Water Quality: Streams and rivers need your help!
This is something I received from Ed Fallon's group that started this page.
The action alert is over, however the issues contained therein are still important:
Iowa’s streams and rivers need your help. While I am no water-quality wizard, I have worked hard on a range of environmental issues over the past 15 years. I have gained a lot of respect for Iowa’s grassroots environmental leaders, including Steve Veysey. Steve is a well-respected scientist and spokesman on water quality. He’s the environmental protection coordinator for the Hawkeye Fly Fishing Association and the conservation co-chair of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Just this week, I learned from him and others that the Iowa DNR proposes to downgrade water-quality standards in 279 river and stream segments, rendering these waters less safe for both aquatic life and human recreation. To quote from a recent letter Steve sent to Sierra Club members, “DNR is essentially saying they have no evidence that anyone has ever recreated in these rivers and streams since 1975 in a manner that would pose a significant risk of ingesting water. Therefore, recreational protection will be reduced in order to allow cities and industries to continue discharging unnecessary pollution.”
It’s up to us to let the DNR know that human activity IS occurring in these streams, and that the water quality needs to be protected. The period allowed for public comments closes on December 11th. You can learn more about the issue by visiting http://iowa.sierraclub.org/. ; To weigh in with your own comments on streams and rivers where you’ve seen people fishing, canoeing, swimming, wading, tubing, etc, go to
http://iowa.sierraclub.org/Maps2/Water%20Uses%20Outreach%20Form1.pdf. ; If you have photos that document any such activity, I imagine those would be of interest to the DNR as well.
In my own county of Polk, both Beaver and Four Mile creeks are on the DNR’s list of streams to downgrade. I’ve canoed Beaver Creek several times, and have also seen people tubing and fishing in it. I’ve seen kids wading along a sandbar on Four Mile Creek, and on two occasions have watched deer drink from it. In Dallas County, I’ve canoed the South Raccoon River, which is also on the DNR’s hit list.
Friend and former legislative colleague, Bill Witt, summed it up in an e-mail to me yesterday, asking how far down the slippery slope we want to slide, suggesting that if you push the standard of "reasonable attainment” back far enough, Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River could still be burning.
One more quote of interest from Steve: “{T}he key question I keep asking {the DNR}is, ‘When discussing recreational uses, does the occurrence of the use prove the existence of the use?’ Well, of course it does, but I can't get DNR to admit it. We have them on record saying, ‘Swimming in polluted water doesn't prove the existence of swimming as a use; it proves the existence of swimming in polluted water as a use, and that is all that needs to be protected for.’ That usually gets a stir from the crowd.”
And it ought to get a stir from us, too. If you have experience with activity on any of the streams and rivers proposed to be downgraded, please share that with the DNR. Thanks for your help!
Farm run offs create growing health concern with water supply
Smelly Algae Kills Dogs, Sickens People
(Associated Press article)
"In what's become a growing problem, some waterways in the upper Midwest suffer from malodorous, blue-green algae blooms that have already sickened some people -- and killed dozens of dogs. "
Ugh
Triclosan is a pesticide
(Source: Food and Water Watch)
Depending on the company that is selling triclosan, it may also appear in products as Microban, Irgasan, Biofresh, Lexol-300, Ster-Zac or Cloxifenolum. Manufacturers use triclosan in lunch bags and other school supplies as an antimicrobial agent to prevent the growth of bacteria. It's most commonly used in anti bacterial soaps.
But triclosan has serious human and environmental health effects. In fact, on August 24, 2009, the Canadian Medical Association called for a federal ban on the use of triclosan in consumer products. Triclosan is a known endocrine disruptor and accumulates in our bodies. It also persists in our waterways and is toxic to aquatic life. Furthermore, triclosan is not proven to reduce illness!
The increased use of antibacterials in general has been linked to increased allergies in children. Further studies specific to triclosan have shown that it affects reproduction in lab animals, produces toxic chemicals such as dioxin and chloroform when it reacts with other chemicals like the chlorine in water, irritates skin in humans and might even cause cancer. New laboratory studies on rats and frogs show that triclosan can disrupt thyroid hormone, alter development and impair important functions at the cellular level. And a study by British researchers found that triclosan has estrogenic and androgenic hormone properties and exposure could potentially contribute to the development of breast cancer.
Triclosan also poses a threat to the environment. It is toxic to algae, phytoplankton and other aquatic life. This is a major problem, as many products that contain triclosan are now washing down our drains and into our water systems, making triclosan a common contaminant of streams and rivers. Because it is a contaminant in sewage sludge that is often spread on land, the chemical is now showing up in earthworms. Triclosan bioaccumulates in these organisms and researchers are concerned that it will accumulate and spread through aquatic and terrestrial food webs.
Today, triclosan has become so common that it has shown up in blood, urine and breast milk of people across the globe. While people who use triclosan products daily have higher levels of the chemical in their bodies, even consumers who do not use triclosan on their skin are exposed to the chemical through food, water and even household dust.
Ahhh, thanks...
Water savings could boost food industry profits
After watching "Blue Gold Water Wars" by PBS I've been thinking about this topic a lot. The documentary was a little disappointing in the way it was put together, but the issue is one of the most important to human survival. Only3% of the earth's water is fresh water, and yet all of us need it.
I stumbled across this article and it brought up a couple of the points made in the film. A small excerpt:
Stressing the scale of the opportunity to make savings, Gordon said: “More than 90 per cent of the world's fresh water is consumed in the agricultural and industrial sectors. It takes roughly 20 gallons of water to make a pint of beer……about 5,000 gallons of water to grow a day's food for a family of four.”
Cutting water use could help food and beverage companies save hundreds of thousands of dollars and make businesses more sustainable, says Siemens Water Technologies which is promoting a six point water-saving strategy.
Chuck Gordon, the company’s president and CEO explains the scope for savings: “One customer was able to put new processes in place to re-capture and treat the water they were using for bottle washing, ultimately saving 25,000 gallons of water a day.”
Iowa CCI working to strengthen the Iowa Water Protection Rules
Per their email:
This rulemaking petition focuses on protecting water sources from factory farm pollution by allowing the DNR and EPC to take more factors into account when evaluating factory farm construction permits and manure management plans.
Specifically, this would allow the DNR and EPC to consider:
* Proximity to drinking water sources
* Concentration of factory farms in a watershed
* Impaired waterways and watersheds
* Monitoring data from around manure storage sites and tile drainage outlets
* And more...
Most importantly - this rulemaking petition would allow the DNR to revoke a permit or refuse a new permit if it determines that the operation of a facility, manure storage area, or application of manure constitutes a threat to public health or a public drinking water source.
We need you to take action to stand up for clean water and put people before polluters:
Contact DNR Director Rich Leopold and tell him to support this rulemaking petition. Click here to send him an email .
Reducing Future Food Crises By Improving Water Use
Interesting article. I'm glad to see people thinking about this.
Reducing Future Food Crises By Improving Water Use
"If the overall water resources in river basins were acknowledged and managed better, future food crises could be significantly reduced, say researchers from Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, Stockholm Environment Institute and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. ...
It also shows that wise water management can lift billions out of water poverty. "
Frontline: Poisoned Waters
Frontline had a program on poisons in our water system last night which you can still watch online. The online site also has a lot of follow-up information, including links about actions you can take. Individual action is especially important as many of the current pollutants are coming from household cleaning and body care products.
Virtual Water
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A scientist who developed a way to calculate how much water is used in the production of anything from a cup of coffee to a hamburger was awarded the 2008 Stockholm Water Prize on Wednesday.
This is linked to so many things - global warming, vegetarianism, small habits Americans have that lead to big things.
I've seen things like this done on a smaller scale, but it's good to see public exposure of the hidden costs behind the items we buy. We take water for granted because right now it's cheap and plentiful. There will be a turning point with that as welll at some point here. Water is something we can't live without. It makes me wonder what's going to have to break if we don't break our own poor habits?
Iowa you're on the list!
Food and Water Watch reports:
Perchlorate, a chemical contaminant found in jet fuel, has been found in the drinking water supply of 35 states and the District of Columbia. The widespread exposure of the population to some level of perchlorate raises serious health concerns.
Scientists say perchlorate affects the thyroid’s production of hormones, which are important to the brain development and growth of infants and children. Pregnant women and small children are at greatest risk.
The Bush administration is trying to rush a decision NOT to limit perchlorate rather than heeding the advice of three of their own science advisory committees.
In response to this misguided determination, EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee and the chairs of EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee agreed that the agency rushed the decision.
Rather than safeguarding your health, your family's and your community's, the Bush administration is up against the clock to let chemical companies off the hook for cleaning up the rocket fuel mess.
We are up against the clock to stop the flailing lame-duck administration from jeopardizing public health. Write now to protect your water from this contaminant.
Tell EPA to Protect Our Drinking Water
Is Your State One of the 35 Affected?
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Petition from League of Conservative Voters
Congress Must Protect Our Drinking Water
Recent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of protections of the Clean Water Act, putting the drinking water of millions of Americans at risk for contamination.
But, Congress has an opportunity to restore the original protections of the Clean Water Act. Click here to contact your Members of Congress TODAY to insist that they support the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Our drinking water has what in it?
The "truth" uncovered in this article is both disgusting and disturbing... "Prescription drugs found in drinking water across the US"
There needs to be preventative measures not "Oops, look what we found!".
"Not very much" turns out to be apparently...
Tons of released drugs taint US water
(Associated Press Reports) U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water — contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked, according to an Associated Press investigation.
...
Utilities say the water is safe. Scientists, doctors and the EPA say there are no confirmed human risks associated with consuming minute concentrations of drugs. But those experts also agree that dangers cannot be ruled out, especially given the emerging research.
The reason the public is not told:
They say that the public “doesn’t know how to interpret the information” and might be "unduly alarmed".
I read this too ... I liked MSN's summary of the issue - I'll post some bits here:
A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.
To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.
But the presence of so many prescription drugs — and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen — in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.
The reason the public is not told: public “doesn’t know how to interpret the information” and might be unduly alarmed.
“People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that’s not the case,” said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.
However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.
“These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That’s what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects,” says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.
And while drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Pharmaceuticals also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. That’s why — aside from therapeutic doses of fluoride injected into potable water supplies — pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.
Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.
Human waste isn’t the only source of contamination. Cattle, for example, are given ear implants that provide a slow release of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid used by some bodybuilders, which causes cattle to bulk up. But not all the trenbolone circulating in a steer is metabolized. A German study showed 10 percent of the steroid passed right through the animals.
Water sampled downstream of a Nebraska feedlot had steroid levels four times as high as the water taken upstream. Male fathead minnows living in that downstream area had low testosterone levels and small heads.
Other veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, and even obesity — sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.
One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contaminants but is very expensive for large-scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.
Another issue: There’s evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.
I get tired of this "the people are too stupid to know" what a scientific study shows or doesn't show. The fact is - whether they would take it "the wrong way" or not - it shouldn't matter. This government and the health safety laws it enacts is for the people and it's supposed to be "by the people" - not as enacted by some elitist group. Water quality of their own city is exactly something "the people" should know about... so that if a municipality puts a vote to raising taxes in order to install one of those pricey reverse osmosis facilities the people can decide "yeah, this is why I want to give more money to my city -- I'm squeemish enough about that with the evidence given" OR decide they don't want it. K? Ugh. This stuff makes me mad.
This is finally one study done which should prompt more studies to be done and so on ... and it happens to support the things I've been worried about all along. In fact - it's this kind of stuff that prompted me to buy reverse osmosis for my kitchen tap. I'd love it if I could afford the household filter, but I can't at this point.
I've toured my city's waste treatment plant, and their water treatment plant... most people aren't aware of what is done scientifically to process the water that comes through their own shiny tap. If they realized how potentially unclean it was - and that the only way to control this would be to worry about whether the stuff they put on their lawn is going to end up in their child's mouth later - then they might actually start thinking about the chemicals they purchase and why they are taking that prescription... and perhaps wonder if there is a more "natural" cure for their ails.
The health crisis our country faces is related to the environment crisis.
My opinion is that we worry too much about profit - without looking at the fact that there is plenty. If closing a coal plant causes people to lose jobs - why aren't we looking at the flip side in that all sorts of new businesses will be opening to fill the energy gap - like, for instance - green energy solutions and that more jobs will be created?
Instead we're thrown a bunch of scare tactics about the recession that would be created if we move away from oil or clean up our rivers and we're told "we don't understand". It's total bunk. AND out of the other side of their mouth, they've been whispering for a very long time about how women and children should not eat large amounts of fish because of the mercury levels. You know - it's a good thing I didn't eat much fish when I was pregnant, because I didn't know that warning until much later. When I first heard it, I thought it was a joke or just some messed up activist group spewing nonsense, but I found it on the FDA website for myself. I guess they don't make that more readily seen because of the "panic that might spark" either. People might start thinking "well if a pregnant woman shouldn't eat it, then how good is it for me?" So what if they did?!
I personally think that people should be able to make an informed decision and given a CHOICE about what they put into their bodies.
So, so sorry for the rant. I'm just fed up today. *SIGH*
Oh and BTW - I'm not one of those people that thinks medication "magically disappears" after it's been ingested... nor do I think toilets have a digestive tract to render inert any of the prescriptions that simply get flushed down the toilet (expired or not) when people don't know what to do with them.
Informed Consent
*Ugh*
There are so many indications of how screwed up our system is here:
1) No federal testing for prescription drugs.
2) Either lack of information to make informed consent, or information presented in a fear mongering way that convinces everyone that nothing can be done.
3) Profit--the Pharmaceutical Lobby is so powerful in this country (See #1)--and as DL said in the example about closing down a coal plant--not only fear mongering again, but when plants do close it's the people on the bottom who pay the price not the CEOs--so the poorest people pay the economic cost and they pay the environmental cost, and they're told that if they do anything in aid of the environment it will cost them their jobs, and in fact, it does--though that's not the way it HAS to be.
So what now??
Ok, I had already gotten all riled up yesterday reading that article - particularily the "don't tell the public, they'll freak" bit. That's exactly the problem with awareness these days. Why do health officials KEEP this kind of information from the public? Because people might "freak out", or because people might freak out over nothing? I mean, seriously, which side is more ignorant? Whatever. DL hit the nail on the head... the public needs to be informed regardless. We need to have a choice, whether the the effects are harmful or not. Heck, it doesn't have to HARM ME, maybe I just don't want to be drinking (trace amounts or not) of drugs passed on from someone else... gross!
From my observation from reading different articles, the fear-mongering tactics are heavily used. But it really just makes you pay attention to the similarities with other issues. People are labeled rational and emotional when it comes to this information. The ones who excessively worry about contamination, and those who recognize that only trace amounts are found and they aren't harmful to human consumption. It's confusion. It's lack of information. It's misinformation, miscommunication, miseverythings that officials need to be addressing. It's our right.
As was stated, people today take an excessive amount of drugs. I agree, environmental and health issues are very much interlaced. You can't tackle one issue and dodge the other. People need to change the way they think about their reliance on medications. And their lifestyle.
Ugh, RIGHT ON with the mongering tactics... the screwed up system...
....ugh, it's too much.
If people were as stupid as the politicians seem to think...
Maybe the party with less votes should go to the White House...
Heh, I don't have a problem with that. 
It's not like the dominating parties don't steal the "little guys" ideas anyway.
Wow...
More on CA water issues ... linked to the water shortage:
It's Time To Drink Toilet Water
Recycling sewage is safe and efficient, so why aren't we doing it?
We don't have enough water where we need it; if we don't learn to deal with drinking toilet water, we're going to be mighty thirsty. Only 2.5 percent of the water on Earth is freshwater, and less than 1 percent of that is usable and renewable. The Ogallala Aquifer—North America's largest, stretching from Texas to South Dakota—is steadily being depleted. And Americans are insatiable water consumers—our water footprint has been estimated to be twice the global average (PDF).
The ocean provides another source of potable water. Large-scale treatment of seawater already occurs in the Middle East, Africa, and in Tampa Bay, Fla. Construction of the largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere is supposed to begin this year in Carlsbad, Calif., which would convert 300 million gallons of seawater into 50 million gallons of drinking water each day. Taking the salt out of ocean water sounds like a good idea, but it's economically and environmentally far more expensive than sewage-water recycling. Orange County water officials estimate desalinated water costs between $800 and $2,000 per acre-foot to produce, while its recycled water runs about $525 per acre-foot. Desalination also uses more energy (and thus produces more greenhouse gas emissions), kills tiny marine organisms that get sucked up into the processing plant, and produces a brine byproduct laced with chemicals that goes back into the ocean.
What desalination doesn't have, though, is the "yuck" factor of recycled sewage water. But seawater, like other sources of nonrecycled water, is at least as yucky as whatever comes through a toilet-to-tap program. When you know how dirty all this water is before treatment, recycling raw sewage doesn't seem like a bad option. Hundreds of millions of tons of sewage are dumped into rivers and oceans, and in that waste are bacteria, hormones, and pharmaceuticals. Runoff from rainwater, watering lawns, or emptying pools is the worst, sending metals, pesticides, and pathogens into lakes, rivers, and the ocean. The water you find near the end of a river system like the Colorado or the Mississippi (which feeds big cities like San Diego and New Orleans) has been in and out of municipal sewers several times.
Whatever winds up in lakes and rivers used for drinking is cleaned and disinfected along with the rest of our water supply. Still, a recent analysis of San Diego's drinking water found several contaminants, including ibuprofen, the bug repellent DEET, and the anti-anxiety drug meprobamate. No treatment system will ever be 100-percent reliable, and skeptics who worry that pathogens in sewage water will make it past treatment and into our drinking water should worry about all drinking water, not just the water in a toilet-to-tap program. The fact is, supertreated wastewater is clean enough to drink right after treatment. It's been used safely this way (in a process known as direct potable reuse) for years in the African nation of Namibia. The EPA has conducted research in Denver and San Diego on the safety of direct potable reuse and found recycled water is often of better quality than existing drinking water.
And although putting water into the ground, rivers, or lakes provides some additional filtering and more opportunities for monitoring quality, the benefits of doing it that way are largely psychological. In its 2004 report (PDF) on the topic, the EPA concluded that Americans perceive this water to be "laundered" as it moves through the ground or other bodies of water, even though in some instances, according to the report, "quality may actually be degraded as it passes through the environment."
This more than anything should bring Americans to think about the things they are polluting their rivers and oceans with... on down to the pharaceutical level... what are we putting in our bodies and thus into the ecosystem. When you flush, it doesn't magically disappear.
Water Footprint
An editorial about assessing water footprints in light of the crisis in California. This thought sure put the whole thing into perspective for me:
"Water is one of our most critical raw materials - even more important than oil, for there are no alternatives. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, chairman of Nestlé, one of the world's largest food conglomerates, put it starkly in an article in The Economist in December 2008: "I am convinced that, under present conditions and with the way water is being managed, we will run out of water long before we run out of fuel." "
And letters to the editor which had some good suggestions about cutting water use both collectively and individually.
cutting water use
Wow.
This part of that article really challenged the way I look at my daily habits:
About eight months ago, I started recycling water in my home. After only three months, my water bill was reduced by 50 percent. Although recycling water may seem inelegant at first, it sure will help preserve this natural resource.
First, I put a waste paper basket in the shower to catch water. I use water collected from my morning shower for plants, to flush the toilet, and to soak gritty dishes, pots, and pans before washing.
I also stopped letting the water run down the drain in the bathroom sink when I wash my face and hands or brush my teeth. I have a plastic container to catch and recycle water there, too.
As a one-person household, it takes longer to use up collected water. A family could find it easier to reuse water, and could turn this activity into a lot of fun.
I plan to buy a storage tank designed to catch rainwater and to which I could add recycled water from the house. A hose could be attached to water the lawn or to fill up a wading pool.
I've been thinking about a greywater system for my house for some time now. Planning time and expense are what has been stopping me. There's a lot of stuff involved in that like city codes - and if they're not currently allowed becoming active with the city council to plead a case. I've prepped up and did the meet and greet with officials who seemed open to new, energy efficent/recycling plans, however that's as far as I've gotten.
I read the city bulletin and noticed that there is a grant program in our town that would contribute $750 to water catchment projects as simple as just the rainwater barrels installed on the gutters. I was hoping by year end I'd be able to take advantage of that. I never realized or thought about doing things "hippie style" with tips like what this person has done above. The most I've ever seen is the idea to put a jar in the back of the toilet tank.
Interesting stuff.
Recycling Sewage
Recycling sewage
Wow, I keep stumbling across questions I missed in the shuffle.
So more than a year later and a quick refresh of what I posted...
I think the point of the article is that specifically that treating sewage water with the direct goal to convert it into drinking water is a different process than processing stream water for our city drinking water. They'd have to do more in order to get specific contaminants out. The end result is actually a cleaner drinking water than most cities provide today.
As things are right now, sewage is treated and released with the goal that it's no longer a "biohazard" to the environment, not necessarily that this water can be directly consumed. It's presumed that any water would go through the city filtration system to be processed to whatever water quality standards protect us there. So the treated sewage water that makes its way into our clean water supply potentially brings more contaminants, and filters in new contaminants from the environment that it's passed through.
It was a little confusing how that article addressed the preconceptions that people have about how clean their city water is. I toured my city's water treatment plant with a group learning about the city government. It's funny that once people connected the fact that we essentially drink the river water that their boats pollute, that treated sewage is dumped into they suddenly had a lot of questions about how the aquifer system worked and asked why we didn't simply treat all of the water with a huge reverse osmosis system. These same people showed that "cringe" factor being discussed. If they were told that their water came directly from a purified sewage source, I can only imagine the outcry. The point is that they'd be thumbing their noses up at a better system of water management because they don't understand the ins and outs of the process.
Sierra Club Activism works in Michigan!
Court Rules For Club, Says Michigan Factory Farms Violate Clean Water Act
Here's the excerpt: Scott Jerger, below, who took on the case pro bono, was the Club's lead attorney on the appeal. The court ruled that the state is wrongly giving factory farms, also called CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), too much authority to determine how much manure they spread on fields and the rate at which they can do so. CAFOs generate huge amounts of manure that is spread on farm fields, the runoff from which pollutes nearby streams with harmful bacteria. Permit seekers will now need to provide detailed information on what they plan to do and make that information available for public review.
"Factory farms will now be on the same footing as other companies that need to get water quality permits."
I wish IA would learn from Michigan
The legislature has gone against a DNR ruling to allow CAFO operations (large scale factory farms with a lot of manure waste) to legally "apply manure" to frozen ground.
This creates a legal loophole for environmental destruction. The DNR ruled based on scientific evidence that allowing this type of practice directly degrades the drinking water supply and puts Iowans at a health risk.
If you live in IA and swim, canoe or fish, etc ....
Please send your public comments to the DNR.
There is a planned downgrading of specific streams in IA that will allow more pollution to enter our waterways. This doesn't seem like a good thing.
One person does make a difference - moreso in state and local politics. If at all you can do this and it's important to you - please act today!
Iowa DNR
Do you have a link you can provide regarding this?
I have many reservations about encouraging Iowa DNR on any front because I've seen them too many times wield their unrepresented power too harshly and quite frankly I don't trust them.
*edit*
Never mind, I think I found the links I needed embedded in the original document.
Work needed on water infrastructure
This is a petition to the senate asking for $6 billion dollars as part of the Jobs for Main Street bill. Water infrastructure is greatly in need of repair and the stimulus money would work not only to do those repairs but to create jobs.
Food & Water Watch: Take Action