Jack Dugan
[email protected]
The Mississippi, Des Moines, Maquoketa, Cedar/Iowa, and Raccoon rivers, the veins of Iowa, splay out like ribbons to flutter through a landscape that would be significantly less astounding without them.
They are a critical source of drinking water to the 3.1 million people who live in the state and a linchpin to the megalithic agriculture industry that dominates the banks, offices, and consciousness of Iowa. The protection of the two is a priority for residents on all sides of the political spectrum, but it’s important to remember how engrained agriculture is to the environment. Agriculture is a product of humanity working with nature, not against it.
High concentrations of nitrates in a supply of water will, at a point usually sooner rather than later, become a problem. Nitrates are typically used by plants as their source of nitrogen, and when rivers or lakes are flooded with unusual levels of nitrates from things such as agricultural runoff (nitrates being a key component of most fertilizers), this can cause rapid and excessive growths of algae and other plants, which works to strip the water of oxygen.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, recent studies have shown that high nitrate concentrations have been connected to cancer. More definitively, when a nitrate concentration exceeds 10 milligrams per liter in drinking water, it can lead to a syndrome called “blue-baby syndrome” in infants.
In short, too much nitrogen in our water is bad. This has led the Des Moines Water Works to file a lawsuit against Sac, Buena Vista, and Calhoun Counties, contending that they are responsible for funneling high concentrations of nitrates into the Raccoon River, a source of drinking water for a half-million central Iowa residents.
According to the Des Moines Register, “Lawyers for Sac, Buena Vista, and Calhoun Counties, responding to records requests from the Register, released heavily redacted checks, billing statements, and other documents to keep private the names of those who have paid nearly 90 percent of the counties’ legal fees so far.”
They are not legally obligated to release this information, but given the high-profile nature of the lawsuit and the health of 500,000 residents affected by the outcome, withholding such information seems petty or dishonest.
Given the shady nature of redacted documents, it is not far-fetched to speculate that these counties are accepting massive donations from agricultural corporations, stubborn or apathetic about changing their business practices. Perhaps they also do not feel responsible for the complexities of water drainage, but the fact remains: They make a profit while the residents of central Iowa suffer the consequences.
But the lawsuit is not just about the drinking water. If the Des Moines Water Works were to win the lawsuit, the verdict would deem Iowa farmers liable to federal-pollutant regulation. Avoiding this is worth a lot more than $934,000 to those who dominate the multibillion-dollar agriculture industry.
The attempt to obscure the identities of the defense fund’s secret donors is an attempt to maintain the image that the agriculture giants of Iowa work in conjunction with the environment. This is a false image. They have no interest in preserving what is left of the Iowa environment and seem willing to tarnish the rivers crucial to our identity and the health of our residents as long as they can operate as few obstacles as possible.
When the economy is reliant on the environment, which one is worth preserving: water or profits?