Des Moines Register
02/12/06
No clear solutions to state's tainted water
By PERRY BEEMAN
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
Many Iowa rivers are seriously polluted — dying before their time — and
environmental rules that would force a massive new cleanup effort promise to
affect Iowans' pocketbooks, river outings and fishing trips.
Pollution means Iowans pay higher water and sewer bills for treatment costs.
Pollution means dark and sometimes smelly waters under John Wenck's kayak
as he paddles along the Des Moines River.
Pollution threatens to worsen the luck of the 500,000 people who fish in Iowa
each year, including fly-fisherman Steve Veysey, who has fought hard to protect
the cold-stream treasures of northeast Iowa. The state spends $2.5 million a year
to stock fish in lakes and rivers, in part because some species don't reproduce
well in the silt-bottomed waters.
But change won't come without a fight.
Rules passed in January by state environmental regulators — after eight years of
debate — set new limits on pollutants such as bacteria, which can threaten the
health of people and animals, and ammonia, which is toxic to fish and aquatic
plants.
Last week, however, state lawmakers began discussing a bill that would block
the changes.
The rules come three decades after the 1972 federal Clean Water Act demanded
that all rivers be protected for recreation and aquatic life, unless studies show
that's impossible. Since that act became law, Iowa has bowed to pressure from
city sewage-treatment operators who maintained the changes would cost too
much. Consequently, the state is one of the last in the nation to protect waters so
they are "fishable and swimmable," as required.
The impact of the new rules in Iowa would be wide-ranging.
From Polk City to Pomeroy, cities would scramble to reduce ammonia and
bacteria in a sewage-plant construction spree that could cost hundreds of
millions of dollars. Many cities say the spending won't be worth it, because 90
percent of the pollution is coming from farms and yards unregulated by the new
rules.
But the move could boost Iowa's tourism industry because cleaner waters are
better recreational draws.
More than 30 years of dirty water
Political opposition and cost concerns for more than three decades have kept
state environmental workers from moving Iowa into compliance with Clean Water
Act requirements.
The Environmental Protection Commission, a group of nine citizens appointed by
the governor who establish policies on Iowa's environmental-protection efforts,
last month voted to increase protections for the rivers as the act envisioned.
Iowa is one of the final six states to come into compliance with the federal act,
said John Reyna of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regional office in
Kansas City, Kan. He couldn't name the others. Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska
made the move in the past several years.
"To my knowledge, there is no state that is out of compliance like Iowa is," said
Albert Ettinger, a Chicago lawyer who follows Clean Water Act cases and is
representing Iowa environmental groups.
For years, Iowa's rules have assumed that some rivers were too polluted to save.
The Clean Water Act requires the opposite assumption: That all rivers should be
protected for recreation and aquatic life, unless research shows it can't be done.
Iowans missed out on a chance to get federal money for much of the sewer work
because the state didn't set the required standards in the 1970s, when many
other states did, Ettinger said.
"Iowa basically missed the gravy train," he said.
"I have no idea what they were thinking in Iowa."
A major political battle
Environmental activists such as Susan Heathcote began pushing the state eight
years ago to revise its standards to comply with the Clean Water Act, the linchpin
of the federal government's river-cleaning apparatus.
If lawmakers decide to block the state environmental commission's rules, groups
such as the nonprofit Iowa Environmental Council, for which Heathcote works,
are likely to sue the EPA and demand that it enforce the Clean Water Act.
In similar cases, federal judges have consistently backed the tighter limits.
But in the past month, the state environmental commission's decision to pursue
stricter water quality rules has renewed a decades-long battle at the Statehouse.
The rules drew an unusually high 381 written comments from residents.
Groups representing industries and municipalities last week began a campaign to
try to block many of the requirements.
"This feels like another example of the department trying to move ahead on
something that people are concerned about, and then there is this ganging up on
them," state Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, told a legislative committee.
It wouldn't be the first time the groups have successfully blocked the state from
imposing stricter water-quality standards. Although the state has tightened limits
on some pollutants in the past decade, the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources has withdrawn several proposals over the past decade or so under
pressure from cities. However, the state now faces an almost certain federal
court battle if it doesn't set the new limits.
"What I hope is understood by all is the fact that ignoring this duty is not an
option," Iowa DNR Director Jeff Vonk wrote to lawmakers last month before the
legislative session began.
"Iowa's water-quality standards need to be revised to come into compliance with
the federal Clean Water Act," or EPA will decide the rules itself. That could mean
higher fines and more bureaucracy for cities.
Water quality's broad impact on Iowans
Wenck, who paddles the Des Moines River a couple of times a week, even in
winter, welcomes the new cleanup effort. He's planning a trip down the entire
Iowa length of the Des Moines to rally Iowans to treat their rivers with more care.
"Anything I can do to get people talking about kayaking and clean water," said
Wenck, who is from Des Moines.
It's a serious debate in a state where rivers carry some of the highest levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the world, according to Iowa State University. The
Raccoon River, a water source for the Des Moines area, on average carries
bacteria at levels 14 times the federal limit for human contact — and routinely
has concentrations several times higher than those recorded in New Orleans
after Hurricane Katrina hit.
Clean up that bacteria, and Iowa could be a big tourism draw, said Nate
Hoogeveen of Des Moines, a kayaker who wrote a book about Iowa's rivers and
who now works for the DNR.
"If we were able to have very clean water, Iowa would be a river destination for
many people," Hoogeveen said. "But people need to be able to to be comfortable
that they don't face a health threat. You stop on a sandbar for lunch, wipe your
hands on your ankles and start eating, and you may have a problem."
Clean water can be good for business and for quality of life, too.
An Iowa State University study found that areas with strong recreation offerings
have faster-rising incomes — a sign that businesses find the area to their liking.
Another ISU study, this one of Clear Lake — a top Iowa vacation destination —
found that people would increase their visits to the lake if it were cleaner. The
study also found that lake visitors considered water quality more important even
than the distance to the lake or the other activities in the area.
Environmental debate for the ages
Wayne Gieselman, the state's environmental protection chief, called this one of
the biggest environmental debates in state history.
"Virtually everyone will be affected," Gieselman said. That's because 1,500
sewage treatment plants in cities, mobile-home parks, subdivisions and at
industrial plants will have to upgrade or at least change their operations to meet
the rules. Residents pay through water and sewer bills, which could rise $35 to
$40 a month in many towns.
Polk City administrator Gary Mahannah is looking at an $8 million plan to hook
his growing Des Moines suburb to the Des Moines regional sewer system. Polk
City's old sewage lagoons feed treated waste into Saylorville Lake. The water
that flows into the lake meets current standards, but likely would not meet new
limits.
The tab for the conversion, without figuring in interest or annual expenses, would
be roughly $2,800 for each person in the town, spread over an undetermined
amount of time.
The rules also would affect animal confinements and feedlots, some of which
face legal actions for fish kills and stream pollution that occurred during the past
couple of months, Vonk said. The rules would not affect grain farms and other
agricultural operations that account for 90 percent of river pollution in Iowa,
according to Vonk's DNR staff.
But Vonk said the state needs stricter water quality rules to begin the cleanup,
while working with farmers to get them enrolled in voluntary conservation
programs that can help cut runoff pollution.
Substandard sewage treatment "needs to stop," Vonk said. "This sets us down a
path of doing something about it."
Clean rivers: Worth the cost?
Opponents, including retired Ames engineer Harris Seidel, contend that the cost
of up to $1 billion or more to upgrade sewage treatment plants is not worth the
marginal improvement it will create in water quality.
The Iowa League of Cities, the Iowa Rural Water Association and various farm
groups are concerned that the rules will end up costing Iowans too much
because of expensive sewage-treatment plant upgrades.
Julie Smith of the Iowa League of Cities said municipalities want to help clean
waterways, but without breaking the bank.
Those concerns have made a splash at the Statehouse for years.
State Rep. Sandra Greiner, R-Keota, who chairs the House Environmental
Protection Committee, said the state has been held back by tight budgets and
concerns over taxpayers' wallets. "A lot of it was the budget crunch," Greiner
said.
Iowa faces a tough call, Greiner said.
"There is a considerable risk to human health," she said. "We need to find a way
to help communities get where they need to be without breaking the bank or the
bank accounts of their citizens."
Another key lawmaker, Sen. Mary Lundby, R-Marion, told the government
associations to meet with environmentalists to work out a compromise.
"I'd like to see clean water in my lifetime," Lundby said.
Iowa: Bowing to political pressure?
One environmental scientist said the reasons Iowa hasn't cleaned its waters are
clear.
"I chalk it all up to politics," said Richard Kelley, a state laboratory worker who
has studied water quality here for 25 years.
"Iowans never want to be the first or last in anything; they want to be set in the
middle in everything," Kelley said. "In water quality, historically, they've been
much more attuned to tolerating pollution than protecting the natural resources.
They've never been able to make the link between high water quality and
economic development."
The cost of doing nothing is high, Kelley said.
"You are not going to get recreation without a clean environment," said Kelley.
"No one wants to go skiing on a mud flow," Kelley said. "You pay for the fact that
people who do know the difference are not likely to come here and expand a
business or raise a family, or start a new business."