1. 2016
Allison Hockey
Water Pollution Policy in the United States:
Historical Overview, Current Trends, and
Future Implication of the Des Moines
Water Works Lawsuit

2. 2
Abstract
The Clean Water Act of 1972 was a landmark piece of legislation that provided the regulatory
framework through which industries worked to improve the quality of America’s waters. In the
forty years since this legislation began, agricultural pollution has remained exempt from its
regulatory reach, though it is well understood that agriculture is the leading source of runoff
pollution to rivers and lakes. States have complied with federal regulations requiring Nonpoint
Source Management Plans be created but enforcement remains an individual choice of the states.
Voluntary measures have proven largely ineffective, and the funding for Iowa’s two nonpoint
plans is not a dedicated source. This paper is an examination of agricultural pollution and the
federal and state agencies that are responsible for bringing nonpoint source pollution under
control. Current policy measures are examined in the context of current conservation trends and
the policy changes that the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit could potentially trigger.
Nonregulation of nonpoint source pollution has been a recurring theme in agricultural states and
those affected by downstream runoff. Current drainage laws protect the upstream landowner, but
in light of increasing nitrate concentrations in water supplies and resistance from downstream
cost bearers, questions are being brought to the table regarding just what qualifies as an
agricultural exemption and who should be responsible for the cleanup. This paper suggests that
the drainage districts who were created as a means to pursue their own economic advantage be
passed the responsibility of maintaining the drainage systems they build, and that the nonpoint
source management programs established be granted the sustainable source of funding they
require to implement comprehensive, collaborative water quality improvements.

3. 3
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………2
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………………...3
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………..…5
History of agricultural development and resulting major pollution concerns
Non – regulation of nonpoint source water pollution
Implications of the Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit against drainage districts
Drainage Leads to Pollution…………………………………………………………………………………..7
Drainage and tiling
Pollution
NPS exemptions
EPA ……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………….10
Section 208
Section 319
Section 303(d)
Current Trends in Conservation across the US and in Iowa
2014 Farm Bill
Innovative Conservation Practices
Funding of Programs and Agencies Responsible for Carrying out Conservation Practices……………………..12
Federal Programs
State Programs
Funding the Programs in Iowa
Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
Background of the Lawsuit
Implications for the Future
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22

4. 4
List of Figures
Figure 1. Nutrient loading to Gulf of Mexico………………………………………………………………………6
Figure 2. EPA/IDNR Funding Options………………………………………….……………………………...….13
Figure 3. USDA Agricultural Conservation Programs……………………………….………………………….…14
Figure 4. US spending on conservation programs forecasted out to 2018…………………………………….….14
Figure 5. US spending on conservation programs from 1983-2011………..…………………………….………...14
Figure 6. Decrease in Funding from FY 2002-12..………………………………………………….……………...16
Figure 7. Total IDALS and DNR General Funding to 2012……...…................................................……………...16
Figure 8. Farmer Awareness of Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy…………………………………………………20

5. 5
Introduction
The shift in agricultural production practices from being centered around a family unit operating
all aspects of farming to an industrialized form of production was profound. What used to be “an
activity that was at once productive, nonpolluting, and self-renewing is now only productive”
(Purdy, 2001). Farming was a respectable trade and farmers were born stewards of their land,
having no chemicals to rely on that would assure a good yield. Times started changing after
Roosevelt’s declaration of a new deal, and Ernie Butt’s instructions to plant fencerow to
fencerow. The Great Depression gave way to the 50’s and yields went up, the number of farms
went down and monoculture settled in for the long haul. Then came the wave of environmental
consciousness that marked the 60’s and 70’s. The Environmental Protection Agency was enacted
by President Nixon in 1970 and by 1972 we had a Clean Water Act, a landmark piece of
legislation that cleaned up the pollution in America’s waterways through force of action in
regulatory measures.
Never in the history of the CWA has it been as crucial to rethink the policy regarding
exemptions of nonpoint source pollution. The provisions granted agricultural land developers is
founded in old west doctrine. In 1948 the first Federal Water Pollution Control Act was
formalized. Land developers pushed back against this control, and it was decided that it was in
America’s best economic interest to exert some control over the land and continue irrigation and
drainage. Conservation is not a new concept in America, however. After the dust bowl wiped out
thousands of farmers in the 30’s, the Soil Conservation Service was formed. This agency would

6. 6
later come to be known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the federal entity that
works alongside the United States Department of Agriculture. In light of steadfast technological
innovations in agriculture, such as mechanization, and commodity programs that incentivized
farmers to plant fencerow to fencerow, these early efforts at conservation were marginalized in
favor of expanding economic interests.
The tide has shifted in favor of conservation practices again, and federal policy makers
are being forced to rethink outdated pollution standards, especially those which focus on
agricultural runoff pollution. Currently, regulation is up to the states themselves, and in Iowa
agricultural producers have made great strides towards becoming more environmentally
compliant, but there are many obstacles that stand in the way of fully implementing the
management plans we have enacted. Severe funding shortages and lack of authoritative measures
being taken by the regulating authorities in our state have created a diverse set of challenges for
those affected by downstream pollution.
The Des Moines Water Works argues that voluntary approaches to mitigate agricultural
nitrate pollution are not enough. Nitrate concentrations at CEO bill Stowe’s facility reached
record highs in the Spring of 2013 when the DMWW incurred a bill of $900,000 in treatment
costs and lost revenues, which is passed on to utility users. They are asking that effluents from
drainage districts be regulated under the same national pollution discharge elimination system
(NPDES) permitting system as point source polluters, as it can be argued that agricultural
effluents are “a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance” that travels through a network of
pipes, travels to lower elevations through the watershed, down through the cross- regional
Mississippi River Basin, and into the Gulf of Mexico.

7. 7
Drainage Leads to Pollution
Drainage and Tiling
In agriculture, the yields produced year after year wouldn’t be possible without the
drainage network in place today. Drainage and irrigation are essential to produce a good crop.
Agricultural drainage is a mechanism by which water levels are controlled in order to keep
crops from becoming waterlogged. The water table is controlled in two ways: surface and
subsurface drainage. Subsurface drains are placed underneath of the root zone of a crop,
allowing water to flow away from the roots. Subsurface drains are, in effect, pipes, carrying
water away from a commodity. Surface drains are open ditches, and serve as the apparatus
through which the subsurface drains let out the collected water and carry it away from the fields
Figure 1. Nutrient loading to Gulf of Mexico

8. 8
(Davidson, 2004). There are many benefits of drainage from a farmer’s perspective – it allows
soils that do not drain fast enough naturally to drain, it removes toxins and salts from the root
zone of a plant, and reduces surface runoff, which contributes to soil loss. Drainage also is the
mechanism through which pollution is transported to surface waters.
Drainage Districts
A drainage district is essentially a funding tool farmers utilize to get money to
pay for tile drainage. As defined in the Iowa Drainage Manual, a drainage district can be
established by two or more landowners for the purpose of providing facilities for draining excess
water in a watershed area. Once a drainage district is established, the board of supervisors is
trustee for the district until the district petitions the court to elect three trustees from the
membership of the landowners in the district, relieving the county supervisors of responsibility.
So, in essence, the establishment of a drainage district, besides providing the public a service in
the form of acquiring lands to establish drainage facilities, basically turns private landowners
into an organized governing body who do not have to abide by any private landowner
obligations. A drainage district is given the right of eminent domain and is granted immunity
from damages by Iowa law. In Fisher v. Dallas County, 369 N.W. 2d 426 (Iowa 1985) it was
found that a “drainage district cannot be sued in tort for monetary damages. Neither can a county
nor board of supervisors be held vicariously liable for a monetary judgment against a drainage
district” (McDonald et al., 2005). If a governing body which was granted governing authority by
the federal government is immune from regulation, we have to question under what laws are we
protected from damages the drainage districts impart to us. This is a fundamental piece of the
claim the Des Moines Water Works is asking the courts to consider.
Pollution

9. 9
Non-point source pollution is defined by the Iowa DNR as “the pollutants that runoff
dissolves and carries with it”. Runoff is defined by the IDNR as rainfall that travels over the
surface of the land and represent the entire volume of water that discharges into the nearest
waterbody” (IDNR, 2012). The general consensus is that nonpoint source pollution carries with
it nutrients that have been collected through a drainage network and carried downstream by
gravity to an outlet source, such as a stream or river. Point source pollution is pollution that is
regulated by the EPA and is defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,
including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure,
container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, etc.”(Clean Water Act, Section
502) The definition goes on to expressly exclude agricultural storm water discharges and return
flows from irrigated agriculture. It’s disappointing and contradictory that the EPA would give
such exclusion to agricultural discharges, especially when they have long recognized non-point
source agricultural pollution as a major contributor to the hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of
Mexico. In 2007, The US EPA acknowledged that corn and soybean fields contribute about
82% of the nitrous oxide and 58% of phosphorous to the Gulf of Mexico (Porter et al., 2015).
NPS Exemptions
Agricultural runoff has largely been exempted from the Federal Clean Water Act,
though the EPA has tried before to regulate irrigation return flows. In an article I found that
addresses cranberry bog phosphorous discharge into lakes in Wisconsin, it was mentioned that
in 1976 the EPA changed the permit exemption for irrigation return flows and required a permit
for “agricultural point sources” (Hanson, 2007). The EPA back then defined an agricultural
point source as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance from which any irrigation
return flow is discharged into navigable waters”. And irrigation return flows were described as

10. 10
follows: surface waters, containing pollutants which result from the controlled application of
water by any person to land used primarily for crops, forage growth, or nursery operations”
(Hanson) What this amounts to is that the EPA had tried to apply the NPDES permitting process
to those point sources that had irrigation return flows, but Congress simply amended the
definition of point source to exclude agricultural return flows, and the irrigation return flow
exemption was amended to the Federal Clean Water Act in 1977 six years after the landmark
Clean Water Act amendments of 1971.
NPS pollution has been granted an exemption status for a number of reasons, not the least
of which is the fact that it is hard to quantify as it is a diffuse source of pollution and point
source regulation can be more easily measured through technological controls. (Hipfel, 2001).
Some regard the agricultural exemptions as a political maneuver by powerful agribusiness
associations and non-reflective of current technological innovations (Davidson, 2004). Other
challenges to non-point source regulation include lack of funding for state based programs
(Healthy Lands, 2016; Hoyer et al., 2012), unwieldy administrative burdens, and pinpointing
the pollution to identifiable fields is very difficult, as there are hundreds of fields which
contribute to the problem, and no way to quantify the amount that each field contributes.
EPA regulation of nonpoint source pollution
Section 208
Section 208 and section 303(d) TMDL were both crafted with the revision of the CWA in
1972 (Hoornbeek et al, 2012). Section 208 was essentially a failure when it came to regulating
non-point source pollution because it gave all regulatory control to the states, it was voluntary,
and provided no mechanism by which states could regulate NPS pollution (Szalay, 2010). It was
basically a funding program for the development of voluntary measures.

11. 11
Section 319
Section 319, enacted in 1987, is more of the same. It requires states to make an
assessment report of waters that remain impaired and to identify ways that NPS pollution can be
reduced through Best Management Practices, or BMP’s (Szalay). Again, there is no federal
requirement of states to actually implement their plans and the funding is noncommittal. Also,
the EPA is required to make an assessment report if the state fails to do so, but they aren’t
allowed to come up with a nonpoint source management program. That responsibility lies with
the states. (Szalay; Laitos, 2013). In effect, the Section 319 program does not provide any
improvements to Section 208, because there is still no regulatory action being enforced by the
federal government.
Section 303(d)
Section 303(d) of the CWA contains the Total Maximum Daily Load process (TMDL).
A TMDL can be described as “the total amount of a given pollutant that can be added to a given
waterway on a daily basis and still have the waterway meet the applicable water quality
standards” (Szalay). The TMDL system requires states to identify waters within their borders
for which technology based regulatory controls are not enough to ensure in-stream compliance
with water quality standards. States are then required to submit a TMDL report to the EPA for
approval that includes a list of impaired water bodies and the measures they intend to take to
bring these waters into compliance with the CWA. The EPA then establishes a load allocation
(LA) to each individual pollutant (Hoornbeek, 2012).
Current Trends in Conservation
2014 Farm Bill

12. 12
While there remains no federally enforced regulation of nonpoint source pollution to
date, there are many options for states to self-regulate and there have been put in place programs
which reward farmers for implementing conservation practices on their fields. One such shift
away from commodity based subsidy programs is an agri-environmental program which awards
farmers for implementing conservation practices on their lands (Reimer, 2015). Other big
changes include the consolidation and streamlining of programs, increased funding for
programs, increased collaboration at the watershed scale, and more reliance on voluntary action
(Lubell, 2004). This reliance on voluntary action is viewed by some as in the interest of not
regulating producers of pollution (Reimer). The ultimate question of concern to municipalities
such as the Des Moines utility is whether these approaches work fast enough for them and
whether our state government will push our own funding mechanism through to pay for these
voluntary measures.
Innovative Conservation Practices
Denitrifying bioreactors have the potential to decrease nutrient loss and are cited as a
principal technique being adopted by federal agencies such as the USDA NRCS. The
bioreactors are designed to intercept polluted water at the field edge. The science behind these
things is pretty simple – the bioreactors contain a Carbon source, typically woodchips, which
contribute the electrons needed to stimulate anaerobic conditions necessary for the
denitrification process to happen. Nitrates are converted into nitrogen gases, and released into
the atmosphere (Addy et al., 2016). Wetlands are also proving to be very effective at nitrate
removal, and can be instrumented for automated sampling of nitrate concentrations. Other
conservation practices like planting buffer strips, perennial grasses, or cover crops are

13. 13
operational. Implementing any one of these practices on fields contributes to runoff loss
prevention and improves water quality in Iowa.
This shift in focus can be attributed to the acknowledgement that conservation and
stewardship do not have to be at odds with production. It is possible to achieve both ends
(Lenihan, 2010). This is an expression of Ecological Modernization, a term which embodies
changing perceptions of environmental protection and economic growth. The two things can be
coefficient. There are some criticisms of the central tenets of ecological modernization- mainly
that it focuses on incremental changes rather than systematic (Mol et al, 2002).
Funding of programs
Federal Programs
The US EPA and the USDA are the primary agencies responsible for carrying out
allocations of moneys to individual programs focused on conservation. The EPA and some state
programs are required, while USDA programs remain voluntary (Claassen, 2013). The EPA
requires states to develop an approved nonpoint source management plan in order to qualify for
federal section 319 funding. In Iowa, the section 319 program is administered by the
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR, 2016). Below is a list of funding options available to
watershed improvement efforts in Iowa that are jointly administered by the EPA and the IDNR.

14. 14
The USDA houses both the Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service). These agencies are responsible for
administering the voluntary conservation programs that landowners and producers may wish to
enter their agricultural land into. Since the 2014 Farm Bill, many programs were consolidated in
an effort to streamline and reduce administrative burdens. Many programs remain. Figure 3 is a
table of current USDA Agricultural conservation Programs, which is credited to Megan Stubbs,
specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy.
Figure 2. EPA/IDNR Funding Options

15. 15
Figures 4 and 5 below from the Environmental Research Service show the amount of
funding allotted to conservation programs from 1987 and forecasted out to 2018. The current
trend is to increase funding for working lands programs, which implement conservation
practices on fields that are in production.
Figure 3. USDA Agricultural Conservation Programs
Figures 4 and 5. US spending on conservation programs from 1983- 2011 and forecasted out to
2018.
from 1983 to 2011.

16. 16
State Programs
The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy is a science based strategy designed to reduce
nitrate and phosphorous loads into Iowa waterways and the Gulf of Mexico by 45% (Osterberg
& Kline, 2014). It was released in the spring of 2013 as a collaborative partnership by the IDNR,
Iowa State University, NRCS, and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.
The Nutrient Reduction Strategy suggested new ways to address ongoing water quality problems
in Iowa and the initiatives are often referred to as the Water Quality Initiative. The development
of the INRS was in response to the 2008 Hypoxia Action Plan that demands all states along the
Mississippi River come up with a plan that will reduce nutrient loading to the Gulf. The strategy
follows the framework set out by the EPA’s suggested guidelines in 2011, but lacks a dedicated
funding mechanism, and the NRS sets no time limit. (Osterberg et al., 2014).
Our first nonpoint source management plan was created in 1989, following the
amendment of the Section 319 program to the CWA in 1987. Creation of a nonpoint source
management plan was required by the EPA in order for a state to become eligible for section
319 funding. The Iowa Nonpoint Source Management Plan is administered by the department of
Natural Resources. Our current NPSMP was created in July of 2012, and is reflective of the
evolving trends in conservation across the US, which is to focus on science based performance
measures and watershed scale collaboration along watershed boundaries instead of political
boundaries (DNR, 2012). While the management plans do a fine job of reflecting Iowa’s
intentions and values, they lack funding (Healthy Lands, Healthy Waters, 2016).
Funding the Programs in Iowa

17. 17
Figure 6. Decrease in Funding from FY 2002-12
Back in 2010, 63% of Iowa voters overwhelmingly supported an amendment to the State
Constitution that would dedicate a portion of any increase in sales tax to the Natural Resources
and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund (Osterberg et al., 2014). This would be a dedicated and
sustainable source of funding for water quality improvements, including the Iowa Nutrient
Reduction Strategy and the Iowa Nonpoint Source Management Plan, the likes of which many
surrounding states have already implemented, and we have not seen one penny dropped into.
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and fellow legislators have repeatedly shut it down. Iowa’s
Water and Land Legacy is a varied group of organizations and individuals who have come
together to support the trust fund. If allowed to pass, it would allocate $ 150 -180M annually to
existing conservation programs, and would achieve the Nutrient Reduction Strategy’s goal of a
45% reduction (Ackelson, 2016). Allocating money into programs aimed at improving Iowa’s
water quality is imperative if we are expected to achieve this nitrogen reduction with only
voluntary measures. According to the Iowa Policy Project, funding for water quality programs
dropped in 7 of 10 programs between 2002 and 2012, which is shown in the table and graph
below. Both the DNR and the IDALS funding saw no boost in funding from either the state’s
General Fund or from the federal government (Hoyer, et al., 2012)
Figure 7. Total IDALS and DNR General Funding

18. 18
Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit
Background of the lawsuit
On March 15 of 2015, the Des Moines Water Works decided it was time to make a move
against continued agricultural exemptions laid out in the Clean Water Act and sued three
upstream counties that deliver nitrates to their treatment facility through a vast drainage network
that empties into the Raccoon and Des Moines River, from which the DMWW gets their
drinking water supply (Coppess, 2016). This is a citizen suit filed under the Clean Water Act
(Coppess, 2015). Municipalities bear the cost of increasing agricultural runoff pollution. Under
EPA standards set in the Safe Drinking Water Act, residential drinking water supply cannot have
nitrate levels in excess of 10mg/L. In light of the state’s continued increase of runoff pollution
entering waterways and handicapping municipalities, the world’s largest ion exchange nitrate
removing facility filed suit against the three upstream counties who contribute directly to their
nutrient load. Nitrate levels have been increasing steadily since 1970 and in the past year has cost
area residents that the Water Works serves an average of $7000 a day (Environmental Law
Professor, 2016). Since the inception of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, the Des Moines
Water Works facility incurred $900,000 worth of charges to remove nitrates in only two episodes
of “unprecedented” nitrate loading (Stowe, 2015). Bill Stowe, CEO of the DMWW made a
moral call and decided it makes more sense to file a legal complaint against the drainage districts
that could potentially alter the way the EPA regulates nonpoint source pollution than it does to
keep rebuilding their facility. Helping Mr. Stowe’s judgment call sway in favor of legal action
was likely Governor Terry Branstad’s veto of the supplement to the Nutrient Reduction Strategy

19. 19
in May of 2014 (Hamilton, 2015). Voluntary measurements will go nowhere if they can’t be
funded.
The DMWW did their math before they moved forward with the suit. They chose Buena
Vista, Sac and Calhoun counties because for over a year, they had done testing at 72 public sites
that were identified as agricultural land and sole contributors of nitrate pollution (Stowe). The
DMWW chose to sue the supervisors of the drainage districts because they were given regulating
authority by the state and are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the drainage
ditches. They believe that drainage districts are the body through which regulation can be
implemented, given their special legal status (Davidson, 2004). Also of note is the fact that the
DMWW insists that because the practice of tiling drains the water from an underground water
table, the runoff is actually groundwater, not stormwater (Hamilton, 2015). Bill Stowe is not the
first to worry about what subsurface drainage systems do to groundwater. In a study published in
2011, four scientists from the University of Iowa and Iowa State did research regarding the
impact of drainage tiles to groundwater hydrology and concluded that drainage does indeed
affect groundwater hydrology. The incision depth of the tile lines and the ‘saturated thickness” of
the aquifer in which the tile lines are placed are direct considerations of how fast drainage moves
through the groundwater (Schilling et al, 2011) Agricultural stormwater and irrigation return
flows are expressly granted an exemption from the regulating authority of the Clean Water Act,
but if it is called into question what runoff actually is, the EPA may be pressured to alter the
exemption definition for agricultural discharge. This nudging act puts the EPA in a dubious
position, as it will likely take heat from either side no matter which direction they choose to go
with it.
Implications for the Future

20. 20
The case is set to go before the Supreme Court in Sioux City in August of this year.
What happens is anybody’s guess, but the novelty of the case will not wear off anytime soon. If
the Supreme Court decides in the DMWW favor, and they agree that drainage district systems
are not storm water discharge but “artificially drained groundwater” (Stowe, 2015) and that the
systems are point sources, the state of Iowa and the EPA would have to develop a permitting
process (Hamilton). At this time there are no rules from which to develop said process. Before a
process was even initiated, it is likely that someone will want to determine how much of the flow
from tile lines is from storm water and how much is from groundwater, or if there is even a
difference.
Implementing a regulatory control through the enforcement of a permitting scheme
wouldn’t be beyond the scope of a drainage district’s capabilities (Davidson, 2004). Imagine the
drainage districts, as areas of land, and all the points where tile lines discharge into waterways.
The drainage districts could feasibly combine many farming operations into one system of
outlets and put them under one umbrella of a permit. Consideration must also be given to the
producers who are unaware of the conservation programs available to them. According to Mr.
David Osterberg of the Iowa Policy Project, 1 in 5 farmers was unaware of the Iowa Nutrient
Reduction Strategy in 2012. The 2011 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll was done in 2011 and
surveyed 1200 farmers. Figure 8 below shows the results of this survey.

21. 21
Discussion
Agricultural pollution has a tremendous impact on water systems and federal policy
regarding nonpoint source pollution should be examined again and changes made that reflect
current standards. I have attempted to outline the history of the development of the EPA and
water policy and its evolutionary character. Sections 208, 319, and 303(d) have all attempted to
bring NPS regulation under some control, but have failed due to a lack of regulatory structure
and an undedicated source of funding. Regulation of non-point source pollution has largely been
left up to the states themselves, and in Iowa, we have developed a framework through which we
can work to improve water quality. But with an undedicated source of funding for these
programs, it is unlikely that voluntary, state based programs will work to reach the desired
reduction goals laid out in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy required by the EPA.
Current trends in water conservation efforts are focused on collaboration between local
watershed agencies and state administrators of programs. Many innovative conservation
measures are currently being implemented at the field level to decrease nutrient loading to the
Figure 8. Farmer Awareness of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

22. 22
Gulf of Mexico. Supporters of regulation believe the nutrient reduction strategy and voluntary
efforts will not be enough, especially without the necessary funding. Farmers are unfamiliar still
with the strategies in place to reduce nutrient loading and confusion over which programs to
enroll in are cumbersome hurdles.
Water quality has historically been a contentious issue in Iowa from sides with competing
interests. The Des Moines Water Works’ lawsuit against the Sac, Calhoun, and Buena Vista
county supervisors who represent the drainage districts in those counties is raising questions as to
the responsibilities those drainage districts could legally assume. If the EPA decides to redefine
the exemption status of agricultural stormwater discharges to groundwater which is regulated
under the NPDES permitting system, it could be a game changer for the drainage districts who
may be required under state law to enforce water quality improvements at the source level, which
would be more financially equitable in the long run. If drainage districts were required to place
bioreactors, or other effective nitrate removal technologies at tile line discharge points, it would
lessen the burden placed on the municipalities, who are subject to EPA regulation through the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Conclusion
Regulation of agricultural pollution has historically been to exempt agricultural pollution
from EPA Clean Water Act regulation. This practice should undergo changes at least at the state
level in the future due to increasing criticism over the validity of exemption status of nonpoint
source pollution. As it stands right now, state requirements for nonpoint source regulation are
voluntary, nutrient pollution is trending upwards, and funding for nonpoint source programs is
not dedicated.

23. 23
Current trends in agricultural programs are leaning towards a decentralized view on
policy into a more regionalized perspective, letting states invent comprehensive watershed
management plans and local management groups organize themselves with intentions to
minimize administrative burdens and streamline efforts, with an emphasis on utilizing
technology as a planning tool. Many effective conservation practices are being utilized at the
field level and research suggests that these efforts will substantially decrease the amount of
nutrient pollution being taken from Iowa fields and delivered into the Gulf of Mexico, given
time, but time is not something we should waste. Collaboration and knowledge sharing at the
local and state level is an ongoing improvement strategy to fix impaired water bodies in Iowa,
but it’s reaching out to the producers that will make the difference. I maintain that outreach to
farmers who are still unmindful of the strategies in place to reduce nutrient loading to the Gulf
must be informed. Outreach must be increased if we are to allow a voluntary strategy to work,
otherwise mandatory conservation practices must be put in place.
The Des Moines Water Works lawsuit may be a novel case, but it has legitimate fighting
power and the question over the legalities of who is responsible for runoff pollution, whether it
be drainage districts, the counties or the landowners themselves is sparking discussions and
debates in legal, agricultural and academic communities. With some studies showing that
nutrient pollution will only get worse without any regulating authority, it is time to endorse some
regulatory changes or require farmers to implement at least one conservation practice on their
fields.

24. 24
References
Ackelson, M. (2016, April 09). Promises Made, Never Kept. Retrieved April 09, 2016, from
http://citizensforahealthyiowa.org/sections/news/trust-verify
Addy, Kelly, et al. "Denitrifying bioreactors for nitrate removal: A meta-analysis." Journal of
Environmental Quality (2016).
Claassen, R., Aillery, M., & Nickerson, C. (2007). Integrating commodity and conservation
programs: design options and outcomes. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report, (44).
Clean Water Act, Section 502 General Definitions. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-
404/clean-water-act-section-502-general-definitions
Coppess, Johnathan. (2015, February 3). Environmental regulation of agriculture: the Des
Moines water works issue. [Web Log comment]. Retrieved from
http://policymatters.illinois.edu/environmental-regulation-of-agriculture-the-des-moines-
water-works-issue/
Coppess, Johnathan. (2016, March 29). Understanding the Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit.
[Web Log comment]. Retrieved from
http://www.agprofessional.com/news/understanding-des-moines-water-works-lawsuit
Davidson, J. H. (2004). Factory Fields: Agricultural Practices, Polluted Water and Hypoxic
Oceans. Great Plains Nat. Resources J., 9, 1.
Environmental Law Professor (Tuesday, February 16, 2016). The Des Moines Tile Line
Discharge Case. Retrieved from
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2016/02/the-des-moines-tile-line-
discharge-case.html.

25. 25
Hamilton, Neil. (2015, March 05). Sixteen things to know about the Des Moines water works
proposed lawsuit. [Web Log comment]. Retrieved from
http://aglaw.blogspot.com/2015/03/sixteen-things-to-know-about-des-moines.html
Hanson, A. C., & Bender, D. C. (2007). Irrigation Return Flow or Discrete Discharge-Why
Water Pollution from Cranberry Bogs Should Fall within the Clean Water Acts NPDES
Program. Envtl. L., 37, 339.
Healthy Lands, Healthy Waters: A Watershed Framework For Iowa. (2016, January 6) Retrieved
fromhttp://www.iaenvironment.org/webres/File/Program%20Publications/Healthy_Lands
_Healthy_Waters_Jan2016.pdf
Hipfel, Steven J. (2001) Enforcement of Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control and
Abatement Measures Applicable to Federal Facilities, Activities and Land Management
Practices Under Federal and State Law. The Environmental Lawyer. 75(8) 1-44.
Hoornbeek, John; Hansen Evan; Ringquist Evan; Carlson, Robert (2013). Implementing Water
Pollution Policy in the United States: Total Maximum Daily Loads and Collaborative
Watershed Management, Society & Natural Resources, 26:4, 420-436, DOI:
10.1080/08941920.2012.700761
Hoyer, Will; McDonough, Brian & David Osterberg. (2012).Drops in the Bucket: The Erosion of
Iowa Water Quality Funding. The Iowa Policy Project.org. Retrieved from
http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2012Research/120301-water.html
(Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2012). Planning for Water Quality. Iowa’s Nonpoint
Source Management Plan. http://publications.iowa.gov/20886/1/npsmp_main.pdf
Laitos, Jan G. (2013). The Clean Water Act and the Challenge of Agricultural Pollution.
Vermont Law Review. 37(1033). 1-20.

26. 26
Lenihan, M. H., & Brasier, K. J. (2010). Ecological modernization and the US Farm Bill: the
case of the Conservation Security Program. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), 219-227.
Lubell, Mark. (2004). Collaborative watershed Management: A View From the Grassroots. UC
Davis. Department of Environmental Science and Policy.
McDonald, T. J., Rider, S. C., Regenold, M., Storm, B., Hansen, B., & O’Neil, T. (2005). Iowa
Drainage Law Manual (No. TR-497). Center for Transportation Research and Education,
Iowa State University.
Mol, A. P., Spaargaren, G., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2014). Ecological modernization theory: taking
stock, moving forward. In Routledge International Handbook of Social and
Environmental Change (pp. 15-30). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
Osterberg, David & Kline, Aaron. (2014). A Threat Unmet: Why Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction
Strategy Falls Short Against Water Pollution. The Iowa Policy Project.org. Retrieved
from http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/Environment_Energy.html
Porter, P. A., Mitchell, R. B., & Moore, K. J. (2015). Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico:
Reimagining a more resilient agricultural landscape in the Mississippi River
Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 70(3), 63A-68A.
Purdy, Jedidiah, S. (2001, November 14). The New Culture of Rural America. Prospect.org.
Retrieved from http://prospect.org/article/new-culture-rural-america
Reimer, Adam. (2015). Ecological Modernization in U.S. Agri-environmental Programs: Trends
in the 2014 Farm Bill. Land Use Policy, 47, 209-217.

27. 27
Schilling, K. E., Jindal, P., Basu, N. B., & Helmers, M. J. (2012). Impact of artificial subsurface
drainage on groundwater travel times and baseflow discharge in an agricultural
watershed, Iowa (USA). Hydrological Processes, 26(20), 3092-3100.
Stowe, W. (2016). Swimming Upstream: Des Moines Water Works Asks for Agricultural
Accountability in A State that Claims to ‘Feed the World’.ROOTSTALK| A Prairie
Journal of Culture, Science and the Arts, 2(1), 32-37.
Szalay, E. (2010). Breathing Life into the Dead Zone: Can the Federal Common Law of
Nuisance Be Used to Control Nonpoint Source Water Pollution. Tul. L. Rev., 85, 215.
Figures references
Economic Research Service (2012). Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators.
Gottlieb, Jessica; Osteen, Craig & Vasavada, Uptal. (USDA publication EIB -98)
Stubbs, M. (2010). Agricultural conservation: a guide to programs.

28. 28