Regulatory Reversal on Iowa Waterways Impedes Progress on Sustainable Development Goals

A recent decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind the “impaired” classification for seven Iowa river segments represents a significant setback for achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water). The reversal removes the requirement for federally mandated cleanup plans under the Clean Water Act, undermining efforts to address severe nitrate pollution linked to industrial agriculture.

Impact on SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

Failure to Protect and Restore Water-Related Ecosystems

The EPA’s action directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 6, which calls for the protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems. The decision affects segments of the Cedar, Des Moines, Iowa, Raccoon, and South Skunk rivers.

• In November 2024, the EPA initially added the seven river segments to Iowa’s impaired waters list, citing nitrate concentrations that exceeded safe drinking water standards.
• On July 11, the agency rescinded this order, effectively removing the “impaired” status.
• This reversal eliminates the legal requirement for the state to develop pollution reduction strategies, known as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), thereby hindering progress toward SDG Target 6.3, which aims to improve water quality by reducing pollution.

Threats to Safe Drinking Water Access

High nitrate levels pose a direct threat to safe and affordable drinking water for all, a cornerstone of SDG 6.

• The decision came shortly after Central Iowa Water Works issued a first-ever lawn watering ban due to excessive nitrate levels in the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers.
• According to the Iowa Environmental Council, 96 percent of Iowa’s drinking water providers do not have treatment systems to remove nitrates, leaving populations vulnerable.
• Citizen water testing frequently finds nitrate levels at or above the EPA’s legal limit of 10 milligrams per liter, especially near agricultural drainage areas.

Consequences for Public Health and Ecosystems (SDG 3 & SDG 14)

Public Health Risks from Water Contamination (SDG 3)

The failure to address nitrate pollution has severe implications for public health, challenging the achievement of SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being.

1. Methemoglobinemia: High nitrate consumption can cause “blue baby syndrome,” a condition that reduces the blood’s ability to carry oxygen, particularly in infants.
2. Chronic Diseases: Research has linked nitrates in drinking water to an increased risk of thyroid disease and various cancers.
3. Regional Health Crisis: Iowa reports the fastest-growing rate of new cancers in the United States, a statistic that clean water advocates connect to environmental factors like agricultural pollution.

Degradation of Aquatic Ecosystems (SDG 14 & 15)

Nutrient pollution from agriculture severely degrades freshwater ecosystems, impacting life below water (SDG 14) and on land (SDG 15).

• Excess nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer and manure runoff contribute to harmful algae blooms, which deplete oxygen and harm aquatic life.
• Between 2013 and 2023, manure spills from factory farms in Iowa were responsible for the death of nearly two million fish.

Challenges to Sustainable Production and Institutional Integrity (SDG 12 & 16)

Unsustainable Agricultural Practices (SDG 12)

The root cause of the water contamination is unsustainable agricultural production patterns, an issue addressed by SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

• Iowa’s livestock operations produce an estimated 109 billion pounds of manure annually.
• Widespread use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and extensive tile drainage systems exacerbate the runoff of excess nutrients into waterways.
• Advocates argue that designating the rivers as impaired would have forced the state to acknowledge industrial agriculture as the primary source of pollution and develop effective reduction strategies.

Erosion of Public Trust in Institutions (SDG 16)

The EPA’s reversal has eroded public trust in the institutions responsible for environmental protection, undermining SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Environmental advocates and citizens expressed deep disappointment, viewing the decision as a failure of regulatory oversight.
• There are calls for a “complete overhaul” of the EPA and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to ensure they are effective in their mandate to protect public health and the environment.
• Advocates are pushing for the enforcement of the “polluter pays” principle, which would hold agricultural operations accountable for the environmental damage they cause.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article directly connects water pollution to human health risks. It states, “High levels of nitrate in drinking water can be dangerous,” and links excessive nitrates to “methemoglobinemia — or ‘blue baby syndrome’,” “thyroid disease,” and “cancer.” This highlights the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • This is the central theme of the article. The entire text revolves around the pollution of Iowa’s rivers (Cedar, Des Moines, Iowa, Raccoon, and South Skunk) with nitrates from agricultural runoff, the classification of these waters as “impaired,” and the challenges in ensuring safe drinking water. The article mentions that “96 percent of Iowa’s drinking water providers lack any treatment system to remove nitrate.”

3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • The article identifies industrial agriculture as the primary source of pollution. It points to unsustainable production patterns, mentioning that “livestock operations produce 109 billion pounds of manure each year” and that “Fertilizer runoff from both synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and livestock manure washes excess nitrogen into rivers.” This relates to the need for environmentally sound management of waste and chemicals.

4. SDG 14: Life Below Water & SDG 15: Life on Land

   • The article details the negative impact of pollution on aquatic ecosystems. It notes that elevated nitrogen and phosphorus levels “contribute to harmful algae blooms… and threaten wildlife.” A specific example is given: “Between 2013 and 2023, manure spills from factory farms in the state killed nearly two million fish.” This directly addresses the protection of freshwater ecosystems (part of SDG 15) and the reduction of nutrient pollution (a key target in SDG 14).

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article discusses the role and effectiveness of regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The EPA’s reversal of its decision to list the rivers as impaired is presented as a failure of these institutions, with an advocate stating the decision “erodes public trust in agencies meant to protect clean water.” This points to the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

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

1. 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 focus on health risks like cancer, thyroid disease, and methemoglobinemia caused by nitrate-contaminated drinking water directly relates to this target.

2. Target 6.1:

   By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

   • The article highlights the failure to meet this target by stating that nitrate concentrations “exceeded safe drinking water standards” and that the vast majority of Iowa’s water providers cannot remove nitrates.

3. Target 6.3:

   By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.

   • The core issue discussed—nitrate pollution from agricultural manure and fertilizers—is a direct challenge to this target. The effort to list rivers as “impaired” is a mechanism for achieving it.

4. 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.

   • The article’s discussion of “109 billion pounds of manure” and “excessive fertilizer use” from industrial agriculture causing water pollution is directly aligned with this target.

5. Target 15.1:

   By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.

   • The designation of river segments as “impaired” and the need for “cleanup plans” to restore them, as mentioned in the article, are actions related to the conservation and restoration of freshwater ecosystems.

6. Target 16.6:

   Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   • The article critiques the EPA’s reversal and the perceived lack of effective action by state agencies, with advocates calling for a “complete overhaul” of these institutions, which they believe are not holding polluters accountable.

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

1. Nitrate Concentration Levels:

   • The article explicitly mentions the EPA’s “legal limit for nitrate in drinking water is 10 milligrams per liter.” This is a direct, quantitative indicator for measuring water quality (Target 6.3) and safety for human consumption (Target 6.1). Citizen water testing results are also mentioned as a way of tracking this indicator.

2. Number of Impaired Water Bodies:

   • The “impaired waters list” itself serves as an indicator. The article states that Iowa’s 2024 list included “577 water bodies, with 746 impairments.” Tracking the number of water bodies on this list over time measures progress (or lack thereof) in improving water quality (Target 6.3) and restoring ecosystems (Target 15.1).

3. Incidence of Water-Related Illnesses:

   • The article implies this indicator by linking nitrate pollution to specific health outcomes. It mentions, “Iowa has the fastest-growing rate of new cancers in the country.” Tracking the rates of cancer, thyroid disease, and methemoglobinemia in relation to water quality could serve as an indicator for Target 3.9.

4. Fish Kills / Biodiversity Loss:

   • The article provides a specific data point: “manure spills from factory farms in the state killed nearly two million fish” between 2013 and 2023. The frequency and scale of such events are a direct indicator of the impact of pollution on aquatic biodiversity (relevant to Target 15.1).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: sentientmedia.org