The Register's editorial

Iowa is full of feces. Literally.

This state leads the nation in the amount of poop generated, according to research from a University of Iowa scientist.

The problem is not our mere 3.2 million human residents. The problem is the more than 100 million chickens, pigs, turkeys and cattle in agricultural operations. They poop. Iowa is left with waste equivalent to 168 million people — about as many as the third-world country Bangladesh.

The consequences of this leaking diaper of a state extend beyond our borders.

Scientists predict this summer’s Gulf of Mexico “Dead Zone” will span 8,717 miles, the second-largest area on record. Nitrogen and phosphorus — largely from agricultural runoff in the Midwest — make their way into and down the Mississippi River, where excessive algae blooms deplete underwater oxygen levels.

According to researchers at Louisiana State University, low oxygen levels started to appear 50 years ago, when agricultural practices intensified in the Midwest. There have been no reductions in nitrate loading in recent decades.

Perhaps that’s because Iowa has packed more and more animals into confinement operations. The population of hogs has increased 64% since 2002.

The abundance of fertilizers and manure kills marine life. Humans are not safe, either.

Nitrates in drinking water may cause as many as 12,594 cases of cancer a year nationwide according to a new study in the journal Environmental Research. Scientists also estimate some 4,700 cases of babies born with very low birth weight, very pre-term birth or neural tube defects may be linked to nitrates as well.

Iowa was one of four states singled out in the study as having levels of nitrate contamination that could cause more than 10 cases of cancer per 100,000 people. Researchers pointed to studies finding increases in the risk of ovarian, thyroid, kidney and bladder cancers associated with exposure to nitrate in Iowa women 55–69 years old.

Will this finally prompt our politicians to invest in cleaning up Iowa’s waterways?

Perhaps they are not concerned with our contribution to the dead zone, stinky lakes, fish kills and beach warnings. Maybe they don’t care about the huge expense of cleaning nitrates from drinking water.

Let’s see if they care about the health and lives of their constituents.

It has been nine years since Iowans voted overwhelmingly to amend the Iowa Constitution to create the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. People certainly expected lawmakers to raise the sales tax a fraction of a penny to provide money specifically dedicated to conservation and recreation.

So far, lawmakers and governors have refused. They pay lip service to improving water quality or nab a few dollars here and there from other areas of government.

They will not allow money to get flowing to the trust, even though up to 60% of the estimated $150 million to $180 million generated annually by sales tax could go toward improving, protecting and restoring waterways, according to a report from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

By raising the sales tax three-eighths of a cent, Iowa would finally have a dedicated source of revenue to fund the outdoors, including water protection projects like buffer strips, permanent vegetation cover, bank stabilization and dredging. We could do more to prevent and control agricultural runoff by keeping our nitrates in place.

That means less in our waterways. And the Gulf of Mexico. And our drinking water. And our bodies.

Iowa can have a thriving agricultural economy without being a toilet.

How conservation trust money would be spent

The Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund does not have a penny, thanks to elected officials who refuse to raise sales tax a fraction of a penny to provide funding. If it ever does receive a deposit, Iowa Code Chapter 461 requires money to be distributed to specific environmental needs and state agencies. The distribution percentages are:

7% lake restoration

10% trails

13% REAP (Resource Enhancement and Protection program)

13% Local Conservation Partnership program

14% watershed protection

20% soil conservation and water protection (Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship)

23% natural resources (Department of Natural Resources)