here in Iowa to 
make it a challenge to met EPA criteria.  The phosphorus and nitrogen input 
from fertilizer has vastly increased in eastern Iowa basins.  Phosphorus 
has been relatively flat. (My note:  phosphorus is quickly used up by algae 
in lakes, so an increase in phosphorus will cause an increase in algae 
which has its own set of hazards.)

Common carp are a problem in some of the shallow lakes.

Sediment is the most frequently identified cause of lake impairment.  There 
are no criteria in the state’s water quality standards and no plans to 
develop such criteria.  The Iowa DNR does plan to monitor sediment.  This 
is the most difficult of all water quality inputs to characterize and quantify.

There are water quality impacts due to agricultural pesticides. Dieldrin in 
several river segments exceeds the  aquatic life water quality criteria 
even though it has not been used for years.  They will need to develop a 
TMDL for it. Very few waters are assessed as having impacts to drinking 
water uses from Atrazine.  He showed a summary of samples with Atrazine 
levels greater than 3ppb.   They were all from the May and June post 
planting runoff period.

Indicator bacteria includes the fecal coliform group.  There are many 
sources.  Wildlife is one.  They have found that some of these bacteria, 
can grow in stream sediments.  For that reason they attribute it to unknown 
sources.

Used to assess quality for swimming type uses using fecal coliforn. It is 
an indicator of water borne illness but few reports have been 
received.  (My note: in an earlier meeting I asked about the mechanism in 
place for receiving reports of human health problems caused by contact with 
water.  There is none, and there are no plans to implement one.)

High levels indicating impairment are common in surface waters of the 
agricultural midwest as well as the rest of the nation.  Levels tend to be 
higher in rivers than in lakes, where the levels are relatively 
low,  despite what you've heard.  Half of the time river stations exceed 
the water quality standard.

Agricultural activities related to water quality impacts include 
alterations to in-stream habitats.  This is also characteristic of urban 
areas and is the number one cause of impairment on midsize and small 
streams.  There are no standards and assessment is based on best 
professional judgment. Channel changes can be ok.

Pasturing of near stream areas is more damaging than channelization.

Agriculture is related to fish kills and is a significant source of 
impairment.  Most fishkills are due to animal waste.  Manure is the cause 
of sixty-one percent of the fishkills.  Fifteen percent are caused by 
commercial fertilizer.

There is a need to address animal manure management, to develop water 
quality criteria for nutrients, both  total nitrogen and total phosphorus, 
and aquatic life criteria for Atrazine.  There is a need for standards for 
new pesticides as well as monitoring for pharmaceuticals and microbes and 
determining their  significance in water.  There is a need for the ability 
to track sources of indicator bacteria.

Water Quality Programs and Practices
Lyle Assell, Iowa DNR

There is a wider variety of programs than has been available before.

You need to know what your problem is and that is not as easy to determine 
as you might think.  Then you need to decide on an objective.  Some people 
go after the programs without knowing how the programs are going to fit 
their water quality project.

USGS and the Iowa DNR are good sources for data, but there is other data 
that you need to look at.  You have to know is taking place in the 
population and for that you can use trend data.  One snapshot in time will 
not tell you what you need to know.  In order to learn that you have to 
look over multiple years, examining, for example, the trend in nitrogen 
applications

Another category of programs is education.  Extension has a variety of 
programs, as do Future Farmers of America and farm groups.  There are other 
projects such as 319, EQUIP and so on. Demonstration is a good educational 
tool.

There are lots of financial assistance programs.  319 has five million 
dollars in a water protection fund.  There are also state funded programs 
including a relatively new one administered by soil division.  Soil and 
Water Conservation Districts are a source.  There are low interest loans, 
such as the state revolving loan fund .  SRF passed the senate with no 
dissenting votes.

USDA EQUIP, will have a significant increase in funding.  WRP, CRP ,CREP 
Farmland protection program can be a water quality program because it keeps 
land in farming by buying up development rights.

Forest reserve law allows a reduction on property taxes where livestock are 
excluded and there are 200 trees per acre.

Drainage districts and levy districts are another way to organize for water 
quality.  The farmer contributes a  percentage of the cost.  Approximately 
35-50% comes from the landowner. There are a few environmental groups that 
contribute. Most of the funding for water quality efforts come from this 
list of traditional sources. As we look at watersheds on a local basis we 
may look at other players but you have to ask them to take part.

Technical assistance is often overlooked.  The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service provides technical assistance for formers to implement 
these programs. The Department of Agriculture, Land and  Stewardship works 
through the soil and water conservation districts.  DNR forestry division 
offers  technical assistance on private forest lands.  There is the Farm 
Bureau Farm assist program and programs through the Natural Heritage 
Foundation. The DNR private lands program enables biologists to work with 
private landowners to develop wildlife habitat, using USDA programs. There 
are geographic system data and soils data for the entire state, as well as 
topographic modeling, models to predict erosion and sediment delivery which 
can help analyze problems and display information so people can understand 
it. About a year from now color infrared photos about a year from now will 
be available. Other sources of technical assistance can provide for source 
water assessment and this is where water suppliers can get help.

There are regulatory approaches as well as other types of approaches 
including industrial, municipal and NPDES programs. Industry and 
municipalities are used to it.  Agriculture has not and will have to deal 
with it when dealing with livestock that amounts to more than a thousand 
animal units.

Storm water discharge permits have been targeted to areas five  acres large 
and larger.  This will now be ratcheted down to one acre.

The soil loss complaint project will allow a landowner who has damages 
being caused by sediment from an adjacent landowner to be 
compensated.  This has gone through the IA supreme court and has held up.

All of us are in the sales mode. We are not much different than insurance 
salesman but we are selling water quality.  We have to take our product to 
the buyer.  If we wait for them to come to us, we won't do well.  The buyer 
is the individual landowner.  Don’t try to sell the same thing to 
everybody.  Each program has to be tailored to an individuals’ specific 
interests and real estate.

The same thing that applies to programs applies to practices.  Don’t assume 
the same thing will fit all.  We are on a wetland restoration binge.  This 
is only one practice that may fit into the whole range of practices.  If it 
is in the right place and the hydrology is right it is a good thing to do.

If nitrogen is a problem and you promote terraces you might not affect the 
nitrogen.

Buffers also get a lot of press.  They are time limited.  It can be hugely 
successful for maybe 10-15 years of the contract.  These benefits need to 
be extended.. CREP can extend the funding.

We are changing, you can’t rely on the same programs.  Programs are 
confusing, but unless you deal with a program you can’t know all about 
it.  There is a need to interpret these programs for people.

Farmers are willing to adapt and adopt the programs but you can’t wait for 
people to walk through the door.  We need to ask if we are talking to the 
right people when it comes to a water quality project. We need to go out to 
where the programs will work even if you don’t want to deal with that 
particular person.

Water Quality Challenges Facing Iowa
Jack Riessen of the Iowa DNR

The engineer is taught to look at the big problem and work down to the 
little. There are programmatic challenges and they need to address these or 
someone else will. He intends to make some general observations related to 
these challenges.

Nutrients.  The EPA expects the states to adopt numeric water quality 
standards by 2004.  These include total nitrogen, total phosphorus, 
chlorophyll a and turbidity.

There is national guidance with values for lakes and streams and regional 
teams.

The preliminary assessment shows that  many Iowa streams and lakes will not 
meet national/regional guidance values.  They will be listed on 303d list 
of impaired waters and a TMDL will be required for each.  He showed a graph 
showing the national standard for nitrate and the nitrate present in Iowa’s 
lakes, I believe.  Only about four or five were near or below the standard 
and the lines rose above the standards line like the mileage use on your 
car when you accelerate above 60mph.

The challenges  with the nutrient criteria include what is reasonable, and 
whether economics are a valid consideration in setting standards, or is it 
the role of pure science.

How much flexibility do we have to deviate from EPA guidance values? The 
EPA will have to approve water quality and nutrient values and although EPA 
staff may sound like they are going to be flexible they may not be able to 
be that flexible because environmental groups will sue to make them enforce 
the standards.

Does it make sense to do more than 1000 TMDL and implementation plans? What 
are reasonable science based standards?  Do they apply at all flow regimes, 
and seasons?

Should response variables such as chlorophyll and turbidity be used in lieu 
of numerical values for nitrogen and phosphorus?
How much will the state nutrient budget  cost and where is it coming from? 
Control technologies  such as conventional nutrient best management 
practices will not get us where we need to go.  A statewide strategy is 
needed to tie it all together  - programs, economics, funding Gulf hypoxia, 
etc.

TMDLS - In 1998 there were was a list of 157 waterbodies requiring 220 
TMDLs . With increased monitoring and nutrient standards, the list could 
grow to more than 1000 watebodies or waterbody segments.  To date 19 TMDLs 
have been approved by the EPA .  These were the “low hanging fruit” or easy 
picking.  Almost a quarter of a million dollars has been committed up front 
for monitoring to date.
TMDL lawsuits would mean the EPA will do TMDLs if we don’t.

There is a credible date requirement and can be legal challenges if there 
is inadequate data/or methodology.  Where will they get the staff and data 
to do good TMDLs?

How do we handle interstate waters?  Who does those , does the EPA.  What 
is the time frame for accomplishing this.  Air deposition is an important 
factor.

Will TMDLS be a procedural checkbox or water quality panacea?  Will there 
be court ordered schedules
A phased TMDL that they haven't done will come back to haunt them.


CAFOs The Clean Water Act says that CAFOs can be point sources.  There is 
no distinction between open lots and roofed operations.  Confined feeding 
operations that are totally closed roof must land apply.  No discharge is 
allowed by state law.  This applies primarily to swine and poultry.

To date Iowa’s confined feeding operations (CFOs) have not have not been 
considered CAFOs and that may be changing. Open lot operations, primarily 
beef and dairy are CAFOs and should have an NPDES permit.  The plan is 
to  bring them into compliance.  The recommendations of the Group of 12 
legislators may  add state controls on CFOs.

Animal feeding operation challenges. Are CFOs a water quality problem? 
There is no conclusive data to show that they create a worse problem than 
the same number in smaller open lots.

Social economic factors and air quality are at the root of the opposition 
fueled by mismanagement.

New EPA regulations require NPDES permits.  Controls for open lots and 
nutrient management plans for all CAFOS. Permits mean there must be 
nutrient management plans for nitrogen and phosphorus.

Sediment is one of most often cited causes  of pollution.  Soil 
conservation has been promoted for over ten years.  Has there been progress?

There are concerns about microbial and pharmaceuticals. The indicator 
bacteria not a good indicator of pathogenic risk.  Do we disinfect all 
sources. Antibiotics are passed through waste water treatment plants and 
there are trace amounts in water sources.

There are antibiotic resistance bacteria, pesticides and synthetic 
compounds.  In the newer generation of these the parent compounds are less 
toxic and less persistent in the environment.  We do not know what health 
effects they have.  There are also endocrine disruptors, industrial 
chemicals, hormone therapy, and more.

Invasive exotic species and  habitat modification are also problems. If we 
don’t have good habitat it doesn’t work.  Riparian vegetation species 
diversity and richness is important.

The recent SWANCC court decision has meant of isolated waters will no 
longer be regulated.  That means there will be no protection for prairie 
potholes, fens, and  farm wetlands.  The Tullouch rule provides a way for 
protected wetlands to be drained.

Mercury could be a sleeper issue from fossil fuels.  It is found in fish 
tissue and our neighboring states have fish advisories for parts of their 
states.  Iowa levels may be increasing.  The EPA mercury criteria suggests 
fish tissue levels be used to adopt criteria.

Common challenges:  Sound science.  Definitive data is often 
lacking.  Impartial fact finding is often needed using a weight of evidence 
approach.  The minority opinion is often as important as the 
majority  view. Should Iowa have the equivalent of a National Academy of 
Science?

Information and education are important.  There should be better 
information for the public and for decision makers.  Data should be 
interpretive rather than raw data.

There is as yet no comprehensive water quality planning framework.  There 
is water quality reacting.  There need to be environmental results 
management systems, with outcome based planning with  measurable objectives 
and result performance indicators rather than a bean counting approach. A 
buy in from the governor and the legislature is essential.

What can we achieve?  We can’t make a mountain stream out of the 
Nishnabotna River. What would we achieve if we cut nutrient levels by ½?

In agriculture 60% of the land is in intensive row crops.  Even with a very 
small amount of nutrients, sediments and pesticides leaving the land have 
cumulative effect.  We will have to look at the social, economic and legal 
aspects tin order to effect significant change.

Resources:  often they have federal funds and cannot hire staff,  No 
elected official will agree to larger agencies without strong public 
support. Iowa is near the bottom in environmental program funding and 
staff.  We need sustained sources of  funding.  We need a dedicated 
environment fund with a constitutional provision so it can’t be shuffled 
off to other programs as it is being done this year.

The water quality bureau has thirty funding sources .  The water quality 
bureau does a lot of things but it has not done comprehensive water 
pollution planning  and a water quality management plan. The floodplain 
mapping plan was never funded.  The state water plan development and update 
as well as other projects can’t be done.

The environment is not a high priority issue with the general public.  They 
tend to react to crisis.  It becomes a priority only when it becomes local.

The Clean Water Act needs to be revised and reauthorized. Non point source 
pollution will be the focus of water quality programs for the foreseeable 
future.  The approach to dealing with non point sources much change.  It 
should be more of a targeted approach, targeting practices where it will do 
the most good.

Whole farm environmental plans should be required as conditions of federal 
program participation. People are becoming impatient with the voluntary 
approach.

Congress does have constitutional powers. Markets and economics integral 
part of NPS picture

Environmental expectations are exceeding available resources .  There is no 
growth in the government.  States are returning  the program to the EPA and 
the EPA doesn’t have the resources.

Iowa’s problems are not as bad as some would have you believe but there are 
problems that others don’t want to acknowledge.

Better information needs to be out there.
Do we have a vision of what we could or should do? Know your subject roll 
up your pants and wade in, keep an open objective mind.  Look at all the 
evidence, then go forward. Don’t depend on the popular media for accurate 
information. Don’t accept reports or studies at their face value. Know how 
the game is played.  Work cooperatively but be willing to play hard ball. 
Realize that not everyone shares your passion or view. Localize or 
personalize issues.