Emily Porter of Overland Park, Kansas, a recent biology graduate of Coe College in Cedar Rapids, drops a water sample collector into Indian Creek at Thomas Park in Marion to test the water for suspended particles, bacteria levels, phosphorus and nitrates. (Liz Martin/The Gazette)
I can’t say I thought much about water quality before I moved to Iowa City in the early 1990s. I can remember the moment, dipping my head for a sip from a campus drinking fountain, when I saw the note taped just above the spigot.
There were elevated nitrates in the water supply, the sign warned, potentially dangerous — especially for children. Suddenly, I wasn’t all that thirsty anymore.
That was long before the City of Iowa City’s new water treatment plant, which celebrated its 10th anniversary last week. Back when the municipal water supply came from the Iowa River, not the aquifer; when one of the first things out of people’s mouths when they heard you were moving there (after asking about the Writers’ Workshop), was “Oh, the water there is nasty.”
Seriously. It was that famously bad. But it wasn’t much different in any other Iowa municipality that relied on a river for its water supply, I suppose. Maybe that’s why the news stories about this year’s record-breaking nitrate levels in many Iowa rivers are quick to follow with assurances that the water’s safe to drink. It hasn’t always been so.
BROADER CONCERN
But that quick pivot masks the broader problem.
High levels of nitrogen, most of it fertilizer washed out from the soil in farm fields, can cause explosions of aquatic plant growth, choking out light, reducing levels of dissolved oxygen and affecting water temperature. That nitrogen-laden water flows downstream, through the mouth of the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico, contributing to the growing Dead Zone.
Unusual weather conditions may have led to this year’s exceptional nitrate levels, but the problem, itself, is not exceptional. For decades, we’ve been caught in what Iowa DNR spokesman Kevin Baskins called a “circular firing squad,” with point and non-point polluters each pointing fingers at the other for their contribution.
NEW STRATEGY
That should change with the finalization of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, which has been developed by the Iowa Department of Agriculture, the Iowa DNR and Iowa State University. Is it perfect? No. A big criticism of the current draft, which outlines scientifically proven ways to reduce nutrient runoff into our waterways, is that the agricultural provisions are voluntary, not required.
Not everyone is sure that incentives will be enough to encourage farmers to do the right thing, implementing conservation practices when market forces don’t always reward them. But at least the strategy should put an end to the finger pointing. “It gives a focal point for the rest of us to watch,” Baskins told me. He said he thinks it’s a good starting point, and I’d have to agree.
You can’t blame agriculturalists for opposing regulations that would require best practices in order to make that happen. Who likes more regulations? But if the next few years prove incentives aren’t enough to get ag on board, that’s the direction we’ll have to take.
The bottom line is that for river health, for recreation, and yes, to make sure we’ve got plenty of water safe to drink, we have to substantially reduce the level of nutrients flowing into our waterways — this year and every year.
Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net
