Poor Farming Practices Foul Drinking Water at the Source
A new Environmental Working Group (EWG) report—Troubled Waters: Farm Pollution Threatens Drinking Water—examines water pollution caused by farm runoff and details how treating the problem after the fact is increasingly expensive, difficult and, if current trends continue, ultimately unsustainable.
Water that runs off poorly managed fields that have been treated with chemical fertilizers and manure is loaded with nitrogen and phosphorus. These two potent pollutants set off a cascade of harmful consequences, threatening the drinking water used by millions of Americans.
Nitrate, the most common form of nitrogen in surface and groundwater, is directly toxic to human health. Infants who drink water with high nitrate levels can develop an acute, life-threatening blood disorder called blue baby syndrome. High nitrate levels in water can also affect thyroid function in adults and increase the risk of thyroid cancer.
Phosphorus stimulates explosive blooms of aquatic algae, including the especially dangerous cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that produce toxins that can be deadly to pets, livestock, wildlife—and people. Toxins produced by cyanobacteria can harm the nervous system, cause stomach and intestinal illness and kidney disease, trigger allergic responses and damage the liver.
“Access to clean and healthy drinking water is a critical issue for Americans and the rest of the planet. The only solution to preserve clean water is to tackle the problem of polluted agricultural runoff at the source,” said EWG senior scientist Olga Naidenko PhD, lead author of the report.
“A strong conservation title in the new farm bill is our best opportunity to help farmers protect drinking water,” said co-author Craig Cox, EWG senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources. “We can’t afford anymore cuts to conservation programs, and Congress must bring crop and revenue insurance programs back under the conservation compact between farmers and taxpayers.”
The so-called “conservation compliance” provisions Congress wrote into the 1985 farm bill established the compact. Farmers agreed to undertake common sense measures to limit pollution, cut soil erosion and protect wetlands in return for generous farm subsidies. The heavily subsidized crop and revenue insurance program has become the single most expensive farm subsidy—and has no conservation requirements attached.
Every year, farm operators apply more than 12 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer and 8 million tons of phosphorus fertilizer to agricultural land in the U.S. Unless carefully managed, nitrates and phosphates are carried off their fields by runoff water or percolates into drainage systems, eventually ending up in streams, rivers, lakes and underground aquifers.
Many American farmers engage in responsible land and water stewardship. But the list of American waters imperiled by agricultural pollution grows daily and now includes the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers estimate that on two-thirds of the nation’s agricultural land, fertilizer use does not conform to science-based best management practices. Growers spread too much, spread it at the wrong times and use methods that are prone to losing nutrients into runoff. In addition, installation of “tile drainage,” which is common across the Midwest, promotes the movement of nutrients into streams.
National studies and regional assessments of waterways in the Mississippi River Basin consistently point to chemical fertilizers and manure spreading on fields as the main sources of nutrient pollution. U.S. Department of Agriculture economists estimate that the national costs of removing nitrate alone from drinking water total more than $4.8 billion a year. Water treatment to address nutrient-fueled algal and cyanobacterial blooms and cyanotoxins can carry a total capital cost can range between $12 million and $56 million for a town of 100,000 people.
Most farm operations are exempt from the pollution control requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, and few states have little authority to compel farmers to reduce water contamination.
For more information, click here.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›