In November, the EPA partially approved Iowa’s 2024 Impaired Waters List, adding seven additional river segments where drinking water use is impaired by high nitrate levels. (Really, it’s just six segments, but the Iowa River was monitored using two slightly different metrics so was listed twice.) 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
- Lower Des Moines River near Ottumwa: 2 of 33 samples collected by IDNR
- Upper Des Moines River near Des Moines: 11 of 758 samples collected by Des Moines Water Works
- Iowa River near Iowa City: 5 of 146 samples and 18 of 2698 sensor readings collected by PWS (not sure what that refers to)
- South Skunk River near Oskaloosa: 2 of 36 samples collected by IDNR
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.