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.