Voluntarily Polluting Our Water
- Diane Rosenberg
- Jul 25
- 13 min read
14 Ways Iowa Is Really Messing Up
by Diane Rosenberg | Executive Director
Recently, a friend asked how the Iowa state legislature or governor have impeded the work of the DNR and other agencies in cleaning up air and water borne toxins that may be causing Iowa’s increasing cancer rate.
After 18 years of working on CAFO issues, a whole laundry list of impediments rolled off the tip of my tongue.
Numerous studies link high nitrate levels to a variety of cancers. And this major agricultural state has the second highest rate of cancer in the nation and is one of two states where the number of cases is rising.
Water quality is in the news this summer. High nitrate levels are affecting drinking water in Central Iowa, a new Polk County water quality report links 80% of nitrate pollution to agriculture, and too many beaches are unswimmable just when we need to cool off in this blistering heat.
Given all that, I thought this is a good time to spotlight some of the ways I see our state government failing us.
1. The Nutrient Reduction Strategy (NRS) is Voluntary and Nitrate Pollution is Increasing
The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone is an algae-choked area created by high nitrate and phosphorus concentrations pouring into the Gulf from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. The algae suck up most or all the oxygen, killing fish and marine life, and damaging Gulf state economies. Last year the Dead Zone was the size of New Jersey.
Twelve states formed the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force (GHTF) in 1997 to develop a strategy to reduce the excess nitrogen and phosphorus. Its most recent set of action plans released in 2008 called for 45% reduction of the Dead Zone by 2035.
Iowa is a member of the GHTF, and it developed and adopted the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (NRS) in 2013 to address our state’s contribution to the Dead Zone. However, for nonpoint sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants, i.e. agriculture, the NRS recommends only voluntary conservation practices to reduce these pollutants.
Keep in mind the NRS determined that 92% of nitrogen and 80% of phosphorus pollution comes from agricultural sources.
In 2019, the Iowa Environmental Council (IEC) released a report examining the effectiveness of the NRS. It found, among other things, Iowa’s nitrate contribution to the Gulf increased by nearly 50% since 2003.
(A study by Chris Jones, Larry Weber, and Keith Schilling found Iowa contributes 55% of the nitrate in the Missouri River, which then feeds into the Mississippi on its way to the Gulf. Yet Iowa comprises just 3.3% of the total land in the Missouri River Watershed, and only 12% of the water.)
IEC analyzed how long it would take the state to achieve the NRS’s goal with the current pace of voluntary adoption of three different conservation practices. It found it would take 93 years using cover crops; 913 years to install wetlands on tile-drained land, and 31,103 years to install bioreactors.
And that’s for just a 45% reduction of the Dead Zone.
Meanwhile, the nitrate, phosphorus, and other pollutants on their way to the Dead Zone are traveling throughout Iowa’s waterways, polluting drinking water, recreational water, and fishing streams.
It’s widely recognized among environmental organizations that the NRS should include mandatory requirements, because a completely voluntary program is not producing satisfactory results. But the state has so far refused to legislate requirements into law.
2. The Clean Water for Iowa Act Could Help Prevent Water Pollution – If the Legislature Allowed It to Move Forward
For two years in a row, Senator Art Staed led an effort to introduce the Clean Water for Iowa Act designed to require EPA Clean Water Act permits for all medium and large CAFOs. It would also mandate water quality monitoring at factory farms to determine and identify pollutants released into waterways, and it includes measures to hold polluters responsible for violations.
The 2024 bill was never assigned to a subcommittee. This year the bill did move a baby step forward with a subcommittee assignment, but legislators never scheduled a public hearing or vote, even though the state has 722 impaired waterways.
Clean Water Act permits would regulate manure application more stringently and federal fines for manure pollution can be steep. This bill could rein in pollutants, but the Iowa State Legislature lacks the will to move it forward. This is a bipartisan problem with both Democrats and Republicans refusing take meaningful action on water quality.
3. The CAFO Moratorium Bill Also Hasn’t Budged an Inch
A factory farm moratorium bill has been introduced every year since 2018. Sixty-three percent of Iowans support a moratorium, but it has yet to even be assigned to a subcommittee.
A factory farm moratorium, until there were fewer than 100 impaired waterways, could provide an incentive to get CAFO pollution under control, provide opportunities for alternative farming methods like hoop house operations and pasture raised hogs, and encourage the implementation of more widespread conservation practices.
But Big Ag has too much influence in Des Moines, and legislators have refused to move this bill forward.
4. The DNR Primarily Enforces CAFO Regulations with….Coaching
In the past, the DNR would more frequently issue fines for violating CAFO regulations. But when Governor Terry Branstad returned to office in 2011, Wayne Gieselman, a respected DNR environmental regulator, was pushed out of office, and the agency shifted towards Branstad’s voluntary compliance approach. Now it leans heavily on “coaching for compliance.”
Coaching for compliance entails a DNR field officer advising a polluter on how to correct a violation and avoid a future incident. A Letter of Deficiency (LOD) or Notice of Violation (NOV) is issued with no accompanying fines.
JFAN’s review of CAFO violations between 2012-2024 found that 1907 LODs and 2285 NOV’s were issued, but only 165 fines were levied – 4% of all the violations that occurred.
Financial penalties serve as an incentive to prevent further violations and protect the environment. But the DNR’s lax approach does little to incentivize environmental protections.
5. The Few Fines that Are Issued Are Paltry
The largest fine the DNR can issue is $10,000 unless the agency refers a case to the Iowa Attorney General for a larger penalty. The DNR referred a whopping six violations to the State AG since 2012.
JFAN reviewed a total of 30 enforcement actions over a 13-month period from 2023-2024. We found that a majority of fines were in the $500-$5000 range (23 out of 30 or 77%).
That’s little more than the cost of doing business.
The last time the state legislature established violation fines was in 1992. It hasn’t raised the penalty levels for 33 years. If the state even just adjusted the fines to correspond with yearly inflation, the DNR could issue fines up to $23,000 per incident. Those violators who fell in the $500-$5,000 category would instead have to pay $1,145 - $11,456.
If the Clean Water for Iowa Act were to pass, the EPA could levy much higher fines. Civil penalties could be as high as $11,000 per day for negligence and as high as $50,000 per day for knowingly violating regulations. A penalty could also entail the cost of restoration and mitigation measures to remedy the environmental damage and, in some cases, imprisonment.
Now that’s incentive.
6. Little Is Being Done to Clean Up Iowa’s Waterways
Iowa has 722 impaired waterways that fall into two different categories. A Category 4 waterway is impaired but doesn’t (yet) require a plan to remedy the pollution. Category 5 waterways are bad enough to require a remediation plan to be developed and submitted to the EPA.
Of Iowa’s 722 polluted waters, 597 are in Category 5 and need such a plan called a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Since 2020, the DNR submitted only 14 TMDL’s covering 35 water segments to the EPA, an average of 10 segments a year.
At this rate, it would take 60 years to develop all the plans needed to clean up the current level of Category 5 waterways, not even considering the time it would take to implement those plans.
The Iowa state legislature could provide additional DNR funding to significantly increase staff to work with communities to develop TMDLs. It has yet to do so.
7. The DNR Doesn’t Completely Know Where Manure Is Applied
CAFOs with 1250 hogs or more are required to submit manure management plans (MMPs) to the DNR. They list all the fields that will receive manure calculated at the appropriate rates per crop. These, however, are considered just plans subject to change.
The DNR has yet to enter the 21st century with a computerized system that actually tracks and measures where and when manure is applied. MMPs are all paper based.
This makes it very difficult for the DNR to really know where manure is being spread, when, and if it’s exceeding the crop’s need. Manure overapplication is a major factor in Iowa’s poor water quality.
State regulations protect CAFO owners by keeping application records private, making it difficult for the DNR and the public to know if manure is being applied in the correct amounts.
One problem that surfaces with a paper system is that fields can often wind up in multiple MMPs. Take a look at JFAN’s Jefferson County map of CAFOs and fields receiving manure, and you’ll see numerous fields in in multiple plans, especially in Penn Township.
CAFO owners are left to negotiate who is applying manure to which field in a particular year. But when you have fields in anywhere between 3-5 manure management plans, it’s impossible for the DNR to know what’s really happening, even if the DNR had the staff or interest to track that information.
There is little oversight, and the DNR informed JFAN on several occasions that CAFO owners/operators are trusted to “do the right thing.” This mostly falls to community members to notice if there is a manure spill or runoff.
A computerized, GPS-based reporting and database system to track fields and report manure applications in real time would enable the DNR to better oversee, catch and enforce any violations. This was repeatedly recommended to the DNR by JFAN, the Iowa Environmental Council, and others during the recent Chapter 65 rules review, but the agency resists.
8. CAFOs with Fewer than 1250 Hogs Don’t Even Need to Submit MMPs
Small CAFOs, called SAFOs (small animal feeding operations) have minimal regulations. Since MMPs are not required, the DNR often doesn’t know where those factory farms are built nor which fields get their manure. SAFOs can even apply manure onto snow and frozen ground during the winter, a practice that just about guarantees runoff.
During a presentation at the 2017 Iowa Groundwater Association, the DNR estimated there were about 4,000 SAFOs in Iowa.** SAFOs have no separation distances required from residences, schools, or churches. In Washington County, for example, a SAFO was built 173’ away from its neighbor’s home.
In Iowa, the number of confined hogs considered a SAFO is larger than what the EPA defines as a small confinement. The federal government defines anything up to 300 animal units – 750 hogs – as a SAFO. But the Iowa state legislature bumped that limit up to 500 animal units, or 1250 hogs.
If the state used the same standard as the EPA, nearly all Iowa CAFOs would require a manure management plan, providing more environmental protections for water and separation distance protection for neighbors.
9. The DNR Doesn’t Have the Authority to Count How Many Hogs Are Reportedly in a Factory Farm
CAFO owners are required to report the number of hogs in their confinements on their manure management plans. Yet the state doesn’t allow the DNR to actually check to see if that’s true.
Most CAFOs report they confine 2480, 2490, or even 2499 hogs in order to slide under the requirements for large CAFOs – 2500 head or more. Large CAFOs require a construction permit, Master Matrix in most counties, and larger separation distances.
This is especially problematic because SAFOs may confine more than 1250 hogs, avoiding required manure management plans and separation distances required for a medium size factory farm.
I raised this issue with former DNR Animal Feeding Operations Coordinator Gene Tinker over 10 years ago. Tinker said the DNR knows many CAFOs are overstocked, sometimes by as many as 100 animals, but the state laws prevent the agency from visiting a factory farm and doing a head count.
JFAN recommended changes to the state’s regulations during the Chapter 65 rules review that would at least require CAFO owners or operators to provide the DNR with delivery orders recording the number of hogs sent to a confinement, but that recommendation was ignored.
10. JFAN Gave the DNR a Way to Fix the LLC Loophole – They Didn’t
For years, JFAN has addressed the LLC loophole with the DNR. This loophole enables CAFO owners who have ownership in two or more adjacent confinements to put them in different LLC names and be regulated as smaller, individual operations rather than one larger, jointly owned factory farm.
The loophole allows CAFO owners to then bypass permitting, the Master Matrix, larger separation distances and, in some cases, even manure management plans.
The DNR tried to close this loophole in 2019. It defined adjacent CAFOs as one larger confinement if the LLC owner(s) hold a 10% or more share of each confinement. But the agency failed to require the correct legal documentation to report ownership. I’ve seen the DNR accept a one-line letter as proof.
During the recent Chapter 65 rules review, the DNR asked us what kind of documentation would serve as sufficient legal verification. After talking with several attorneys, we learned that a document called an Operating Agreement is set up when an LLC is established that lists the percentage one or more individuals own in an LLC.
JFAN and other organizations strongly advocated that the DNR require an Operating agreement to address the loophole during the rulemaking process. But the DNR did not incorporate what would have been an effective solution to this ongoing problem.
11. The State Gutted Funding for Water Quality Monitoring
In 2023, the Iowa State Legislature cut $500,000 in funding for the Iowa Water Quality Information System (IWQIS), which provided real time monitoring for 75 sites across the state for nitrate, phosphorus and other pollutants. The move was GOP retaliation against now retired IQWIS manager Dr. Chris Jones who wrote candidly about agriculture’s impact on water quality in his former University of Iowa blog.
(Jones still writes about Iowa’s water crisis here.)
For the last two years, IWQIS operated at a reduced capacity with some funding coming from the Iowa Nutrient Research Center, but the remaining 60 sensors are scheduled to be shut down in 2026.
IQWIS was initially implemented to measure progress of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Iowa will lose that with the shuttering of IQWIS.
From 1998 – 2016, the DNR trained and equipped volunteers around the state to test and measure water quality of rivers and streams through the IOWATER Program. The state legislature ended IOWATER after a long battle with budget cuts.
Every two years Iowa is required to submit a list of impaired waterways to the EPA. Every two years only half the waters are tested in the state, and half of those wind up on the impaired list. Shuttering IOWATER reduced testing and cutting IQWIS will provide even less information and transparency about the state of our waterways.
12. CAFO Regulations Can’t Be Strengthened, but They Can Be Weakened
Governor Kim Reynolds issued Executive Order Number 10 (EO10) in 2024 in order to reduce the number and restrictiveness of regulations across all state agencies. EO10 also prevents any strengthening of regulations.
At Governor Reynolds’ bidding, the State Legislature then codified EO10 by passing SF 2370 that same year.
This has serious implications for CAFO regulations and subsequent impacts on the environment, water quality, and public health. JFAN, the Iowa Environmental Council, and other organizations repeatedly identified and recommended critical improvements to Chapter 65 rules and regulations during periodic rules reviews, a tiny fraction of which were adopted. But EO10 and SF 2370 now prevents any future improvements.
Unfortunately for the people of Iowa, Big Ag has a heavy footprint in Des Moines.
13. The DNR Allows Much More Nitrogen to Be Applied to Fields than a Crop Needs
In 2006, researchers from six corn belt universities developed a calculator that determines the economically optimum amount of nitrogen for growing corn called the Maximum Return to Nitrogen (MRTN). Using the amount calculated by the MRTN helps to prevent excess nitrogen from leaving fields and winding up in our waterways.
The problem is that not only does the DNR not require farmers to use the MRTN, but it also allows for CAFO manure to be applied at rates exceeding the MRTN.
A 2017-2019 survey of farmers by the Iowa Nutrient Research and Education Council found they applied on average 30 pounds of fertilizer over the MRTN recommendation.
According to research by Chris Jones, Philip Gassman and Keith E. Schilling, farmers in the Floyd River Watershed applied fertilizer over twice the rate of MRTN rates, and in the North Raccoon River watershed, they exceeded MRTN rates by 140%.
High nitrogen rates from manure can also be associated with phosphorus rates exceeding crop needs. All these excess pollutants wind up in Iowa’s lakes, rivers, streams, and in its drinking water.
During the recent rulemaking session, recommendations were repeatedly made – and ignored – to require the MRTN to be used in calculating nitrogen application levels.
14. Funding for the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Was Gutted in 2017
For 30 years, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture was a nationwide beacon for research and leadership in sustainable agriculture and conservation. The Center lost all state funding in 2017 when the legislature shifted those funds over to the Iowa Nutrient Research Center.
The Center’s work in sustainable agriculture reportedly was unpopular with agribusinesses and Iowa State University, a land grant institution with a strong focus on industrial and production agriculture and recipient of agribusiness grants (also see here, here, and here).
The Leopold Center sponsored over 500 grants in wide range of agricultural areas with 75-85% of the state’s nutrient reduction strategies coming through the Center. The Center still operates but at a reduced capacity with funding from private donors. It’s ability to provide cutting-edge strategies to help protect Iowa’s waterways is greatly diminished.
_____
This is not a complete list, and a whole book could be written about Iowa’s agricultural failures. Actually, that’s exactly what Chris Jones did. The Swine Republic: Struggles with the Truth about Agriculture and Water Quality dives more deeply into understanding the facts behind Iowa’s abysmal water quality and legislative refusal to address it.
This failure of our state government to reign in agricultural pollutants has significant consequences for Iowans. While cancer can be attributed to a number of causes, its links to nitrate can’t be deflected or ignored. It’s time for our elected officials to stop turning a blind eye to agriculture’s contribution to our filthy water and its impact on public health.
If we want something better for ourselves, our families and loved ones, it will be up to us to make water quality an election issue that legislators can no longer ignore.
** The 4000 SAFO reference can be found on page 13 of the following DNR presentation:
.