Appendix B: Op-Ed Pieces

Op-ed submission:

If it were the case that cleaning up industrial agriculture’s inherent pollution was as easy as assigning personal responsibility for “burning leaves”, “second hand smoke”, or “pet poop”, I would agree with Bill Leonard’s letter objecting to the Register editorial calling for taxpayers’ help in paying to clean up ag’s pollution (“Why is it the taxpayers’ obligation, not farmers'”, Register 8-13).

But that is not the case. Ag’s pollution is a massive problem with millions of acres of row crops and thousands of confinements and feedlots in Iowa alone. And there are avenues of nutrient pollution, erosion, and flooding coming from this recent industrial model that no conservation practices, however well intentioned, can fix.

Because farmers did not choose this model, I am one who advocates for all of us to share in paying for a “transition” away from this inherently polluting, recent industrial – CAFO – Green Revolution – GMO model of ag that is now dominant.

There was a perfect storm after WWII consisting of Borlaug’s Green Revolution’s need for nitrogen fertilizer, chemical companies needing a market for their bomb-making explosive material (ammonium nitrate – nitrogen), and land grant colleges and universities being taken over by corporate ag input and output companies. Farmers did not understand the flooding, erosion, and perpetual pollution that would become the hallmark of this kind of agriculture. They simply did what land grant colleges and corporate ag interests told them, and sold them, to do.

I advocate for a transition to crops and cropping systems that are available today, that could be adopted into the farm bill today, that would recreate a sponge-like landscape (flooding), and re-perennialize our agriculture (erosion) without sacrificing our ability to feed ourselves or provide for our manufacturing needs. And, those crops and cropping systems would foster a non-polluting (no nutrient pollution), biologically benign and beneficial, soil building agriculture that would mitigate the flooding, erosion, and nutrient pollution inherent in this current industrial model of agriculture (see www.civandinc.net appendix H).

Agriculture is how we as a nation (and the world) feed ourselves. And how, if it is done right, future generations will feed themselves. This is too serious a problem to tell farmers it is up to them to clean up this mess (impossible anyway with this industrial model) when we are all complicit (by our ignorance or silence) in its adoption.

Bob Watson
Decorah
[email protected]

Comments on IPP’s critique of the INRS

Although an adequate recitation of what is known, the Iowa Policy Project (IPP) critique of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS) could have used a contextual story, a discussion of the inherent inability of any regime to address some pollution avenues from this recent industrial model of agriculture, and suggestions as to where agriculture needs to go in the future. While pointing out deficiencies like “voluntary only” and no numeric testing, limits, or reporting of nutrient pollution coming off farm fields (in this particular case pollution is being called proprietary trade secrets that supposedly can’t be made public; really? pollution?), IPP’s critique seems to go along with the notion that the future of agriculture is corn and beans, and feedlots and confinements. If one assumes that this recent post WWII industrial model is the future of agriculture, even if agriculture is regulated at some point in the future, we will never get rid of nutrient pollution, erosion, and flooding.

As Bonnie Blodgett, Minneapolis StarTribune columnist, commented to me: “I do think farmers got fed a line of bull by Big Ag and are now being told it’s their job to correct a problem that can’t be fixed within the current ag model.” As Bonnie alludes to, as long as we use this corn and beans, confinements and feedlot model of agriculture, we will have unsolvable pollution problems.

There are a number of non-point ag pollution avenues that simply cannot be addressed with either the conservation practices that are in the INRS or even any new future regulations. In fact, some of the INRS anti-pollution conservation practices actually pollute themselves.

When anhydrous ammonia is applied to crop fields, much of that ammonia volatilizes into the air. That ammonia, along with the ammonia that is blown out of confinements 24/7 365 days a year, make up the Midwest ammonia cloud which is concentrated over Iowa. The Iowa DNR has had conversations about and knows that when it rains and the ammonia precipitates out of the air as ammonium nitrate, that amount of ammonium nitrate is a significant contributor to the EPA imposed limit where ammonia is no longer a nutrient, but becomes a pollutant in our surface waters. What in the INRS, or any new regulation, addresses this pollution avenue?

With the prevailing winds, that ammonia cloud flows east and is a major contributor to the new acid rain: nitric acid rain. Nitric acid rain is doing the same sort of damage in the eastern US as the original sulfuric acid rain did. How does the INRS, or any new regulation, stop this pollution avenue?

As the IPP report made clear, nitrogen put on fields that isn’t used by the plants and that doesn’t run off in rain events, still would not be stopped even if buffer strips were used because some of it flows down through the soil profile and into field tiles. That untreated and unused nitrogen flows into Iowa’s 880,000 plus miles of field tile which lead directly to our surface and ground water, and eventually into our aquifers. How does the INRS, or any new regulation, affect this pollution avenue?
A long-term study of industrial nitrogen uptake, published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows nitrates from agricultural nitrogen-based synthetic fertilizers could continue to leach into groundwater for at least 80 years after initial use. How does the INRS, or any future regulation, affect this time span pollution avenue?

It is known that organic nitrogen has always been in our surface waters. However, because the Green Revolution uses industrial fertilizers, today’s nitrogen is in the form of nitrate nitrogen rather than the historic organic nitrogen from animal and green manures. Even though organic nitrogen was in the surface waters, organic nitrogen needs to break down to be in a form that is available to plants. But the Green Revolution’s nitrate nitrogen is in a form that is readily available to algae and other biological organisms. This nitrate nitrogen, versus pre WWII organic nitrogen, leads directly to the algae blooms and other problems seen in our surface waters today. What in the INRS, or any new future regulation, addresses this new industrial form of nitrogen and its pollution avenue?

While the DNR contends confinements don’t need discharge permits for their fecal waste because they are zero discharge buildings, that is not true. Hog confinements actually discharge 100% of their waste (sewage actually) when it is spread on farm fields. And, that waste is no longer “valuable manure” but rather a brew of at least 130 toxic compounds that have cooked up into sewage during six months to a year in a pit directly beneath the animals, in a tank, or in a lagoon. Since this fecal hog waste is five times stronger (more polluting) than untreated human waste, and since there are always at least 15 million hogs in confinement at any one time in Iowa, this is like having 75 million people living in Iowa, collecting their waste, but cooking it instead of treating it, and then just dumping it on fields and calling it manure. That waste can then wash off the fields and into our surface waters during rain events. This is not, and never would be, allowed in the regulated point source sector. What in the INRS, or any new future regulation, addresses this pollution avenue?

A number of studies have shown that a new form of MRSA (an antibiotic resistant Staph infection) unique to hog confinement pigs, workers, and farm family members, can be acquired by people from simply being in contact with or in proximity to hog confinement waste spread on farm fields. How does the INRS, or any new future regulation, protect us from this harmful to human health pollution avenue?

The same “flowing down through the soil profile” process that we saw with the nitrogen from anhydrous is at work in field applied confinement waste, too. Because most of our rich organic biologically active topsoil is gone, and because the soil that is left has been drenched with chemicals for the last 50 years, that soil is not capable of treating much of the confinement waste. Hog waste that doesn’t run off in rain events and isn’t treated by the soil travels through field tiles and into our states waters. How can the INRS practices, or any new regulation, affect this untreated hog confinement sewage pollution stream going into tile lines?

Hog confinements, actually poorly designed and poorly operating wastewater technology, must exhaust the poison sewer gasses that are the continuous products of having anaerobic digestion taking place in their pits. Those sewer gasses, hydrogen-sulfide, ammonia, and methane, must be continuously vented out of the confinements into the surrounding neighborhoods or the pigs inside will die within 20 minutes. The resultant harmful human health effects for neighbors and the environmental damage from these gasses have been well documented. Along with our local lawsuit asking the EPA to regulate those poison sewer gasses through the Clean Air Act, we filed 177 medical and scientific studies showing detrimental human health and environmental effects from these gasses. If we continue to use confinements and feedlots, what in the INRS practices, or any new future regulation, would be able to affect the detrimental effects of these poison gasses?

Simply using no-till as a practice has resulted in new and expanding dead zones in the Great Lakes (and by extension, the Gulf of Mexico). It turns out that no-till releases “dissolved reactive phosphorus” from the soil. That phosphorus then runs into rivers and streams and then into the lakes leading to the dead zones and other problems we see in our waters (Toledo, Ohio’s drinking water problem in August of 2014). How does the INRS, or any new future regulation, affect this pollution avenue?

Pollutants from this industrial ag model are considered “externalities” by agricultural entities. The public is expected to bear the brunt of the cost, monetarily, human health wise, and environmentally, that these “externalities” bring. This is the basis of Bill Stowe’s “rate payer’s argument.” Ag pollutes the water and you pay to clean it up through ever higher water and sewer bills. As we have discussed, as long as we use this corn and beans, confinements and feedlot model of agriculture, we will always have unsolvable pollution problems.

Farmers have only followed what land grant colleges and corporate ag interests have told them, and sold them, to do. Farmers didn’t choose this industrial model. They didn’t understand the flooding, erosion, and nutrient pollution that would be caused by adopting this recent industrial model. And, they shouldn’t be made to bear the cost of transitioning to a new clean agriculture. We all should.

The IPP critique did not provide any suggestions about what kind of agriculture we could transition to that would mitigate nutrient pollution, erosion, and flooding. Thankfully, there are crops and cropping systems that are available today, that could be adopted today, which would recreate a sponge-like landscape and re-perennialize our agriculture without sacrificing our ability to feed ourselves or provide for our manufacturing needs. Those crops and cropping systems would foster a non-polluting, biologically benign and beneficial, soil building agriculture that would mitigate the flooding, erosion, and nutrient pollution problems caused by this recently adopted industrial model of agriculture. (to see go to www.civandinc.net appendix H)

Bob Watson 563-379-4147 [email protected] www.civandinc.net
Decorah, IA

While a nice story, Bill Northey and Chuck Gipp’s “On The Right Path” (Register 7-3-14) is fiction.
Record nitrate levels in rivers are not fiction.

The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS) is touted as being the vehicle to clean up Iowa’s and the Gulf’s waters. But the only part of that strategy that is regulated through the Clean Water Act, and therefore required to clean up its discharges, is the point source sector which only includes municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants. This is Bill Stowe’s “rate payers” argument. Ag pollutes – you pay to clean it up through ever increasing sewer and water rates.

The courts have held that the Clean Water Act cannot be used to regulate non-point dischargers, which is agriculture. So the agricultural non-point part of the INRS is on a voluntary basis only. And as record high levels of nitrates in rivers show, voluntary is not working so well.

It is known that nitrogen has always been in our rivers. Before World War II most nitrogen in our waters was from animal and green manure which had to break down before it could be used by plants. Rivers and streams were safe for human use. With the adoption of the Green Revolution and industrial fertilizers, however, that nitrogen is in the form of nitrates, which are readily available for algae and other plants. This nitrate nitrogen, unlike organic nitrogen, leads directly to the algae blooms and some of the other problems we see in our surface waters.

If we are going to continue mining our soil (two bushels of soil to produce one bushel of corn – the soil will be gone some day) to grow corn and soybeans (that is a debatable future), and if Gipp and Northey are actually serious about stopping nutrient pollution from coming off farm fields through flooding and erosion, then they should work towards getting the INRS’s STRIPS (10% of an annual field in native prairie strips stops 95% of erosion and therefore the nutrients attached to the soil particles) as a mandatory part of the farm bill.

Also, there are crops and cropping systems that are available today that could be adopted today which would recreate a sponge-like landscape, re-perennialize our agriculture, without sacrificing our ability to feed ourselves or provide for our manufacturing needs. Those crops and cropping systems would foster a non-polluting biologically benign and beneficial, soil building agriculture that would mitigate the flooding and nutrient pollution problems caused by this recent industrial row crop model of agriculture. (to see go to www.civandinc.net appendix H)

The usual corporate ag apologist myth that is trotted out to justify growing corn and beans in Iowa, and the reason that we supposedly have to put up with this nutrient pollution, is that we feed the world. Hell, Iowa doesn’t even feed itself. We import 85% of our people food.

If Gipp and Northey really want to clean up Iowa’s waters, they should lobby Iowa’s US legislators to change the farm bill to adopt existing crops and cropping systems, including the “low hanging fruit” STRIPS (10% prairie gets rid of 95% erosion), that would mitigate pollution and still raise people food.

Understanding that farmers have only followed what land grant colleges and corporate ag interests have told them, and sold them, to do, prairie seed for that 10% of annual fields should be paid for by the US government. Farmers didn’t choose this industrial model. They didn’t understand the flooding and nutrient pollution that would be caused by adopting this recent industrial model. And, they shouldn’t be made to bear the cost of fixing it. We all should.

Right now some of us will be paying forever trying to deal with the problem (the Stowe argument). By changing the farm bill, we would all be paying for the solution.

Bob Watson

2736 Lannon Hill Rd
Decorah, IA 52101
[email protected]
www.civandinc.net
563-379-4147

Dear Editor,

It was somewhat disappointing to read the apparent ignorance of Iowa State professors in regard to where our state’s water pollution comes from (Sides clash over hog expansion, Register 6-8-14).

The accepted numbers are agriculture 92%, wastewater treatment plants 4%, and other 4% – although the “other’s” contribution is from the same chemicals as agriculture.

It is technically correct to say that “Cities are allowed to discharge treated sewage that still contains nitrates into waterways, under their Clean Water Act Permits. Hog producers, however, are prohibited from letting manure into Iowa waterways.” But it is somewhat disingenuous.

The relative ammonia/nitrogen pollution numbers for hog confinement waste and treated human waste is 300-400 for hog confinement waste and 1-5 for treated human waste (IDNR numbers). Although confinements are touted as not discharging waste, all of the waste is spread on the land eventually. Because of the relative numbers, it is like having 75 million people living in Iowa, collecting their waste and letting it “cook up toxics” for 6 months to a year in a pit, and then simply dumping it on the land where much of it ends up in our rivers and lakes (the 92% comes from somewhere).

As a result of treatment of human waste, the cleanest sections of most rivers are directly downstream of wastewater plant discharge pipes. Your water and sewer rates pay to clean and treat water for drinking, and for the treatment of your waste so it is safe to discharge back into the environment. That is mandated by the Clean Water Act.

There are no regulations or mandates on the 92% of pollution coming from agriculture. Until that changes, (and the completely voluntary Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy will not help) you will continue to pay higher and higher water and sewer rates while the waters of Iowa continue to become more and more polluted. Good luck.

Bob Watson

Decorah, IA
[email protected]
563-379-4147

Dear Editor, (8-4-12)

I agree with Tim Dugger and the North Winneshiek School Board. They have had nothing to do with the EPA lawsuit.

That suit has been filed and funded by mothers, teachers, former students, parents, grandparents, relatives, friends, and community members.

177 medical and scientific studies (one of which was actually done on North Winn) were filed along with the lawsuit as evidence corroborating the lawsuit’s position that children’s health is being harmed by poison sewer gasses coming from confinements and feedlots. See www.civandinc.net , appendix E, # 2 “CAFO Research Studies and Articles”.

There was a time when country kids were healthier than city kids; it was known as the “Hygiene Hypotheses”. Now, under the current industrial model, country kids, because of confinements and feedlots, are less healthy than city kids (see appendix E, #3 “Traditional vs. Industrial Farm Children’s Health Studies”).

Why these gasses are being produced, and why children’s health is being harmed as a result, is made clear from the discussion of what CAFO technology is (see appendix E, #1 “Unintended Consequences of CAFOs” ), and what happens when you use that technology in agriculture.

We’ve explored many avenues in trying to resolve these North Winn air quality issues including the current EPA lawsuit and my candidacy for county supervisor. The air quality issue is not one that North Winn has had any control over. A new county funded HVAC system for North Winn, with the correct filters, would allow the kids to have clean and safe air to breathe at least while they are inside the building. That doesn’t seem too much to ask.

Bob Watson

Rural Decorah

Agri News Op-ed
Re the Jan 26 article on foaming (3-12)

With all the discussion and puzzlement over foam and flash fires in CAFO manure pits, researchers and CAFO operators may be overlooking the obvious. A CAFO manure pit is a de-facto anaerobic digester that produces methane, hydrogen-sulfide, phosphine, ammonia, and other toxic and poison gasses and compounds. There is no way around that situation when manure decomposes in a pit for months at a time.

Many variables could affect why foam forms on top of the waste in the pit, however: the animals’ diet; the proportional increase in the amount of manure being deposited in relation to the total volume of the pit as the pigs get bigger; the age of the waste; the water-manure ratio; the amount and kind of ventilation; barn cleaning chemicals; and other factors. But, the explosive methane and other gasses are created and present, whether they are in the waste, entrapped by foam, in the air of the building, or vented out into the surrounding neighborhood.

These facts were made clear in a 2009 study prepared for the National Pork Board by the Iowa State University Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering. The report reviewed literature that cited CAFO fires from as long ago as 1969. Thus, it’s disturbing that no research has questioned the confinement technology that may lead to these explosions.

That 2009 study also noted a correlation between the feeding of DDGs and the apparent increase in foaming. Some studies show a higher manure output from animals fed DDGs, which have fewer available nutrients for the pigs to digest than unprocessed grain. This results in more waste being deposited in the pit over time (the proportional problem), and that waste will have a higher organic loading. Both issues can lead to foaming, and both are realities that wastewater industry operators have dealt with for years.

There may be no easy answer to the inherent CAFO problems of toxic emissions, fires, and foaming until we acknowledge that the technology being used is inappropriate. CAFOs mimic municipal/industrial wastewater facilities by collecting waste. But CAFOs, which are virtually exempt from regulations governing this fecal waste technology, do not treat the waste or contain the resulting gasses and pollutants. And, unlike the wastewater industry, CAFOs routinely place workers and animals in proximity to the hazards of anaerobic digestion.

Methane can cause fires. Methane and other toxins are vented into the surrounding neighborhood. Untreated sewage is spread on the land. An attempt to suppress foaming does not address the issue that confinements are anaerobic digesters. Decomposing fecal waste in a closed space always creates these poison and explosive gasses. If you use this technology, you will get these problems. You simply can’t get around that fact.

Bob Watsonoooooooooooo Larry Stone
Decorah, IA ooooooooooooElkader, IA
[email protected] o[email protected]

A Watershed Approach to Reducing Floods

Following the 2008 floods, the original Army Corps of Engineers estimate of levee and pumping structures to “protect” Cedar Rapids from future flood damage was $1 billion dollars. Subsequently, this was judged too much money to spend on protecting Cedar Rapids. More recent estimates for smaller systems have been substantially less, but still in the hundreds of millions of dollars. These efforts would protect only parts of Cedar Rapids, meanwhile creating worse conditions for both upstream and downstream residents of the watershed. Also, these so-called “protective” systems would do nothing to alleviate or mitigate the causes leading to future flood events.

A much better solution would be for the people of Cedar Rapids, and other flood prone cities, to focus on changes in watershed practices to reduce future flooding. And this can be accomplished through the spending of political capital on a new farm bill, rather than wasting monetary capital.

In the historic past, Iowa soil was covered by deep-rooted forests, prairies, savannahs, and wetlands. Along with streams, rivers and lakes, this flora/hydrological system created a vast sponge ranging some 15 to 30 feet in depth both below and above the surface. This sponge allowed rainwater infiltration rates of between 7 to 14 inches per hour while purifying and slowly releasing the stored water for plant uptake and recharging our groundwater and aquifers.

Today’s intensive, row-crop agriculture has virtually destroyed that sponge, however. Modern floods, although made worse through climate change’s more extreme rain events, are mostly caused because industrial agriculture has turned the historic landscape on its head and put bare soil at the surface. With this unprotected soil reaching saturation after as little as one inch of rainfall, rainwater simply sluices soil off the surface on its way into our streams, rivers and lakes. With the more common intense rain events of today, we see the historic flooding of recent years.

But other innovative, alternative agricultural systems – which are available now – would allow us to re-perennialize most of agriculture and rebuild the topsoil “sponge” with its flood mitigating capabilities. An Iowa State University study has shown that simply interspersing annual crop fields with strips of native prairie, which can soak up 7 to 13 inches of rain per hour, can eliminate up to 95% of erosion.

By 2020, “The Land Institute’s” first of four native prairie plant species bred to have large seed heads for human and animal consumption should be scaled up and ready for sale to farmers. We will be able to eat the prairie, and these crops would help rebuild Iowa’s historic sponge.

We also should take livestock out of confinement buildings, which are really dangerous sewage collection facilities. Confinements create untreated sewage, hydrogen-sulfide, ammonia, methane and particulates that cause human health problems and environmental pollution. And we should remove livestock from feedlots, which often are little more than open sewers. If we put these animals on the land, much land now used for row crops could be converted to pasture. Utilizing intensive rotational grazing, that pasture land would be capable of storing up to 7 inches of rain per hour.

An important part of a rotational cropping system could be industrial hemp, a cover crop needing little or no fertilizer, herbicides or pesticides, and so important for food and fiber in early America. The prohibition surrounding hemp cultivation has been lifted in all developed countries except the US. Yet hemp ranks second only to soybeans in its percentage content of protein, and it can be used to produce food, fiber, textiles, paper, essential oils and lubricants along with many other important products. Other crops which would feed people and animals could include small grains, hays, vegetables and fruits.

The declining supply of petroleum eventually will require a move away from our current petro/chemical-dependent industrial/row crop agriculture to more sustainable crop rotations. By some estimates, that could mean the need for 40 to 60 million smaller, sustainable farmers by the end of this century. And that could revitalize our rural communities.

A more diverse, sustainable sponge agriculture would go a long way toward a flood-mitigated future for the people of Cedar Rapids and the Cedar River watershed.

A farm bill that spends political capital to promote watershed changes to reduce flooding in the future; or, if we do nothing to change agriculture, a levee and pump system costing $1 billion dollars trying to stave off the damage from the inevitable next “500 year” flood. What future would you rather have?

Bob Watson …..Larry Stone
Decorah, IA….. Elkader, IA

[email protected]
[email protected]

Rural school kids are being poisoned – and the bureaucrats refuse to do anything.

With most of Iowa’s livestock now being raised in factory-like, industrial settings, rural residents and rural schools are being subjected to the poison sewer gasses hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, to the explosive and greenhouse gas methane, and to particulates.

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which include both confinements and open feedlots, act like sewers and poorly operating wastewater digesters. They create sewer environments. But unlike carefully monitored industrial or municipal sewers, CAFOs are unregulated. They can and do constantly produce poison gasses, which are blown into the rural neighborhoods 24/7, 365 days a year. This is legal because the state and federal governments have exempted confinements and feedlots from all regulation concerning these poisons and particulates. Rules that normally would protect the public from the harmful health effects of these industrial technologies do not apply to agriculture. Rural schools – and school children – receive no protection from industrial poisons produced by agriculture.

The essential question we are asking is: “Who is responsible for school children’s health when they are required by law to be on school property?”

In our effort to find a solution to this problem in our county, we have gone to the Iowa DNR, our local County Board of Health, and the Iowa Department of Public Health – which checked twice with the Attorney General’s office. In each instance, when we asked who might be responsible for these children’s health, we have been told essentially that no one is. Apparently these poisons are not considered poisons when they are coming from industrial agriculture.

Studies have shown that negative health effects normally associated with exposure to hydrogen-sulfide, ammonia, and particulates are higher in rural Iowa than most anywhere else in the US, as a percentage of population. We used to raise most animals outside on pasture. Up until a few years ago in Iowa, we raised more animals per year outside versus what we raise now in confinements and feedlots. We didn’t have these health problems in rural areas until we started using CAFOs – confinements and feedlots – with their inherent poisons and particulates.

So, who is responsible for children’s health when their playgrounds and classrooms are inundated with poison sewer gasses and particulates? Do we accept the Orwellian decree from the State that these really aren’t poisons when they come from industrial agriculture, and those children’s health problems don’t really exist?

We have been amazed and disappointed at this response – or really the non-response – from government officials to our inquiry. The harmful effects to human health and the environment from this modern petro-chemical industrial model of agriculture is probably Iowa’s most urgent peace and justice issue. It is despicable that children can be sacrificed for a model of agriculture that enriches a few corporations and leaves the rest of us living with the shattered remains of a once vibrant farming culture.
Bob Watson

2736 Lannon Hill Rd
Decorah, IA
[email protected]

Fundamental Problems (Sept 2010)

It’s not just one bad egg. There are fundamental problems across industrial confinement agriculture. In the last year, both Iowa and Minnesota have seen an ominous increase in foaming in pits beneath hog confinements – like a potentially toxic bubble bath, it rises right through floor slats – exacerbating the already serious problem of dead pigs and flash fires caused by hydrogen-sulfide and methane.

“I wish we had the answer,” said Angela Rieck-Hinz of ISU, writing in August on the Iowa Manure Management Action Group website, “but at this point in time we still have no answers as to what is causing the foaming or how best to control or manage the foam. If you have information regarding foaming pits you would like to share please contact me. In the meantime, I urge caution when pumping from manure pits. Be aware of safety concerns regarding manure gases, pit fires and explosions. Not all pit fires and explosions have happened in barns with foaming pits.”

The crux of the problem is that confinement advocates have inappropriately transferred wastewater technology from the highly regulated sector of municipal and industrial wastewater to the unregulated – in terms of wastewater – sector of industrial agriculture. The concern about poison and explosive gasses is not new, and not only in those confinements with the foaming problem. It is simply a consequence of using wastewater technology to raise animals.

In the wastewater industry, we learned long ago – after workers became ill or died – that we could not put normal workspaces in proximity to areas where fecal waste is decomposing. The constant production of the poison and explosive gasses – hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and methane – was finally taken into account in designing wastewater facilities and technology that would protect both the workers and the surrounding public. Those protections have been codified in the regulations that control municipal/industrial wastewater technology and design. But industrial agriculture remains exempt.

There may be many causes for the upswing in foaming problems in confinements. Some potential causes might include: damage to buildings and equipment through the corrosive nature of hydrogen-sulfide, genetically modified crops being fed to animals, different insecticides and herbicides applied to fields as pests and weeds become resistant to chemicals used in the past. Perhaps we will find solutions to somewhat mitigate this new foaming problem. But the bottom line is that as long as you use wastewater technology to store waste in pits below where animals are being raised, you will always have disease and death affecting both people and animals caused by these poisonous and explosive gasses.

The state Legislature, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and corporate industrial agricultural officials steadfastly deny that confinements are a form of wastewater technology. Although seeming illogical, in fact a DNR construction permit requires this type of building, resulting in these problems.

As a society, we should question what this industrial model of agriculture is doing to us, the animals, and the environment. We have turned most of our hog producers into virtual serfs, with corporations financing and owning the buildings, the pigs, and the feed, and even controlling when the producers market the pigs. Corporations externalize their environmental costs onto the producers and the public by having the producers own the polluting waste and the dead animals. We also expect producers to deal with the unsolvable problems confinement buildings create.

Confinement technology used to raise animals is a failed model on many levels. It is time to put animals back on the land.

Bob Watson
2736 Lannon Hill Rd
Decorah, IA 52101
[email protected]

(phone for editor’s use only 563-379-4147)

Tile Line/Constructed Wetlands Op-Ed (1-10)

In the recent historical past, Iowa was covered with forests, prairies, wetlands, thick sod, streams and rivers. Rain that fell to the earth was retained, cleansed, used and slowly passed through the state. That changed with the coming of settlers who broke the sod of the prairies for cultivation agriculture. The historic hydrology of the state was altered with the need to drain fields. To accomplish that draining, we now have some 880,000 miles of field tile in Iowa. Records show a doubling and even tripling of the flow of some rivers over the last 100 years. Also, because tile lines provide a direct conduit to surface and ground waters, we have lost the water’s contact with the cleansing soil and surface flora resulting in streams and rivers that are, in many cases, little more than silt, fecal and chemical filled canals.

Last November, the Water Resources Coordinating Council (WRCC) submitted flood plain management policy recommendations and funding options to Governor Culver and state legislators. The recommendations are intended to help the state rebuild safer, stronger and smarter in the wake of the historic 2008 floods.

House File 756, passed by the legislature in 2009, required the WRCC to submit policy and funding recommendations that promote “a watershed management approach to reduce the adverse impact of future flooding on this state’s residents, businesses, communities, and soil and water quality.”

One proposal from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) is counter intuitive and scientifically questionable. IDALS proposes to further enhance artificial drainage of Iowa farmland. The proposal has morphed between an implementation plan and a feasibility study. The plan appears to be moving rapidly from concept to expensive experiment, in spite of serious questions raised by scientists and knowledgeable water resource professionals. What has been called the “Iowa Plan” redesigns and enlarges existing drainage systems and directs water flow to constructed wetlands. These wetlands may reduce nutrient loads delivered to Iowa lakes and streams. Restoring Iowa’s wetlands sounds appealing because this could benefit the hydrology and water quality that has been disturbed by – ironically – artificial drainage. The arguments supporting accelerated drainage are the same that resulted in the elimination of Iowa’s wetland ecosystem in the first place – increased agricultural production. Producers and commodity consumers tout the benefits of expanded production efficiency, but what about those of us who want to use the streams and lakes destined to receive more water, nutrients and pollution from accelerated drainage? If increased production efficiency resulted in the cultivation of less land, then this is a noble objective. History shows, however, that this has not been the case in Iowa.

The downstream consequences of accelerated drainage need to be carefully examined beyond the proposed token wetland band-aid. There are several things we know for certain: “improved” artificial drainage in Iowa has increased stream flow in quantity and duration over the last 100+ years; artificial drainage flushes nitrogen and phosphorus from soil into lakes and streams, impairing those waters for drinking, recreation, and aquatic life; wetlands have the potential to reduce stream flow and nutrient loads. What we don’t know: how much will stream flow and nutrient levels increase if drainage is further enhanced? What will be the effect of constructed wetlands on downstream flows and nutrient loads? And, are producers willing to designate enough acreage to a constructed wetland such that it can function effectively? Furthermore, there is the risk that these constructed wetlands, which will be receiving enormous nutrient loads, will have deleterious effects on downstream water quality.

Under current Iowa law, producers can construct drainage systems for their land using their own funds. If the negative environmental effects of accelerated drainage are only balanced out by a wetland system, how will the taxpayers of Iowa and the U.S. benefit by subsidizing this activity? Will the water leaving these drainage systems be required to meet some quality and quantity objectives? Discussion of these questions and a discussion of further modifying Iowa’s hydrology at taxpayer expense need to be addressed. A specific, scientifically sound project plan needs to be developed and reviewed. This will best be accomplished by assembling some of the best Iowa scientists familiar with the issues. A transparent planning and funding process should lead to evaluating competitive ideas rather than the process of directing taxpayer funds to a limited number IDALS’ friends. Such a review is generally required for competitive research funding and Iowa should expect no less before embarking on a potentially expensive adventure in further (mis)managing its water resources.

If we learned nothing more from the Floods of ’08, let’s remember that accelerated drainage creates significant risks for downstream property owners and communities. We hope IDALS will propose changes in land practices that result in less flow and less nutrient pollution to the waters of the state of Iowa, rather than more.

Bob Watson
Bill Stowe
Mike Burkart

Anti-degradation Regulations (1-10 Register Op-Ed)

Iowa has a double standard about sewage.

The state’s inconsistent rules for waste from cities and industries, compared with the regulations that apply to industrial agriculture, are jeopardizing our water quality and punishing the citizens of our communities.

State laws and agency regulations require municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants to collect and treat their sewage, and to obtain permits to discharge effluent from their treatment facilities. We know who these “point source” polluters are, and we strive to keep them in check.

Industrial livestock confinements also produce sewage, but these operations have escaped the point source restrictions because they have been defined as “agriculture.” With today’s industrial scale, however, these confinements are no different than cities or industries in terms of the amount and kind of waste produced. Although confinement waste is produced by agricultural animals, it is not what most people would describe as “manure.” Confinement animal waste sits in a pit, tank or lagoon and “cooks” for several months, turning into a toxic sewage. That confinement waste generates hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia – poison sewer gasses that are constantly vented into the air that neighbors must breathe. Confinements also produce and discharge methane, which is a toxic greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

Cities and industries must collect and treat their waste before discharging it. In contrast, industrial confinements only collect and store their waste, but then are allowed to dispose of it on farm fields without treating it. That untreated sewage often enters our rivers, streams, tile lines and groundwater.

In recent years Iowa has adopted stricter discharge permits for point source municipal/industrial wastewater facilities. The DNR is now considering further restrictions on point source dischargers: so-called anti-degradation regulations. With the adoption of anti-degradation rules, today’s permits would be a baseline and no increase in discharge limits would be allowed in the future. It is an attempt to keep the waters of the state from degrading any further due to increased pollution from dischargers. Yet the State has no documentation to show there would be a significant decrease in the ongoing degradation of Iowa waters if anti-degradation rules are adopted for point source dischargers.

To meet this new municipal/industrial anti-degradation regulation, the DNR is suggesting alternatives to discharging treated liquid effluent to a stream or river. One alternative would be applying the treated liquid effluent onto the land. The DNR has strict rules for land applying treated effluent from municipal and industrial systems, which makes land application more expensive than discharging their treated effluent into a stream. Small communities, with a high proportion of senior citizens and young people, would especially feel the financial pinch.

Contrast this proposed extra regulation and more expense for municipal/industrial waste with what happens to the completely untreated waste from an industrial livestock confinement. The pig to people equivalent amount of waste from confined pigs in this state would be like having 30 million Iowans spreading their “untreated” waste directly on Iowa’s farmland. Remember, the manure from a confinement sits for months in a pit, tank or lagoon, where it becomes a toxic brew that spews poisons into the air. Eventually, both the liquids and solids from the untreated confinement waste – which is more polluting than raw human sewage – are simply spread on cropland. The waste can seep into the state’s 880,000 miles of field tiles or run into adjacent streams, then quickly enter our rivers. Worse yet, it can enter groundwater through sinkholes or losing streams. Because many of the microorganisms in the soil have been lost to erosion and heavy application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, there is only minimal biological breakdown of the waste. Likewise, the antibiotics and hormones commonly used by industrial livestock producers can enter our water without treatment.

If state officials hope to stop the degradation of Iowa’s waters, it does not make sense to ignore the agricultural component, which accounts for at least 90% of our water pollution. To be sure, it’s hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while continuing to allow industrial agriculture to spread untreated sewage onto the land?

It’s time to require the agricultural community to pay its share of the clean-up. If livestock producers wish to use industrial confinements, which produce sewage instead of manure, we should apply the same standards to the wastewater from those confinement operations as we do to municipal/industrial wastewater treatment facilities. We should require them to build a treatment facility, just as we impose that requirement on Iowa communities. If producers of livestock “sewage” don’t want this regulation, they should adopt sustainable models of agriculture that return manure to the land as fertilizer, rather than convert it to a toxic waste.

Whatever the source, untreated “sewage” pollutes our waters, kills aquatic organisms, affects the health of our citizens, and impacts the quality of life. Those who produce sewage – whether cities, or industries, or industrial confinements – should follow the same strict environmental rules. Until this happens, it is pointless to impose any further regulations – including these anti-degradation regulations – on point source dischargers.

“And kind argument deconstruction” (1-10)

This will talk about what happened to our anti-degradation op-ed when one of two parallel arguments, our “and kind” argument, is left out. And, what happens further when those sentences which are a part of the “and kind” argument are left out.

The anti-degradation op-ed that we submitted to the Register for publication contained not one, but two parallel arguments. One was about the “amount” of sewage, our quantity argument, which was left in. The other was about the “kinds” of sewage, our quality argument, which was left out. Right at the outset then, the Register narrowed the scope of our argument by taking out the “kind” argument by leaving out the words, “and kind.” We are left making the much narrower argument about quantity, and having a less complex discussion by not addressing the quality argument (what is this stuff?). The Register version becomes a one dimensional beginner’s version of what we are actually talking about. And, still allows the argument that “this is just manure” to be made by industrial ag apologists.

The set of “and kind” sentences left out contain explanatory factual statements that add depth and clarity to the understanding of the technology and the waste, talk about the connections to multiple levels, connect the different parts of our conversation, inserts this issue into the larger issue of the petro-chemical/industrial row crop model of agriculture, explains why and how this waste (through its intersection with the row crop model soils) affects the larger environment, talk about why soils can’t treat this waste and why soils can’t treat some waste no matter what, and contains language which tells you why you should care about this issue.

The “and kind” argument and sentences are our “justification arguments”. They provide the information which allows us to make the assertions that we make. These details also connect our conversation’s logical progression. They justify what we have said and then allow us to make new arguments based on those truths. The op-ed is laid out in an “if then, therefore” form of argument. The “and kind” argument and sentences are the “if then” portion of that form. That form of argument gives a firm basis for believing the assertions that we make. With the Register version, we seem to be making assertions which you have no basis for believing except that we told you to.

Our originally submitted argument has more depth, is more complex, is a larger multi-level conversation about how this issue fits in to the current petro-chemical/industrial ag model; and, how this waste affects, through the current ag model, the larger environment. If the “and kind” quality argument is left in our op-ed, instead of the Register’s one dimensional discussion, we have a conversation on multiple levels talking about a whole host of issues; which is what we intended and what our original op-ed did.