Water Quality Crisis in Iowa: A Sustainable Development Goals Perspective

Core Challenge: Failure to Meet SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)

Iowa is facing a significant water quality crisis, characterized by high levels of nitrates and E. coli in its water sources. This situation directly impedes progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 6, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of clean water and sanitation for all. The contamination renders many water sources undrinkable and unsafe for recreational use, necessitating costly treatment processes by public utilities like the Central Iowa Water Works to provide safe drinking water (Target 6.1). The widespread pollution from agricultural runoff indicates a failure to improve ambient water quality by reducing contamination (Target 6.3).

Compounding Impacts on Health, Economy, and Ecosystems

The consequences of poor water quality extend beyond sanitation, affecting multiple dimensions of sustainable development.

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Reports link the state’s water pollution to adverse public health outcomes, including the second-highest new cancer rate in the United States. This directly contravenes Target 3.9, which calls for a substantial reduction in illnesses and deaths from water pollution and contamination.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): A correlation is suggested between the environmental issues and the state’s low rankings in GDP and job growth, highlighting how environmental degradation can undermine economic prosperity.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Agricultural runoff not only pollutes drinking water but also degrades inland freshwater ecosystems, conflicting with the conservation and sustainable use objectives outlined in SDG 15.

Analysis of Proposed Solutions for Achieving Water Sustainability

Regulatory vs. Voluntary Approaches to Agricultural Practices

A central debate exists regarding the most effective method to mitigate agricultural pollution. The current state policy favors voluntary conservation measures by farmers. However, critics argue this approach has proven ineffective, as evidenced by the persistent pollution. This debate is critical to achieving SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), particularly concerning the environmentally sound management of agricultural inputs like fertilizers. Proponents of regulation argue that mandatory actions are necessary to enforce sustainable farming practices that protect public water resources.

Specific Policy and Infrastructure Recommendations

Several specific strategies have been proposed to address the water crisis, aligning with various Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Implement Mandatory Vegetative Buffers: Following the example of Minnesota’s Buffer Law, requiring perennial vegetative buffers along rivers, streams, and ditches would help prevent fertilizer runoff. This directly supports SDG 15.1 (conservation of freshwater ecosystems) and SDG 6.3 (reducing pollution).
2. Condition Agricultural Subsidies: Tying existing farm subsidies to the mandatory implementation of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy would create a powerful economic incentive for adopting sustainable practices, advancing SDG 12.
3. Introduce a Fertilizer Tax: A tax on fertilizers, with revenues dedicated to water quality improvement projects, could disincentivize overuse and fund remediation efforts, aligning with the “polluter pays” principle and supporting SDG 12.4.
4. Invest in Wastewater Recycling: Enhancing infrastructure to recycle wastewater for non-potable (grey-water) or potable use is a key strategy for improving water-use efficiency (SDG 6.4) and building resilient, sustainable communities (SDG 11).

The Role of Public Institutions and Partnerships

Institutional Excellence and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

Public institutions like the Des Moines Water Works play a crucial role in ensuring public health and safety amidst the crisis. The long-term service and leadership demonstrated by figures such as the retiring CEO, Ted Corrigan, underscore the importance of expertise and institutional resilience in managing public utilities. The successful establishment of the Central Iowa Water Works in 2024 exemplifies a multi-stakeholder partnership (SDG 17) that is vital for creating the regional infrastructure needed to provide clean water to a growing population, thereby advancing both SDG 6 and SDG 11. Continued collaboration between government agencies, public utilities, and the agricultural sector is essential for developing and implementing comprehensive, long-term solutions.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article directly links water quality issues to public health, stating that the problems are “sickening its people” and have resulted in “the second-highest new cancer rate in the country.” This connects to the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• This is the central theme of the article. It discusses “undrinkable water throughout the state due to high nitrate levels,” “un-swimmable waters throughout the state due to high E. coli,” the need for water treatment to “take nitrates and worse out of their water,” and potential solutions like “wastewater recycle options.”

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• The article posits a direct link between environmental issues and economic performance, claiming that “Water problems are killing Iowa’s economy.” It supports this by noting the “state’s ranking at the bottom of all states in GDP growth and job growth.”

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• The article focuses on the source of the pollution, specifically agricultural practices. It mentions that “fertilizer from flowing into the water” is a primary cause of nitrate pollution and suggests a “tax on fertilizers” to manage its use, which relates to the sustainable management of chemicals and waste.

SDG 15: Life on Land

• The article discusses the health of freshwater ecosystems, such as “lakes, rivers, and streams,” which are polluted by agricultural runoff. It proposes solutions like requiring “perennial vegetative buffers of up to 50 feet along lakes, rivers, and streams,” which directly addresses the protection and restoration of inland freshwater ecosystems.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article heavily critiques governance and institutional effectiveness. It highlights the failure of “voluntary conservation measures,” the “inaction of you, the state legislature, the state Department of Natural Resources,” and the debate over whether “regulation is hardly ever the answer.” It also mentions the role of institutions like the Des Moines Water Works and the establishment of the Central Iowa Water Works.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article’s mention of Iowa having the “second-highest new cancer rate in the country” and water “sickening its people” directly relates to this target.

Under SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. The article highlights that water is “undrinkable… due to high nitrate levels” and that a portion of the population is “paying extra to take nitrates… out of their water,” indicating a lack of universally safe and affordable drinking water.
• Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The core issue of the article is nitrate and E. coli pollution from agricultural runoff, and it discusses solutions to reduce this pollution.
• Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. The article’s focus on polluted “lakes, rivers, and streams” and proposed solutions like vegetative buffers aligns with this target.

Under SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• Target 8.1: Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances. The article links poor water quality to Iowa’s poor economic performance, citing its ranking “at the bottom of all states in GDP growth.”

Under SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment. The discussion around “fertilizer” as the cause of “nitrate water pollution” and the proposal of a “tax on fertilizers” directly addresses the management of agricultural chemicals.

Under SDG 15: Life on Land

• Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements. The article’s call to fix polluted “Iowa rivers and streams” and the suggestion to implement “perennial vegetative buffers” are actions aimed at restoring inland freshwater ecosystems.

Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article critiques the state government and legislature for “inaction” and relying on an “obviously ineffective law,” pointing to a need for more effective and accountable institutions to manage water quality.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

For Target 3.9

• Indicator: Mortality/morbidity rate attributed to unsafe water. The article provides a specific data point: “the second-highest new cancer rate in the country,” which can be used as a direct indicator.

For Target 6.1 & 6.3

• Indicator: Concentration of pollutants in water bodies. The article explicitly mentions “high nitrate levels” and “high E. coli” as the key problems. Measuring the levels of these pollutants in drinking water and recreational waters would be a direct indicator of progress.
• Indicator: Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services. The article implies this by stating “20% of the state’s population (customers of the Central Iowa Water Works) is paying extra to take nitrates… out of their water,” suggesting the rest of the population may not have access to such services.

For Target 8.1

• Indicator: Annual growth rate of real GDP. The article uses Iowa’s ranking “at the bottom of all states in GDP growth and job growth” as an indicator of the economic damage caused by water issues.

For Target 12.4

• Indicator: Amount of fertilizer used. The article identifies “fertilizer” as the source of nitrate pollution. Tracking the volume of fertilizer sales or application, potentially influenced by a “tax on fertilizers,” would serve as an indicator of progress in managing this chemical.

For Target 15.1

• Indicator: Coverage by protected areas of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity. The implementation of solutions like “perennial vegetative buffers of up to 50 feet along lakes, rivers, and streams” can be measured in terms of area or length of waterways protected.

For Target 16.6

• Indicator: Existence and implementation of regulations. The article contrasts “voluntary conservation measures” with “regulation.” The adoption and enforcement of new water quality regulations, such as making the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy mandatory, would be a key indicator of institutional effectiveness.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: desmoinesregister.com