This letter is a satire of DNR’s latest response to the EPA’s partial disapproval of Iowa’s 2024 Impaired Waters List. My first impression was that this was a technical dispute with low stakes for water quality and industry. In theory, adding waters to the 303(d) list can result in stricter permit limits on point sources and open up grants for non-point source projects, but in practice there are many loopholes and backlogs that make that unlikely. However, it still matters whether Iowans are getting honest information about the condition of our waters from the agency charged with protecting them. Iowa DNR’s position is ridiculous and indefensible.
To the attention of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7:
Dear Sir,
In your November letter, you stated that Iowa’s 2024 Impaired Waters List should have included six more river segments that are too polluted by nitrate to fully support drinking water uses. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources strongly disagrees and objects to the implication that Iowa’s water is unsafe, or that DNR is not meeting the letter or the spirit of the Clean Water Act.
Just to be clear, we’re not talking about whether the water is safe for fish or swimming. Toxic algae blooms are a separate issue, for which nitrate is at most a contributing factor. Okay, good we’re on the same page. It’s impossible for most waters to end up on the 303(d) list because of nitrogen or phosphorus pollution, because we still haven’t set numeric criteria to protect aquatic life. The 10 mg/L standard for nitrate applies only to the 61 reservoirs and 18 stretches of river that were designated Class C waters, because they are currently or were historically used as a major source of drinking water.
Ultimately, the goal of EPA and DNR is the same: to ensure that Iowa’s drinking water is safe. It is safe! Well… maybe not for adults. We have the second highest cancer rate in the nation and there is growing evidence that one of the risk factors is long-term exposure to moderate levels of nitrate in drinking water. But nobody is seriously proposing we do anything about that! The issue here is whether tap water is safe for babies, whether nitrate-nitrogen is below the Maximum Contaminant Level of 10 mg/L, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I’m happy to say that water utilities on these six rivers have been able meet that standard by either:
Mixing high-nitrate river water with low-nitrate water from wells and reservoirs
Asking customers to cut back on water use during times when the reservoir has a toxic algae bloom
Drilling enough wells so they no longer have to use any river water
What, you don’t think giving up on polluted rivers is consistent with the spirit of the Clean Water Act? Hey, if it works… Oskaloosa switched its water source from surface water to an alluvial aquifer years ago, and those wells usually have low nitrate levels. That means that even though we’re still legally required to assess nitrate in the South Skunk River, we no longer have any practical reason to worry about it! Granted, alluvial aquifers are still susceptible to contamination from the adjacent river. Cedar Rapids recently saw nitrate in their wells rise to 9 mg/L, but we’re crossing our fingers that it doesn’t get worse.
Let’s get back to the main issue under dispute. We’re not talking about water quality in 2024, we’re talking about the assessment that we released in 2024, which uses water quality data from 2020-2022. The silver lining of a multi-year drought is lower nitrate levels in the rivers! We are not talking about whether a single sample of river water exceeds 10 mg/L, we’re talking about whether 10% of the samples exceed 10 mg/L.
Sure, a single sample of finished tap water exceeding the 10 mg/L MCL for nitrate would constitute a Tier I violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring public notice and corrective action. However, so long as that corrective action is needed less than 36 days each year, we think it’s fair for the burden of removing nitrate from the water to fall entirely on drinking water utilities and their customers rather than polluters.
What, you don’t think this 10% threshold for evaluating the source water makes any sense? Well too bad! We’ve gotten away with doing it this way for decades and calling us on it now would violate the no-take-backsies clause of the Administrative Procedures Act. You’ve made the mistake of focusing on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law and we can argue about which pollutants go on which list, which list can be assessed using the 10% binomial statistical exceedance approach, and what hoops you need to jump through to change anything until babies are blue in the face!
Should this arbitrary and capricious abuse of federal authority stand, we might someday have to write a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) explaining why it’s impossible to clean up nitrate in the South Skunk River, Des Moines River, and Iowa River. If you carefully read the TMDLs and permits that we’ve already prepared for the Cedar River and Raccoon River watersheds, you’ll see that would be a waste of our limited staff time and paper.
Nitrate in drinking water is under control. Please stop talking about it. If we must talk about nitrate, we prefer the discussion be framed around Gulf Hypoxia and the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, because that makes the problem seem far away and less urgent.
In November, the EPA partially approved Iowa’s 2024 Impaired Waters List, adding six additional river segments where drinking water use is impaired by high nitrate levels. I think EPA was right to do this, but I have some concerns. This is the letter I submitted during the public comment period.
Dear Water Division Staff,
I agree with the EPA’s decision to add seven river segments to Iowa’s impaired waters list. I hope that this change will lead to greater transparency about how nitrate pollution of surface waters affects the cost and safety of drinking water, but am concerned there will be unintended consequences.
Iowa’s Credible Data Law has sometimes been a convenient excuse to assess fewer waters, and thereby discover fewer problems. However, that doesn’t seem to be the issue here. Each of the water bodies on this list had at least one “credible” nitrate sample exceeding the 10 mg/L drinking water standard during the three year assessment period.
Raccoon River near Des Moines: 38 of 755 samples collected by Des Moines Water Works exceeded 10 mg/L
Cedar River near Cedar Rapids: 1 of 36 samples collected by the USGS, and 7 of 151 samples collected by Cedar Rapids Water Works
As I understand it, the issue is the threshold for impairment. Since fewer than 10% of the samples (accounting for some statistical correction factor) exceeded 10 mg/L, IDNR says these sites meet the standard. EPA says they do not.
The Iowa DNR’s position is not defensible. In the draft 2024 assessment, Raccoon River near Des Moines was shown as fully supporting its designated use for drinking water because
A) Nitrate in the Raccoon River exceeded 10 mg/L nitrate less than 10% of the time during the 2020-2022 assessment period
B) Nitrate in finished drinking water at the Des Moines Waterworks never exceeded 10 mg/L.
This makes no sense. Even one sample exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate would constitute a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring public notice. To avoid this, the Des Moines Waterworks had to run its nitrate removal facility for weeks in 2022 at a cost of $10,000 a day, as well as blending water from other sources and asking residents to reduce water use. Clearly, poor water quality is limiting that beneficial use of the river water!
However, the South Skunk River no longer supplies drinking water to the City of Oskaloosa. The City now gets its water from an alluvial aquifer, and is able to achieve low levels of nitrate in finished water (1.17 mg/L, in the latest Consumer Confidence report) without expensive treatment. I understand that the Clean Water Act does not allow designated uses to be removed if restoring them is still achievable. However, I hope that in prioritizing and writing TMDLs we can be cognizant of facts on the ground. In the unlikely event that a TMDL for the Skunk Skunk River is written and it leads to stricter effluent limits for upstream point sources, we might be imposing real costs on Ames, Story City, and Nevada without achieving real benefits for Oskaloosa.
I am also concerned that disallowing the 10% binomial rule might lead to further politicization of funding for water monitoring. Water quality in rivers is highly variable, and daily or weekly monitoring might pick up on a short-term spike in nitrate that is missed by monthly monitoring. If a single sample can trigger impairment but there are no rules on how often a site has to be monitored, cutting budgets for monitoring programs becomes a tempting way to evade regulation and controversy.
“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.”
– Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
I was reminded of this scene after spending a long day cross-referencing the Raccoon River TMDL (a pollution budget for nitrate and E. coli) with permits and monitoring data for wastewater treatment plants. In this case, I suspected that polluters were getting away with something, but I’ve had just as much trouble finding information when I wanted to document a success story.
Effluent limits for nitrogen are not strict. Wastewater treatment plants and meatpacking plants in the Raccoon River watershed routinely discharge treated wastewater with nitrate 4-6x the drinking water standard. Why is this allowed? The 2008 Raccoon River TMDL capped pollution from point sources at the existing level, rather than calling for reductions. Due to limited data, the wasteload allocations were an over-estimate, assuming maximum flow and no removal during treatment.
That’s all above board, but someone else at the DNR went a step further. Wasteload allocations in the TMDL were further inflated by a factor of two or three to arrive at effluent limits in the permits, using a procedure justified in an obscure interdepartmental memo. The limits are expressed as total Kjeldahl nitrogen, even though the authors of the TMDL made it clear that other forms of nitrogen are readily converted to nitrate during treatment and in the river. In short, the limits in the permit allow more nitrogen to be discharged than normally comes in with the raw sewage!
For example:
The Storm Lake sewage treatment plant has an effluent limit of 2,052 lbs/day total Kjeldahl nitrogen (30-day avg). Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in the raw sewage is around 1000 lbs/day.
The Tyson meatpacking plant in Storm Lake has an effluent limit of 6,194 lbs/day total Kjeldahl nitrogen (30-day avg). Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in the raw influent is around 4,000 lbs/day.
I also checked a permit affected by the (now withdrawn) Cedar River TMDL. Same story. The Cedar Falls sewage treatment plant has an effluent limit of 1,303 lbs/day total nitrogen (30-day avg). Average total nitrogen in the raw sewage is between 1000-1500 lbs/day.
Confused about the units? That may be deliberate. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen includes ammonia and nitrogen in organic matter. Nitrogen in raw sewage is mostly in these forms, which need to converted to nitrate or removed with the sludge in order to meet other limits and avoid killing fish. Nitrogen in treated effluent is mostly in the form of nitrate. At the Tyson plant, the effluent leaving the plant has around 78 mg/L nitrate, versus 4 mg/L TKN, but figuring that out required several calculations. At smaller plants, the data to calculate nitrate pollution isn’t even collected.
As part of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, large point source polluters are supposed to evaluate the feasibility of reducing nitrate to 10 mg/L, and phosphorus to 1 mg/L. Tyson did a feasibility study for phosphorus removal, and is now adding new treatment to its Storm Lake plant. However, it is not required to evaluate or implement further nitrogen reduction, “because it is already subject to a technology-based limit from the ELG.” This federal Effluent Limitation Guideline was challenged in court by environmental groups this year, and is now being revised by the EPA. It allows meatpacking plants to discharge a daily maximum of 194 mg/L total nitrogen!
Fortunately, all this creative permitting has little impact on the cost and safety of drinking water in the Des Moines metro. According to research in the TMDL, point sources only account for about 10% of the nitrogen load, on days when nitrate in the Raccoon River exceeds the drinking water standard. However, the figure is much higher (30%) for the North Raccoon River. I started looking at permits and effluent monitoring because I was trying to explain some unusual data from nitrate sensors, brought to my attention by friends with the Raccoon River Watershed Association. During a fall with very little rain (less than 0.04 inches in November at Storm Lake), nitrate in the North Raccoon River near Sac City remained very high (8 to 11 mg/L). The two largest point sources upstream of that site can easily account for half the nitrogen load during that period.
I was glad to be able to solve a mystery, and hope that this investigation can lead to some tools and teaching materials to help others identify when and where point sources could be influencing rivers. The load-duration curves in the 200-page Raccoon River TMDL are very good, but some people might benefit from something simpler, like this table. In general, the bigger the facility, the smaller the river, and the drier the weather, the more point sources of pollution can influence water quality, and the more wastewater treatment projects can make a difference.
I made this table to estimate how biological nutrient removal in Nevada and Oskaloosa (about 1 MGD each) could improve water quality in the South Skunk River (about 1000 cfs on average near Oskaloosa, but there could be greater benefit in tributaries, or when rivers are lower).
In this work, I’m supported by partners around the state and a grant from the Water Foundation. The project (Movement Infrastructure for Clean Water in Iowa) focuses on building connections and shared tools around water monitoring, and will continue through this spring and summer. The funders’ interest is in helping the environmental movement make the most of the “once-in-generation opportunity” presented by the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This fiscal year, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is adding $28 million to Iowa’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides low-interest loans to communities to replace aging sewer systems and treatment plants. Can that infrastructure spending help Iowa’s polluted rivers? We won’t know for sure without better use of water quality data, and greater transparency in state government.
Prairie Rivers of Iowa is not the sort of environmental group that follows the goings on at the state capitol (that would be our friends at the Iowa Environmental Council) but the success of our watershed projects is very much affected by state and federal policy. A big part of our work is environmental education, but often “is a river still polluted and what can we do about it” is a legal and political question as much as a scientific question. I hope this tricky case study from the Cedar River will illustrate why we need more people to learn about and talk about environmental policy to make it more transparent, fair, and effective.
My New Year’s resolution for 2023 is to write fewer long articles like this one and more bite-sized lessons. For the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, we’ll be sharing 50 short facts (one a week) on social media about that important and complicated law. Here are the first five:
1) The Clean Water Act (CWA) is 50 years old but it still has a big influence on how we evaluate and protect water quality in rivers and lakes.
2) The Clean Water Act is a federal law but is implemented at the state level, with oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In Iowa, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for issuing permits, setting standards, and assessing the condition of rivers and lakes.
3) The Clean Water Act requires public notice and public comment for many decisions. Staff at environmental agencies read and take seriously public comments, so it’s worth speaking up and having your voice heard.
4) The Clean Water Act also gives concerned citizens the standing to file suit if there is an ongoing violation that hasn’t been enforced, or if the Environmental Protection Agency is not fulfilling its mandatory duties.
5) Decisions by courts and federal agencies can come into conflict with state legislatures, which control the budgets for state agencies. For example, in Iowa there are over 700 river segments and lakes on the waiting list for a cleanup plan, because Department for Natural Resources doesn’t have enough staff to keep up with it.
We can sum that up with the old saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
In November, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) made the unusual decision to withdraw a cleanup plan (or TMDL) for nitrate in a part of the Cedar River that supplies drinking water to Cedar Rapids. Click here for the original plan, here for the public notice of its withdrawal, and here for the Iowa Environmental Council’s response, which provides some valuable context. TMDL stands for “Total Maximum Daily Load.” TMDLs are pollution budgets that explain where pollution is coming from and how much needs to be reduced in order to protect fisheries, drinking water, or recreation in an impaired river or lake. They are often used to set permit conditions for upstream sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities.
There is a joke that TMDL stands for “Too Many D*** Lawyers.” Most state agencies ignored the part of the Clean Water Act dealing with TMDLs until a series of lawsuits by environmental groups in the 1990s. The Cedar River TMDL was actually written under a court order in 2006. The TMDL estimated that only 9% of the nitrogen in the Cedar River watershed was coming from regulated point sources of pollution like sewage treatment plants and factories. Most of the reductions would need to come from agriculture, through voluntary conservation programs. Still, the plan called for capping the pollution from point sources at the 2006 amount and not adding any more. However, it seems that the DNR did not follow the TMDL when writing permits over the next decade, and did not enforce permit violations.
One of the most surprising violations is from a drinking water treatment plant in Waverly. I don’t think of drinking water treatment as generating pollution, and maybe that’s why it was initially overlooked. The facility uses reverse osmosis, which gives you cleaner water on one side of the membrane and dirtier water on the other side. The facility has been discharging wastewater with 37.7 mg/L of nitrate into the Shell Rock River (a tributary of the Cedar). When the DNR added a permit condition that nitrate be brought down to 9.5 mg/L, the Iowa Regional Utilities Association protested, claiming that compliance would cost them $1 million. If my math is correct, bringing the facility into compliance would avoid only 5 tons of nitrogen pollution per year. The TMDL calls for a reduction of 9,999 tons per year. Enforcing this permit as written does not seem like a fair or effective way to protect water quality in the river, but I suspect there would be an easy fix if the TMDL were revised.
The Clean Water Act provides two ways to set the limits in a permit. Water quality-based effluent limits reference the pollution budget in a TMDL. They’re only for facilities that discharge to an impaired water body. Technology-based effluent limits are set statewide, based on the level of treatment that’s possible with widely available, not-too-expensive technologies. The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy included new technology-based effluent limits for nitrate and phosphorus, affecting 157 municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems. They must find a way to reduce their total nitrogen by 66% and their total phosphorus by 75% or else complete a feasibility study to show it would be cost-prohibitive to do so. Some facilities are already making the upgrades, some won’t be done until 2027. For the largest point source in the TMDL (the Waterloo sewage treatment plant), that means a reduction of some 333 tons of nitrogen a year.
Of course, most of the nitrate reduction goal for the watershed (9,999 tons) will need to come from agriculture. We don’t know how that’s going because Iowa doesn’t have a current or complete tracking system. The most recent data I could find for cover crops by watershed is 7 years old. At that time, there were not enough acres to make a noticeable difference in water quality in the river.
Side note: The Cedar River starts in Minnesota and has several major tributaries, including the Shell Rock River, West Fork, and Winnebago. It’s a big watershed that usually gets divided into smaller chunks (i.e. there are separate watershed management authorities for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Cedar). The TMDL actually recommended prioritizing conservation in the Upper Cedar, but at some point, the focus got shifted to the Middle Cedar.
Are water quality based-effluent limits still needed? Maybe not, but the frustrating thing about this case is that we get don’t get a revised pollution budget that shows how other strategies will protect drinking water in Cedar Rapids. We don’t get a public debate over what’s not working with this law and an opportunity to change it. Instead, we get excuses for why a revised TMDL can’t be done and isn’t needed. Some of those excuses are legitimate: the chronically underfunded DNR has a lot of TMDLs to write and not enough staff to do it. Some of the excuses are flimsy: apparently, the document mishandled nitrogen units in a way that was too subtle for me to notice on the first read-through but serious enough to make the whole thing unworkable.
Another excuse—that the Cedar River is no longer impaired—seemed like a mistake at first but turned out to be technically correct on closer inspection. “No longer impaired” means that fewer than 10% of the samples collected during the last two assessment periods (2016-2018 and 2018-2020) exceeded the drinking water standard. I’ve double-checked this with another source of data and think this assessment holds up, even if we account for weather. It’s just premature. Nitrate was back up in 2022.
Well, you know what they say. You can lead a state agency to water, but they can’t make it drinkable.
(Apologies to my respected colleagues at DNR. I can’t resist a good pun!)
We know that weather influences water quality in Iowa’s rivers. Last year, there was a drought and nitrate was lower than usual. This spring, it’s been wetter and nitrate is higher than usual. If you monitor for 10 years and the first 5 are a little wetter or drier than the last five, you’ll a water quality trend to go with it. Boring!
What we really want to know is how people are influencing water quality. We can get a lot closer to that answer by peeling away the obvious weather-related patterns to reveal underlying trends.
In statistics, it’s called a covariate or an explanatory variable. If there’s a relationship between your water quality metric and some other thing you’re not really interested in (i.e. streamflow), you can model that relationship to account for part of a water quality trend over time. What’s left over might be the things you’re really interested in (i.e. how water quality has been affected by changes in crop rotations, conservation practices, sewage treatment, manure management, and drainage). It’s common enough in the scientific literature (Robert Hirsch’s Weighted Regression on Time, Discharge, and Season is a good example), but should be used more often for progress tracking at the watershed scale.
To illustrate this general approach, I downloaded daily nitrate data from three stations maintained by the US Geologic Survey. The sensors at the Turkey River at Garber and the Cedar River near Palo (north of Cedar Rapids) were installed in late 2012; the sensor Raccoon River near Jefferson was installed in 2008. I wanted a high frequency dataset (to minimize sampling error) that included the episodes of “weather whiplash” in 2013 and 2022.
“Residuals” are the difference between what we predict and what we measured. In the first panel, that’s the difference between a measurement and the long-term average. In the second and third panels, we see how nitrate measurements differ from what we’d expect given flow in the stream today, and flow in the stream last year. Gray dots – daily measurements. Red dots- yearly averages. Blue dotted line – trend. If I did this right, some of the dots should get closer to the middle.
Nitrate concentrations in rivers increase as the weather gets wetter and streamflow increases… up to a point. When rivers are running very high, there’s a dilution effect and nitrate concentrations fall. Based on that relationship, we can explain high nitrate levels in the Cedar River in 2016 (a wet year) and low nitrate levels in 2021 (a dry year).
Nitrate concentrations tends to be highest on wet spring days following a dry summer and fall, as nitrate that accumulated in the soil during the drought is flushed into drainage systems or washed off the land surface and into rivers. Here I’ve calculated a moving average of flow over the previous 365 days, and compared that to nitrate concentrations during high flow or low flow conditions. Based on that relationship, we can explain high nitrate in the Cedar River on wet days in the spring of 2013 and 2022 (following a dry year) and low nitrate on wet days in the spring of 2019 (following a wet year).
After making these adjustments, the downward trend in the Cedar River looks much smaller (0.53 mg/L per year, adjusted to 0.25) and is overtaken by the Turkey River (0.37 mg/L, adjusted to 0.28). The adjusted trends are statistically significant and could be attributed to conservation efforts in those watersheds.
How did I do this? For technical details, read here.
However, there’s still some weather-related patterns we haven’t accounted for. The Raccoon River near Jefferson also had a steep decline in nitrate since 2013 (1.42 mg/L per year, adjusted to 0.77 mg/L per year) but if you look at the entire record (going back to 2008), it’s part of an up-and-down cycle. I’ve seen that same pattern in the South Skunk River. The model explains some of those swings but doesn’t fully explain high nitrate in fall of 2014, spring of 2015 and spring of 2016. Perhaps the nitrogen that accumulated in the soil during the drought of 2012 took several years to flush out.
In addition to streamflow and last year’s weather (antecedent moisture is the technical term), nitrate can be explained by season, soybean acreage, and baseflow. If it’s not enough to know that water quality is improving or getting worse, and you’d also like to know why, then let’s peel that onion!
