Report on Nitrate Contamination in Iowa’s Water Systems and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report details the significant nitrate contamination crisis affecting the Des Moines metro area’s water supply. The contamination, primarily from agricultural runoff, presents a direct challenge to the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis highlights critical failures in ensuring public health, providing clean water, and promoting sustainable practices, creating a multifaceted crisis with severe health, economic, and environmental consequences.

• High nitrate concentrations in rivers and tap water directly undermine SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).
• The root cause lies in unsustainable agricultural production patterns, conflicting with the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• The financial burden of water treatment on residents and utilities impacts the viability of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Climate change exacerbates the problem, underscoring the need for robust strategies under SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Water Quality and Public Health Crisis (SDG 3 & SDG 6)

The contamination of drinking water sources poses a direct and immediate threat to public health, representing a significant setback for key SDG targets related to health and water safety.

• Citizen-led monitoring has recorded nitrate levels in Des Moines tap water as high as 20 mg/L, double the 10 mg/L safety limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• This failure to provide safe drinking water is a direct violation of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), particularly Target 6.1, which aims for universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water.
• Long-term exposure to high nitrate levels is linked in epidemiological studies to increased risks of bladder, ovarian, and colorectal cancers, directly opposing the objective of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).
• Infants face an acute risk of methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby” syndrome, a life-threatening condition that can occur when nitrate concentrations exceed the federal safety limit.

Economic Burdens and Unsustainable Production (SDG 11 & SDG 12)

The crisis stems from agricultural practices that are environmentally and economically unsustainable, shifting the cost of pollution from the agricultural sector to the public.

• The primary source of contamination is nitrogen-rich fertilizer and manure from agricultural operations. This reliance on polluting inputs is inconsistent with the goals of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), which calls for the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes.
• Water utilities face extreme financial pressures, spending up to $16,000 per day on nitrate removal and planning multimillion-dollar expansions of treatment facilities.
• These costs are passed on to residents through higher water bills, creating a double burden of increased financial strain and long-term health risks, thereby threatening the inclusivity and sustainability of communities as outlined in SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Systemic Failures in Governance and Climate Adaptation (SDG 13, SDG 15, & SDG 16)

The persistence of the nitrate problem is compounded by governance challenges and the accelerating impacts of climate change, revealing systemic weaknesses in policy and environmental management.

1. Inadequate Regulation: A Polk County review concluded that most surface water pollution, which degrades freshwater ecosystems in violation of SDG 15 (Life on Land), originates from unregulated agricultural sources. This points to a failure of governance and institutional accountability as envisioned in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
2. Ineffective Voluntary Measures: The state government’s assertion that new regulations are unnecessary is contradicted by evidence showing that voluntary pollution control measures are failing to mitigate the problem, highlighting a gap between policy and effective action.
3. Climate Change Amplification: The problem is intensified by climate change, as heavier and more frequent downpours—a key challenge for SDG 13 (Climate Action)—accelerate the runoff of nitrogen from farmland into rivers, overwhelming both natural ecosystems and water treatment infrastructure.

Conclusion: An Integrated Challenge to Sustainable Development

The nitrate contamination crisis in Iowa is a clear illustration of the interconnectedness of the Sustainable Development Goals. It underscores that progress in one area cannot be achieved while neglecting others.

• Achieving SDG 3 (Good Health) and SDG 6 (Clean Water) is fundamentally dependent on reforming agricultural practices to align with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• Effective solutions require strengthening environmental governance and regulatory enforcement as outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
• Long-term water security for communities will be impossible without building resilience to climate change impacts, a core tenet of SDG 13 (Climate Action).

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 15: Life on Land

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. 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.
     
     Explanation: The article directly links long-term nitrate exposure from contaminated water to serious health issues, including “bladder, ovarian, and colorectal cancers” and the life-threatening “blue baby” syndrome in infants. This highlights the connection between water pollution and adverse health outcomes.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.
     
     Explanation: The article states that tap water samples in Des Moines have shown nitrate levels double the federal safety limit, meaning the water is not safe. It also mentions that treatment costs are passed on to residents as “higher water bills,” making safe water less affordable.
   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.
     
     Explanation: The central issue discussed is the contamination of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers by nitrate pollution, which originates from “nitrogen-rich fertilizer and manure” from agricultural runoff.
   • Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.
     
     Explanation: The article mentions “Citizen scientists feeding data to Nitrate Watch,” which is a direct example of local community participation in monitoring and managing water quality.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
     
     Explanation: The article highlights the environmental and economic burden on the Des Moines metro area. The city’s utilities must manage the pollution, and residents (“ratepayers”) face a “double burden: higher water bills today and increased medical risks tomorrow” due to pollution originating outside the city.

4. 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 in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
     
     Explanation: The problem stems from unsustainable agricultural production methods, specifically the application of “nitrogen-rich fertilizer and manure” to crops, which then runs off into rivers, causing environmental damage and health risks.

5. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly states that “ever-heavier Midwest downpours driven by climate change wash that nitrogen into the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers,” indicating that climate change is exacerbating the water pollution problem.

6. 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.
     
     Explanation: The pollution directly impacts “ponds and rivers and lakes here in Iowa,” specifically the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers. This represents a degradation of inland freshwater ecosystems due to land-based activities (farming).

Implied Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. For Targets 3.9, 6.1, and 6.3

   • Indicator: Concentration of nitrates in drinking water.
     
     Explanation: The article provides specific, measurable data points. It mentions the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit of 10 mg/L and reports that citizen scientists have logged tap samples as high as 20 mg/L.
   • Indicator: Incidence of water-related diseases.
     
     Explanation: The article refers to “epidemiological studies” that link nitrate exposure to specific cancers and mentions the risk of “blue baby” syndrome. Tracking the rates of these illnesses would serve as a public health indicator.

2. For Targets 6.1 and 11.6

   • Indicator: Cost of water treatment.
     
     Explanation: The article provides financial data, stating that utilities pay “up to $16,000 a day” for nitrate removal and are expanding “multimillion-dollar removal plants.” These costs, and the resulting “higher water bills,” are quantifiable indicators of the economic burden.

3. For Target 6.b

   • Indicator: Level of citizen participation in water monitoring.
     
     Explanation: The mention of “Citizen scientists feeding data to Nitrate Watch” implies that the number of participants, samples collected, or data points logged can be used as a metric to measure community engagement.

4. For Targets 12.4 and 15.1

   • Indicator: Proportion of water bodies with good ambient water quality.
     
     Explanation: The article implies that the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers have poor water quality due to high nitrate levels. Measuring the chemical composition of these and other water bodies would be a direct indicator of ecosystem health.

Summary of Findings

Source: ehn.org