Water-quality control: fill in the gaps

Suppose President Obama had told Iran: you need to halt your development of weapons-grade nuclear fuel. We won’t monitor your progress in that regard, nor is there any timetable you must meet.

Or suppose the state of Iowa had told local school districts: you need to improve the education of your students. There’s no particular standard requirement for any individual district, and there’s no target date by which you need to improve.

Or suppose the state were to tell a business prospect: we want you to expand in Iowa. Here’s a sizable pot of state money. There’s no particular hiring target you must meet, and no date by which you have to expand your employment.

Or suppose the state were to tell all of us: you owe income taxes. You decide what you should pay, and do it on your own schedule.

Those examples are pretty much like what the state of Iowa has told Iowa farmers regarding the impact of their fertilizer practices.

Nutrient degradation of the waters of the state, and downstream all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, is a universally accepted fact. It’s not like climate change, which a minority still insists is a myth. No one doubts that nitrogen and phosphorous runoff and seepage damage the water quality of creeks, rivers and lakes.

There are still a few arguments made over the sources of the degradation: a few claim that golf courses, city lawns, and geese are major causes of water pollution. But scientific research, and common sense, indicate that “non-point” sources in Iowa, those would be farms — are the main cause.

In May 2013 Iowa State University released its lengthy and detailed study in connection with the multi-million dollar state-authorized Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

The study found that 93 percent of the nitrogen pollution and 79 percent of the phosphorous pollution in the Mississippi River down to the Gulf came from non-point sources.

The study calls for a 45 percent reduction in degradation of water from nitrogen and phosphorous. Municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities, of course, for many years have been required to meet specific targets for contamination reduction in their effluents. There are serious penalties for failure.

How did the state respond to the study?

Iowa State did extensive research into best farming practices for reducing water pollution, citing percentages of improvement that could be obtained by each, down to the tenths of a percent. Those findings were incorporated into the report. The report was adopted by the state.

But, unlike nuclear fuel control requirements, or school improvements, or economic development grants, or tax law, no statewide monitoring of watersheds was put in place. Nor are there any time limits by which certain minimum standards must be met. Participation by farmers in the practices recommended in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy is voluntary.

Would Iran reduce its weapons-grade nuclear capability without verification or a timetable? Would all of Iowa’s schools meet improvement goals without a ticking clock or without some form of testing? Would all business grant recipients live up to their potential without target dates and employment goals? Would we all pay taxes without deadlines and definitions of taxable income?

If all farmers practiced some of the techniques the Iowa State study recommends, and had done so for the past few years, and if the results were monitored statewide, the improvement in the state’s waters would be big news.

Fortunately there are a number of farmers who employ best practices in the control of nitrogen and phosphorous. Several Greene County farmers have received awards in recent years for doing exactly that. They have done so on their own, without state requirements. They deserve commendation and applause.

Many ag-related agencies and organizations are urging farmers to up their game in control of fertilizer usage and methods. That’s a good thing too. It’s in the interest of the entire state to encourage nutrient handling improvement.

But without scientific monitoring to see how the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (now called the Water Quality Initiative) is working, and without target dates for quality improvement, the prospect for major pollution reduction is dicey.

One of Ronald Reagan’s best-known comments is “Trust but Verify”. He said it in connection with nuclear arms talks with the Soviet Union back in the 1980s. It made sense then, and it makes sense now.