Rural Iowa counties want to oust Polk and Dallas from water improvement group

Supervisors in seven Iowa counties have passed resolutions seeking to push Polk and Dallas counties out of their watershed management coalition.

A fear of costly government mandates is behind the push.

Some link the effort to the bitter urban-rural divide that emerged after Des Moines Water Works sued three north Iowa counties five years ago over high nitrate levels in the Raccoon River.

"I wouldn't say we distrust" urban leaders, said Paul Merten, a supervisor in Buena Vista County, one of three counties sued in 2015. "But there's concern and caution."

The possible split of the North Raccoon River Watershed Management Coalition has real-world implications: The river is a source of drinking water for more than 500,000 urban and rural residents. And the coalition seeks to reduce flooding, which caused millions of dollars in damage two years ago in Des Moines after a storm dumped nine inches of rain over two hours.

Statewide, flooding has caused $18 billion in damage over nearly three decades, and scientists expect heavy rainfall to occur with greater frequency.

Buena Vista, Calhoun, Carroll, Palo Alto, Pocahontas, Sac and Webster counties have passed resolutions saying they will not support the proposed North Raccoon watershed plan if Dallas and Polk counties remain part of the coalition.

The north Iowa counties claim the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' watershed map incorrectly includes Dallas and Polk counties, an assertion the agency and several coalition members say is false.

The coalition, which has 40 members, is expected to vote on the proposed watershed plan on Friday.

Several north Iowa county supervisors disagree with the plan's goal to cut the Raccoon River's nitrate levels by 48%. They favor a 41% reduction goal, which they say is more realistic, less costly and in line with a state plan to reduce nitrate levels.

Merten said he and other north Iowa officials worry the voluntary plan could become mandatory — either through legislation or other legal action.

"We were blindsided by the lawsuit," Merten said. "People are a little bit wary."

Jonathan Gano, Des Moines public works director and a member of the coalition, said the north Iowa leaders' "dramatic change of heart" caught him and others by surprise.

"The disappointing part to me," Gano said, is that the resolutions jeopardize "our opportunity to work directly together. ... We all live here."

Financial frets

The North Raccoon River watershed coalition received nearly $3.7 million from a $97 million U.S. Housing and Urban Development grant to the state in 2016 to cut flood risks and improve water quality in nine watersheds across Iowa.

But the North Raccoon watershed has struggled to spend the $2.9 million available for improvements. The grant pays 90% of project costs.

Concerned the money would go unspent, the state decided earlier this year to redirect about $1.3 million of the Raccoon watershed's money to Dubuque.

One of the challenges, officials said, is that the grant requires the money to be spent in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties, with the focus on flood-reduction structures, such as terraces, ponds and wetlands. Those are typically more difficult projects to tackle.

"That was free money they could have used. Little projects, big projects, projects on the ground," said Mark Hanson, a Dallas County supervisor who is on the coalition and its past chairman.

Supervisor Clarence Siepker said Pocahontas County joined the coalition in large part to take advantage of the grant money. They planned to use most of it to re-establish Swan Lake near Laurens, a 324-acre project that failed to come together because a nearby landowner declined to participate.

The project would have cut nitrates, stored water during heavy rainfall to reduce flooding and provided wildlife habitat and recreation for residents.

Siepker said Pocahontas officials proposed reducing the size of the project, among other options, to spend the money, but engineers said they didn't meet the grant requirements.

"It's been very frustrating," he said, adding that over time, plans for the proposed project went from a "full-blown lake" to a shallow lake, then to a wetland. "Still, we thought we could do it."

Ted Smith has agreed to work that will stabilize stream banks on land in the watershed. He said more landowners would have participated in the program if the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit hadn’t happened. “There’s a trust issue,” he said. “No one wants to partner with someone they don’t trust.

“But it’s a shame, because we want Des Moines to know that we care up here,” he said. “We’re trying to do the right thing. … We can do this voluntarily. We just need a little more time.”

In 2013, Iowa adopted a plan, called the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, to cut 45% of the nitrogen and phosphorous that leaves the state and contributes to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico each summer.

The plan is voluntary for farmers, who are responsible for shaving 41% of nitrogen and 29% of the phosphorus levels. Cities, businesses and other point-sources, which fall under government regulations, are responsible for the remaining reduction. There is no deadline for completing the goal.

But Alicia Vasto, an Iowa Environmental Council water policy specialist, said the Raccoon watershed division makes “it difficult to say that the state's voluntary approach is the way to go."

Pushing boundaries

Don Etler, a retired engineer who represents Palo Alto County on the watershed coalition, said Iowa DNR incorrectly included Polk and Dallas counties in the watershed when the group was created in 2017.

The name of the North Raccoon River changes to the Raccoon River just south of Van Meter, prompting the claim that the urban counties are improperly included in the watershed.

"The DNR made a mistake," Etler said.

The supervisors' resolutions say Dallas and Polk counties would have nearly 60% of the watershed's population, but little of the 2.1 million farm acres where most of the flood and water-quality improvements would go.

"We cannot support a plan which hands over the control of the entire (watershed) to the metro communities," Pocahontas County supervisors wrote to the coalition in its public comments about the plan.

Allen Bonini, a DNR watershed improvement supervisor, said the state used the U.S. Geological Survey map, which was part of the agreement 36 cities, counties, soil and water soil conservation districts signed to become part of the coalition three years ago.

Palo Alto County, Des Moines, West Des Moines and Adel joined the coalition later.

"Here, three years later, these resolutions pop up, claiming that DNR used the wrong map," Bonini said. "That's factually incorrect."

The Iowa DNR and Iowa Economic Development Authority, which administers the HUD grant, sent letters to the county supervisors noting actions they can take. One option is to create their own watershed management authority within the North Raccoon watershed coalition.

Members of the watershed can seek to amend the coalition agreement to reflect a smaller watershed, but all 40 members would need to agree to the change, the Iowa economic development agency told supervisors.

Katie Rock, a Polk Soil and Water Conservation District representative on coalition board, believes the real concern lies with the 48.1% nitrate reduction in the proposed watershed study.

The vote to use the higher target was controversial, Rock said, with only a few of the large group representatives at the meeting.

At least now, she said, coalition members are beginning to have honest conversations about the study and why they're part of the coalition.

Lingering anger over the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit is part of the reason for some.

"As a member of the coalition put it, 'if I’m not at the table, I’m on someone’s plate,'" said Rock, the coalition's secretary.

Voluntary vs. mandatory

Etler, the retired engineer, said rural Iowa counties have reason to be concerned about the proposed watershed plan becoming the foundation for mandatory action.

The Iowa Supreme Court dismissed the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit in 2017 against Sac, Buena Vista and Calhoun counties, but an Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and Food & Water Watch lawsuit filed last year seeks similar outcomes.

Des Moines Water Works sought regulatory oversight of farmers, saying underground drainage tiles funnel high levels of nitrates from farm fields into the Raccoon River, requiring the utility to spend millions of dollars removing the nutrient so the water is safe to drink.

Iowa CCI and Food & Water Watch want limits on the nitrogen and phosphorous pollution entering the Raccoon River as well as a moratorium on new and expanding hog confinement facilities.

More:Iowa high court to decide if farm pollution suit continues

Attorneys for the state said the lawsuit would require "a dramatic shift from present-day agricultural practices" and create "substantial uncertainty and grave concerns for every member of Iowa's agricultural economy."

The Iowa Supreme Court is weighing whether the lawsuit can proceed.

The environmentalists' lawsuit would "legally impose what this plan proposes," Etler said. "That directly affects the Raccoon River watershed."

Merten and others say they're concerned about the cost farmers and landowners in their counties could face.

Consultants writing the proposed watershed plan estimate that cutting nitrate levels 41% in the North Raccoon, matching the state's Nutrient Reduction Strategy, would cost up to $1.5 billion over 20 years.

Etler said cutting nitrate levels 48% would double the costs, a per-acre expense that would climb from $700 to $1,500.

Carroll County supervisors said the proposed 48.1% nitrate reduction goal is far higher than other targets. For example, the nitrate goal on the Des Moines River at Des Moines is 34% and the Cedar River at Cedar Rapids is 35%.

But the 48.1% nitrate reduction target does match a state goal for the Raccoon River.

Gano and others said the watershed won't reach either 41% or 48.1% reduction in nitrate levels over the study's 10-year life. But setting the goal at 48% would qualify the watershed for additional federal money that the state administers for impaired waterways.

"It's almost a moot point," Gano said. "We won't get there in 10 years. This is a generational problem, and it will require decades of work."

Stronger together

Despite the northern Iowa counties' challenges to the coalition's membership and study targets, supervisors say they're committed to reducing nutrient losses.

And Gano, Rock and other coalition members are hopeful the group will be able to continue working together. Already, the coalition has reduced the percentage of land the study proposes retiring in flood-prone areas.

Vasto, the Iowa Environmental Council water specialist, said the state's watershed management authorities are probably the best way to address water-quality problems.

Parts of the Raccoon River struggle with high levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, fecal bacteria and sediment that make it unsuitable for people to use the water to drink, swim and play in.

Agriculture is the primary source of the pollutants, the proposed watershed plan says, with hundreds of animal feeding operations and thousands of crop acres in the mostly rural region.

Bonini said nothing binds the counties or cities to the plan. But the boards and councils that adopt the plan can get in line for state or federal money that helps leaders "address local problems."

The northern counties "have put a lot of voice into what they don’t want," Rock said. "I hope we can figure out what they do want."

Donnelle Eller covers agriculture, the environment and energy for the Register. Reach her at deller@registermedia.com or 515-284-8457. 

Your subscription makes work like this possible. Subscribe today at DesMoinesRegister.com/Deal.