By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

A new report from environmental watchdog group Food & Water Watch suggests that almost 2 million fish were killed from manure spills in Iowa between 2013 and 2023. The 179 spills occurred throughout the state, with a major hotspot for spills in the northwest corner of the state. Earlier this year, the group reported that Iowa factory farms produce more waste than any other state, at 109 billion pounds of manure annually, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

The report and accompanying map, released on Dec. 9, designated over 700 segments of Iowa water as “impaired” — not meeting the standards necessary to support aquatic life, public water supplies or recreation. Details include where in the state spills occur, who owns the operation and if they are repeat offenders.

Manure spills in the state of Iowa have contributed to what environmental advocacy groups call a water quality crisis. In the capital city of Des Moines, the local water supply has one of the world’s largest nitrate removal facilities. Nitrate is the resulting chemical of manure that is not absorbed by the soil or crops. Due to high levels of nitrate in water, which can cause blue baby syndrome in children and colon cancer in adults, the Des Moines Water Works has to run its nitrate removal system more frequently as the situation worsens — at a cost of anywhere from $10,000 to $16,000 per day, which falls entirely on utility customers.

“When you think about the nature of what they’re spilling and the quantities of what they’re spilling, it’s the difference between life and death, and people are being strapped down with medical debt and suffering in a prolonged way,” Food & Water Watch Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel tells Sentient.

According to the report, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources fined 171 of the 179 offenders at $635,808 over the ten-year period it studied. That’s less than half of what Des Moines Water Works spent on its nitrate removal system in 2015, at $1.4 million. There are gaps in the state reporting as well. The total volume of the spills is difficult to determine because most reports do not contain information on how much manure is spilled. And in those that do note volume, the range is anywhere from 500 to 1 million gallons.

“The fines that the DNR has leveled against these companies do not represent restitution for the damage that they’re causing to Iowa,” Mankel says. “They also don’t represent a real demand that these corporations change the way that they’re doing business.”

In 2024 alone, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources documented 13 fish kill events, one of which regulators directly tied to animal waste. This one “anthropogenic” spill in northwest Iowa — caused by dairy manure land-applied runoff —killed anywhere from 100,001-500,000 fish.

Many concentrated animal feeding operations operate without the proper discharge permits, rendering their spills more difficult to track. In October, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a petition from 13 groups — including Food & Water Watch — calling for stricter regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Today, Food & Water Watch is calling for a “Clean Water for Iowa Act” to be passed in the state legislature. The act would require all medium and large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations to get National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

This report and map are released in the midst of a health crisis in the Midwest, which some observers and critics argue is tied to, or exacerbated by, large-scale industrialized agriculture. Mankel points to cancer incidence in the state of Iowa; it’s the only state in the country with rising cancer rates (though other factors, like obesity and alcoholism rates may play a role).

“We’re paying for it,” Mankel says. “I really want Iowans to understand that these problems are a policy choice, and that we are being burdened with paying the true cost of massive profits that these corporations are reaping from our state, and that’s a very intentional choice on behalf of lawmakers.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Atlantic menhaden weigh less than a pound and measure little more than a foot long but the small fish has big consequences for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

A bill introduced in the Virginia General Assembly is looking to study the Atlantic menhaden population in the Chesapeake. There is little data on Atlantic menhaden populations in the Bay and fishing and conservation groups say that's the problem.

Jaclyn Higgins, forage fish program manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said menhaden populations are not well-researched in the Bay, despite studies on the species along the entire Atlantic coast.

"There were a couple studies kind of done throughout the last 20 years but nothing super comprehensive and nothing that would allow us to say this is the amount of menhaden that we would consider healthy for the Chesapeake Bay," Higgins explained. "Really, we don't know anything about Chesapeake Bay menhaden."

The bill would provide $3 million for the study of menhaden populations in the Chesapeake. The research would look at if reduction fishing, which pulls millions of pounds of menhaden out of the Bay each year, is leading to local depletion.

But why is such a small fish so important to the Chesapeake Bay environment? Higgins pointed out Atlantic menhaden are a keystone species for the rest of the Chesapeake food chain.

"They make up the base of the marine food chain along the Atlantic, but in particular, in the Chesapeake Bay," Higgins emphasized. "They are a primary food source for striped bass. Striped bass are really reliant on menhaden as a food source in those juvenile and adult stages while they're in the bay."

A new report showed a growing problem of harmful pesticides in Connecticut waterways.

The University of Connecticut study analyzed 20 years of data, finding neonicotinoids are increasingly prevalent in the state's waterways. Levels of the pesticides in rivers are higher than Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Louise Washer, organizer for the environmental advocacy coalition Connecticut Pesticide Reform, said the pesticides harm river-dwelling mayflies.

"We see a quarter of the mayflies in the Norwalk River, for example, than were observed in 1989," Washer reported. "We see a third of the richness of mayfly species than were observed in 1989."

While many factors affect mayflies' population numbers, their sensitivity to neonics is a major factor in population decline. As comprehensive as the report is, Washer argued more testing is needed in certain places. Previous reports showed the chemicals have vast human health effects.

Connecticut lawmakers introduced bills banning neonicotinoids in previous legislative sessions. Despite widespread support, they never made it out of committee.

Neonicotinoids have been banned or heavily restricted in numerous areas for the harmful effects they have on wildlife. The pesticides are commonly used, which is one of the biggest hurdles to banning them. Connecticut golf courses are the heaviest users of neonicotinoids for grub control and farmers use seeds coated with them for pest control.

Washer pointed out there are some better ways to use pesticides.

"Integrated pest management is a term that means treating pests that are actually present and using the least toxic pesticide available to do that," Washer explained. "The problem with some of these prophylactic uses is that integrated pest management kind of gets thrown out the window because you're using the stuff whether there's a problem or not."

Products like Grub Gone are less toxic than neonics for lawn care. As for treated seeds, Washer pointed to another pesticide called diamides. Though it's less toxic to bees, it poses higher risks to butterflies and moths. The hope is more sustainable practices protect birds, pollinators and human health.


get more stories like this via email

Days before the end of his term, President Joe Biden announced sweeping protections for the nation's coastlines.

President Donald Trump has vowed to retract them.

Biden used the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw large portions of the areas from being leased for future oil and gas drilling. The protected areas include Maryland, as part of the entire Atlantic coast, plus the U.S. Pacific coast, eastern Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Northern Bering Sea near Alaska.

Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland, said Trump tried to repeal coastline protections in his first term and got some pushback.

"It would be difficult," Percival explained. "When Trump tried to roll back, during his first term, some areas that had been protected by previous presidents, a judge said that the Act did not clearly give the president the authority to roll them back. So, it's kind of an open legal question."

This week, on his first day in office, Trump announced he has rescinded Biden's protections for the Outer Continental Shelf. Percival predicted there will likely be legal challenges.

Percival added every president, including Trump, has used the law to protect some parts of the Outer Continental Shelf, noting it is difficult to bounce between protecting land and rescinding protections.

"Once you develop it, then it's not going to be pristine," Percival stressed. "That's one of the reasons why it's important to have durable environmental protections, so that you aren't constantly changing the character of the lands and creating new risk."

Oil production across the country is at a record high, and the Outer Continental Shelf currently accounts for nearly 15% of U.S. oil production. Energy companies have yet to start production on more than 80% of the 12 million acres already under lease, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.


get more stories like this via email