Kent Park Lake improvement projects underway


UpperKentPk_IA
Kent Park Lake was drained this spring in preparation for water quality and recreation improvement projects. (Iowa Water Science Center)
Jenna Ladd | July 20, 2017

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the Johnson County Conservation Board continue moving forward with plans to improve water quality and recreation opportunities at F.W. Kent Park Lake.

Johnson County and the state of Iowa are splitting the cost of the $700,000 project. The state’s money comes from a $96 million ten year plan that was approved by the Iowa legislature in 2014 to restore lakes statewide.

In partnership with the Johnson County Conservation Board and Stanley Consultants, Iowa DNR plans to wrap up the first phase of park improvements this fall, which include restoring and constructing catch basins, adding ADA complaint facilities and installing bio-retention cells to keep storm water run-off from entering the lake.

Kent Park Lake was drained this spring in preparation for lake restoration projects. In this second phase, DNR plans to remove sediments from the lake basin, reshape parts of the bank and lake basin and add fish habitat.

The 27 acre lake is currently on the DNR’s impaired waters list, which is a list of bodies of water that fail to meet federal water quality standards. A central issue in the state of Iowa is the accumulation of nutrients in waterways, which feed blue green algae blooms that produce a bacteria called microcystin. Too much microcystin in water can cause rashes, breathing problems and stomach problems for people and death for pets.

The project aims to provide filtration for these nutrients before they reach the lake. Brad Freidhof of the Johnson County Conservation Board said, “We want the water to settle the soil particulates and nutrients that are in that water to be utilized by plant communities or settle out in the catch basins and that will happen several times before it ends up in the lake” in a report by KCRG.

Project officials will hold a public meeting on July 25 at 6:30 pm at the Conservation Education Center at F.W. Kent Park to discuss preliminary plans for phase two. 

EnvIowa Podcast: Dr. Larry Weber on flood mitigation and water quality improvement projects


EnvIowa Logo original size
Jenna Ladd | June 29, 2017

In episode 7 of EnvIowa, we sit down with Dr. Larry Weber to learn more about the Iowa Watershed Approach. Dr. Weber is a UI professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of IIHR–Hydroscience and Engineering, which is the parent organization of the Iowa Flood Center.

Dr. Weber explains how the $96.9 million project came to be and how it improves quality of life for Iowans while protecting our natural resources and health. He tells of successes the Iowa Flood Center has had with its flood reduction and water quality improvement programs and discusses the organization’s fight to maintain state-funding earlier this year.

The director and his team work many long days and spend hours each week driving around the state to each of the nine watersheds included in the Iowa Watershed Approach. For Dr. Weber, his work’s motivation is clear. He said,

“As an Iowan, I grew up here, I’ve worked and spent my whole career here, and I plan to retire here. I want a livable state in which we can enjoy our water and natural resources, enjoy being in the outdoors, enjoy interacting with the rivers, lakes and streams of Iowa, and, you know, programs like the Iowa Watershed Approach, I think, are vital to the long-term sustainability of our resources in Iowa.”

The EnvIowa podcast is also available on iTunes and Soundcloud, a complete archive of EnvIowa episodes can be found here.

Urban-Rural-Iowa-Watersheds-Approach-Map-1024x676
Nine watersheds are a part of the Iowa Watershed Approach’s effort to reduce flooding, improve water quality and protect natural resources. (Iowa Watershed Approach)

Research Profile: Dr. Brandi Janssen


Brandi-Jansen-home-page
College of Public Health professor, Dr. Brandi Janssen, also serves as director of Iowa’s Center for Agricultural Safety and Health (I-CASH). (College of Public Health/University of Iowa)

This week, Iowa Environmental Focus sat down with Dr. Brandi Janssen, Clinical Assistant Professor in the UI College of Public Health’s Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, to discuss her multi-faceted research into local food in Iowa. A trained anthropologist, Dr. Janssen collects qualitative, ethnographic data about alternative, small-scale farming in Iowa to further understand what makes local food systems successful and safe. Janssen discusses some of her findings in her recently published book, Making Local Food Work: The Challenges and Opportunities of Today’s Small Farmers

Jenna Ladd: Much of your work centers around local food. This is a big question, but why should Iowans care about making a local food system work?

Dr. Brandi Janssen: If you want an agricultural economy that’s diverse and actually supports Iowa then you have to have more than just commodity production. So, I think there are good economic opportunities, there are lots of job creation opportunities. People tend to focus on the farming piece of it, but I think there are a lot of missed opportunities for mid-scale processing and distribution. As things sort of scale-up, it’s sort of a chicken and an egg thing right now: Do you start the distribution without knowing that you have the supply or do you build up the supply and then try to find distribution for that? But I think there are enormous economic opportunities that will keep more money local, you know? So those small-scale processing and distribution opportunities, unlike a Cargill plant or whatever, are more likely to benefit the community. Plus, there is potential for diversified farming and opportunities for smaller-scale farmers so economically it makes a lot of sense.

We talk about agricultural sustainability and diversity and ag portfolio, and we should think about that both at the industry level and at the farm level and that’s one way to do it.

Jenna Ladd: You published a book recently, Making Local Food Work: The Challenges and Opportunities of Today’s Small Farmers, you know what your book is called [laughs]. What were you aiming to communicate with that publication?

Dr. Brandi Janssen: What I realized when I was doing the research was that there is so much that happens between the farmer and the consumer. The local food conversation tends to focus on one of those two parties, either consumers who are doing this wonderful and altruistic thing by buying local food. You know, we stroke the consumer a lot by telling them how great they are for being local food buyers. Or the farmer and the “know your farmer” rhetoric and this kind of, when the two meet it’s this magical relationship and it’s going to solve all of our problems and I don’t…have a lot of patience actually for that type of rhetoric [laughs].

So, what I realized was that there was so much going on in between and behind the scenes even before you get to the farmers market. If you’re a producer, you’re dealing with labor, either your own or somebody else’s or volunteer labor, which is its own ball of wax in and of itself. You have regulations at the market. If you’re dealing with meat or dairy, you have all of these inspectors to help you get your product from point A to point B, to make sure that it’s safe and complies to all the regulatory standards. So, there’s just so much beyond the farmer-consumer interaction. We talk about local foods systems, but then it devolves into this discussion of the direct market relationship, and I think there’s a lot more going on. It’s not as direct as it looks.

Jenna Ladd: If you had to name an intended audience, who do you want to read your book?

Janssen: That’s a good question. Of course, I want everyone to read it, and everyone to go out and buy it and all that! I’m supposed to market it. [laughs]

I guess I have a couple audiences in mind. I’m an anthropologist by training so really when I started the book, I wanted it to be appropriate for undergraduates in anthropology. I wanted them to understand what you can do with anthropological methods right in your own community; you don’t have to go off to some exotic place to the work that we do. That’s still an important audience.

There are a lot of players for lack of a better word. I mean, there are a lot of people in the system and a lot of particularly young people who want to enhance the system and make it better, but when you walk into the co-op and all you see are pictures of farmers, you think, “Boy, but I can’t afford land in Iowa because it’s absurdly expensive, how can I contribute to this system?” I hope that understanding all of the intricacies of the bigger system, people find a place in it, you know? There are lots of other roles that are just as important. I hope that it can be a useful book for that population as well. And then, in general, kind of the foodie. There are lots of people reading books about food and agriculture right now, which is a great thing. That’s super exciting, so any of that interested population, I hope that it would be a useful or informative or…not a terrible read hopefully. [laughs]

JL: [laughs] Yeah, that’s a good goal. No, I like that a lot though because for a lot of my peers, their dream is to own land in Iowa. Everybody wants to be a small-scale farmer, which is great, but maybe not always realistic. So kind of seeing, maybe you could be the person that adds value to a product or processes food or transports it. Yeah, you can be a different kind of player to make the whole thing go.

Janssen: Yeah, and it’s just as important. The marketing angle and the focus on farmers is actually an unfortunate piece of local food. Boy, it feels like blasphemy in Iowa to sit here and say we should not focus on the farmer so much because that’s what we do here, but the reality is we shouldn’t. The truck-driver and the distributer and the butcher should be on the co-op walls and not just the three farmers who were willing to go to the photo shoot.

JL: I haven’t read the book yet, but from my understanding it kind of debunks some myths about the local food system. I think you mentioned some of them already, what are some other ones that you discuss?

Janssen: Maybe the other big one, if we want to call it myth-debunking, is the interaction between commodity farmers and local food farmers in the state. So kind of at the high-level, you know if you read mass media and journalism, attention gives them a hook so they like the “little guy is going up against corporate ag” [narrative]. It’s combative, like you’re either a commodity farmer and you’re destroying the environment or you’re a local food farmer and everything is sort of copacetic, right? So, what I found though, when I was talking to farmers, was that they work a lot with their neighbors. They interact usually pretty positively with their commodity farming neighbors. They use their equipment, they use their expertise. I mean, there are sometimes issues, pesticide spray drift is probably the big one that causes problems, but overall I think most farmers see ag as sort of a series of strategies that you use to an economic or an environmental end, right? So, almost all farmers are mixing various strategies. I mean, there are commodity farmers that do a small CSA (community-supported agriculture).

There’s a farmer story I tell that I like a lot. There’s a farmer, he’s had organic grains for over ten years but put up a Sara Lee contract turkey barn so that he could use the bedding for nitrogen for his organic row crops. Most of his organic grains go to Silk, the soy milk company, or they go to the local feed mill for organic livestock feed. So, you don’t always think of those organic markets as being enhanced by a Sara Lee barn, but that’s an interesting way to blend two completely different strategies on one farm. So, I think on the ground things are much less combative than they appear to be when you read the sort of, the Farm Bureau “Criticism of Ag is Our Biggest Problem on One Hand” and kind of, the “We’ve Got to Destroy the Corporate Ag System” on the other. That’s not really how the conversation looks in rural neighborhoods.

JL: Soil erosion and water quality problems related to agriculture have been really hot-button issues lately in Iowa. In your research, have you noticed a trend toward more diversified farms or a trend away from that?

Janssen: So, from a crop standpoint, people are still doing corn-and-soy-corn-and-soy, maybe they used to have hogs and they got out of hogs in the nineties and now they’re just doing row crop. But we are seeing, even though the numbers overall are really, really small, it’s a tiny percentage of land that’s in cover crop, we are seeing growth in that area. So it’s like, it’s not necessarily diversifying the products that are grown for sale, but it’s diversifying the practice and changing the practice so that, essentially you’ve got more ground cover through more of the year. That’s the short answer to it, ya know? So, the cover crop thing is evidence that we’re thinking about changing practices in a way that does diversify farms, just not really in the traditional sense. But it’s slow. I think people are kind of excited about it, but I’m a little more like, “Well, we’re not getting too far yet so let’s see how it’s going.” I did meet a number of farmers who did commodity crops who were adding [diversity], especially after the 2008 shift in the Farm Bill that loosened up the restrictions. It used to be if you had so many base acres in corn, you couldn’t do vegetable production…That changed I think in 2008, so since then, I’ve talked to a number of commodity farmers who were also saying, “Well, maybe ya do a vegetable operation, or a pumpkin patch or some kind of agro-tourism.” So in that way, I think. You know, I couldn’t give you statewide numbers if we’re really seeing a shift, but anecdotally at least, yeah, people are thinking about it.

JL: My next question was going to be about pushes people over the edge to make the decision to diversify their farms, and it sounds like you’re saying a lot of it depends on the Farm Bill and national policies that govern farms.

Janssen: Yeah, I think if you ever ask yourself, “Does policy change behavior?” All you have to do is look at the Farm Bill and then look out your Iowa window. [laughs] It’s a clear yes, it can change behavior. When people have more flexibility in the farm program, they seem to go for it, ya know? People are seeing that a small vegetable operation is a nice, profitable strategy.

JL: So, you direct I-CASH. What about the relationship between local food and farm safety?

Janssen: Oh, that’s a good question, and I don’t think that that’s one that we’ve really asked or answered too well. Right after I started this job I had a funny conversation with a relatively new CSA grower and I was telling him about the job. I said, “You know, the center (I-CASH) historically has really worked with big commodity farmers, but I think we should be working more with the local food and the alternative producers.” He looked at me and he said, “Well, what could hurt you on a vegetable farm?” [laughs] I said, “Do you have tractor?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Does it have a roll bar?” He said, “No.” I said, “I’m much more worried about you than some guy who is in his combine all day.”

You know, so there are a couple ways. First of all, I think we have a tendency to associate what we perceive as the health and safety of the food with the workplace as well. You know, these local food farms tend to be set apart as these, kind of, “other.” You mentioned the romanticizing of farming in general, and I think that’s certainly true. You forget that you’re dealing with real equipment, organic farming is not chemical-free, you’re using particularly a lot of disinfectants and sanitizers that can cause all sorts of problems, the equipment, the livestock, etc. It’s just as dangerous as a big farm.

I came into this job knowing a lot more about farmer behavior as it related to environmental practices. I didn’t really come in with an expertise in farm safety particularly, but I think those conversations are really parallel. In both situations you have a system that lacks a lot of regulatory oversight, both environmentally and with safety practices. You know, farms are not regulated by OSHA like factories are so you have to think about, “How do we change individual behavior?” As I stay in contact with my environmentally-focused colleagues, we’re kind of having the same conversations just about different topics, but the framework is very similar. This is a population we’ve ignored. It overlaps quite a bit.

JL: Yeah, there seems to be a need for more regulation, especially if you think about maybe people of a lower socioeconomic status or people who don’t have citizen status in the U.S. who are working on farms. People don’t have an out in those situations, and you know, they just need to make money.

Janssen: Right, it’s easy to make it exploitative and the whole push to volunteer labor in local food is a bit a blind spot too. It can be problematic. I mean, I appreciate particularly young people who want to learn more about farming and it’s a good way to do it, but it also doesn’t do much for anybody economically. If these jobs are supposed to be the better jobs then they shouldn’t be just for people who are privileged enough to be able to do them for free. They should also go to people who need the work and are also invested and going to stick around in the area. So, it’s kind of a double-edged sword, I guess, depends on how you look at it.

JL: On that same note, accessing local food can be difficult for some people, particularly those with fewer resources. How can a local food system address food equity issues?

Janssen: That’s a hard one. I can speak to this locally more than from a big picture, I think. You know, people want to do the right thing. It’s not like the local food movement doesn’t want to make this happen, but it’s been a little slow to start. There’s been a lot of emphasis on cost, which makes sense. There is tension between farmers making money and making food affordable. It’s absolutely true that we spend less of our take home dollar on food than lots of other things, blah-blah-blah. It’s a perfectly reasonable conversation about what the real cost of food should be. Should it be higher? But then you have this population for whom that would be catastrophic.

Again, it’s about thinking about the whole system. It’s not just thinking about the cost but also about where is it located. There is one project that I thought was really effective. Well, we’ll see because we just got it up and off the ground. So, Local Foods Connection, which I was involved with while it was here in Iowa City, now it’s in Grinnell, they started doing farm stands at the Neighborhood Centers in Johnson County. Like on a Thursday afternoon, they do a little farm stand. Purchase, not ask for donations, but purchase basically wholesale from farmers and they would often give a lot of their overage if they had extras. They would sort of just throw stuff on top. So you’re actually selling food, it’s not a donation situation, but you’re selling it at a small market at a place where people are going anyway to pick up their kids and so it’s easy for them, as opposed to saying “Oh, well we’ve got SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) at the farmers market therefore, we’ve solved all of our access problems.” [laughs] Because the other piece of it is about farmers markets and their inaccessibility: they’re at times that maybe don’t work for working people, they’re sometimes not as inclusive as they think they are. They tend to be very white spaces, very middle class spaces. That [initiative], to me, ticks a lot of the boxes.

You know, it’s not just that it’s affordable but is it physically accessible? Can people get to it in a way, you know, not just actually getting there but that they feel comfortable when they are there, they’re with their own neighbors, in a community that they’re comfortable with. That’s where I think institutional purchasing can go a long way. You think about rural care facilities, many of them are pretty low budget operations. This is not where wealthy people always go to live out the end of their lives. Or rural schools, they’re the same. These are systems where people have to eat every day and they have to feed them.

One story I tell in the book is about sweet potatoes, which actually turned out to be a pretty good option for the school district. The farmer who grew the potatoes, he had an acre. He had basically a home-built planter and harvester. So you know, it was not hand labor, but he could sell certified organic sweet potatoes for about a dollar per pound. That was completely within the reach of the school district, but that only works if you are willing to grow a full acre of potatoes and specialize in it a little bit.

When I quoted that price to another farmer who has a CSA, I had the sense that I actually offended her by suggesting such a low cost. Well, if you dig your potatoes with a pitchfork, you’re never going to be able to have a price point that is accessible to an institution where you still make money. He makes money on the sweet potatoes. That’s probably a $40,000 acre, that’s a lot of money.

That’s probably a pretty windy answer, but it’s all the things! We have more to do.[laughs]

Iowa general assembly adjourns, still no water quality funding


33292113582_64eea00bef_k
Iowa legislators have failed to approve long-term funding for water quality projects that were approved by voters in 2010. (Michael Leland/flickr)
Jenna Ladd | April 25, 2017

The Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoors Trust Fund remains empty after legislators adjourned the 86th General Assembly on Saturday without passing policy to fund water quality improvement in the state.

Long-term funding for water quality was not included in next year’s $7.2 billion state budget, even though the vast majority of Iowa voters supported establishing the fund more than seven years ago. The House and Senate each devised their own plans for funding, but neither plan garnered support from both houses.

Legislators in the Senate proposed an amendment that would have increased Iowa’s sales tax by three-eighths of one cent. The plan would have generated around $180 million dollars per year for the Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoors Trust Fund, 60 percent of which would have gone to water quality improvement projects. The proposal was championed by Iowa’s Water and Land Legacy, a coalition of environmentalists, political leaders and Iowa businesses dedicated to promoting water and land conservation measures. Although the sales tax increase had support on both sides of the aisle, it lost in the Senate vote 34 to 16.

The Iowa House of Representatives proposed a plan that would have redirected money from a sales tax Iowans already pay on tap water to water quality improvement projects. The 6 percent tax currently funds infrastructure projects for community school districts and other municipal projects. The plan was approved by the House, even though some Democrats criticized the it for cutting funds from other state programs.

Kirk Leeds is CEO of the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA). In an interview with CBC, he said, “This year’s legislative session was a missed opportunity to act boldly on improving Iowa’s water.” Leeds continued, “ISA will seek continued partnerships with farmers and cities to make real progress on conservation to the benefit of all Iowans.”

Iowa Department of Agriculture provides funding for urban water quality projects


16248097563_6c5408bc3c_o
Clive, Iowa is one of the cities that has received funding from the state to implement a water quality improvement demonstration project. (Kim/flickr)
Jenna Ladd | March 14, 2017

The Iowa Department of Agriculture’s Iowa Water Quality Initiative awarded grants for 12 new urban water quality demonstration projects.

The funds, totaling $820,840, will be met with $1.18 million dollars in matching funds and other in-kind donations. Gov. Terry Brandstand founded the Iowa Water Quality Initiative in 2013. Since then, 45 water quality demonstration sites have been established in addition to this year’s twelve new urban sites.

Gov. Brandstand said, “We know this is a long-term problem that we need to address, and by having a growing source of funding, we think we can speed up the progress that’s being made.”

The water quality demonstration projects will include improved stormwater management, permeable pavement systems, native seeding, lake restoration, and the installation of bioretention cells, among other measures. The cities selected include: Slater, Windsor Heights, Readlyn, Urbandale, Clive, Des Moines, Emmetsburg, Denison, Spencer, Cedar Rapids, Burlington, Waterloo and Ankeny. Upwards of 150 organizations from participating cities have also contributed funds to support the projects. In the last year, $340 million dollars have been spent to improve water quality in Iowa, including both state and federal money.

Meanwhile, a bi-partisan water quality improvement bill is making its way through the Iowa legislature. The plan, called “Water, Infrastructure, Soil for our Economy,” proposes a sales tax increase of three-eighths of a percent over the next three years while also “zeroing out the lowest [income] tax bracket” to offset the sales tax increase. The bill would finally provide funding for the Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Fund, which was supported overwhelmingly by Iowa voters in 2010.

Representative Bobby Kaufmann is a Republican supporter of the bill. Kaufman said, “This is a sensible, balanced approach to finally combat Iowa’s pervasive water quality issues while not raising the overall tax pie for Iowans.” A minimum of 60 percent of the trust fund dollars would support proven water quality measures as provided by Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Kaufmann said, “The need is there. The desire to fix water quality exists. This provides the funding to get the job done.”

 

Rising temperatures deplete Colorado River


4628619026_029af6ec66_o
The Colorado River provides drinking water for 40 million people. (Katie Rompala/flickr)
Jenna Ladd | February 24, 2017

The volume of the Colorado River has decreased by 19 percent since 2000, and recent research shows that climate change is partly to blame.

Two researchers from Colorado State University and University of Arizona compared temperature, precipitation and water volume in the Colorado River basin from 2000-2014 to historical records dating back to 1896. Since 2000, precipitation in region has decreased by 4.6 percent while temperatures have risen 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit above historical averages. Utilizing existing climate models, the scientists found that the river’s flow should have only decreased by roughly 11.6 percent since the drought began in the area in 2000. Instead, the river’s flow decreased by 19.3 percent due to the effects of global warming, they said.

Published last week in the journal Water Resources, the study read,

“Fifteen years into the 21st century, the emerging reality is that climate change is already depleting the Colorado River water supplies at the upper end of the range suggested by previously published projections. Record-setting temperatures are an important and under-appreciated component of the flow reductions now being observed.”

The Colorado River provides drinking water for 40 million people and irrigates 6,300 square miles of agricultural land. Moving forward, the study’s authors said precipitation in the river’s basin would have to increase by 14 percent by the end of the century in order to mitigate the rising temperature’s effects.

Brad Udall of Colorado State University is one of the study’s co-authors. He said, “We can’t say with any certainty that precipitation is going to increase and come to our rescue.”

Warming ponds could speed up climate change


warmingponds
Small ponds used by researchers at the University of Exeter and Queen Mary University. (University of Exeter)
Jenna Ladd | February 23, 2017

A recent study shows that when freshwater ponds warm, they release more methane and are able to store less carbon dioxide.

Researchers at the University of Exeter and Queen Mary University of London warmed a collection of man-made ponds by four to five degrees Celsius over the course of seven years. The first of its kind, the study found that the amount of methane released by the ponds increased by double while the amount of carbon dioxide the ponds could store decreased by half.

Professor Gabriel Yvon-Durocher was the study’s lead investigator. He said, “Given the substantial contribution small ponds make to the emission of greenhouse gases, it is vital to understand how they might respond to global warming.”

While ponds and lakes only account for about 0.008 percent of the total volume of water on Earth, they are major contributors of carbon dioxide and methane. Greenhouse gases from freshwater sources are mostly the byproduct of organic matter breaking down in low-oxygen environments.

Yvon-Durocher continued, “Our findings show that warming can fundamentally alter the carbon balance of small ponds over a number of years, reducing their capacity to absorb and increasing emissions of methane. This could ultimately accelerate climate change.”

The scientist noted that these findings are different than those normally observed on land, where the effect of rising temperatures lessen over time. In contrast, when ponds warm and release methane, a gas that is known to be 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, they actually exacerbate warming.

Ponds of less than one meter, such as those used in the study, are responsible for the release of 40 percent of all inland methane emissions.

 

The professor noted, “This accelerating effect in ponds, which could have serious impacts on climate change, is not currently accounted for in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models.”

The complete study can be found in the journal Nature Climate Change.