Iowa officials on Tuesday released a 227-page report summarizing a two-year-long research review by a team of 16 scientists that focused on pollution patterns in key state waterways. The “Central Iowa Source Water Research Assessment” has sparked controversy because it highlights data showing that the agricultural industry is responsible for large amounts of pollution problems that endanger human and environmental health.

The New Lede talked with Claire Hruby, one of the scientific advisors on the report, about the new report. Hruby is assistant professor, Environmental Science and Sustainability, in the College of Arts and Sciences at Drake University in Iowa.

Q: What should readers take away as the key point(s) of this very detailed report?

A: First, I am not an official spokesperson for the group, so my answers should not be taken as representative of anyone else’s opinion. This report is very detailed, but the main point is pretty simple: current practices and policies are not enough to ensure that Iowans will have access to safe and abundant water for drinking and recreation.

The size and scope of the problems are difficult to put into perspective. Iowa is blessed with a lot more rain than our neighbors to the west, who have been struggling to manage their resources for a long time, but we should not take the water that comes out of our taps for granted. We need everyone to make improvements on the land they own, whether on the farm or in the city. And we need everyone who votes to hold our legislature accountable to make sure that long-term public health and the economic wellbeing of our communities is a priority.

Q: Is it fair to say that agriculture/agricultural practices are at the core of many of the concerns for water safety/quality in Iowa?

A: I get frustrated by the oversimplification of the headlines. This report covers a lot of different issues. Most of the land in these watersheds is dedicated to row crop agriculture, so, yes, agricultural practices play a big role, especially when it comes to the use of fertilizers and pesticides. We have known for at least three decades now that the concentration of nitrate in streams and drinking water goes up with percentage of row crop in a watershed.

There are many solutions available to reduce the need for these inputs or to treat the water before it moves downstream or into groundwater. Crop rotations, cover crops, saturated buffers, prairie strips, and many other approaches should be part of every farm. Many farmers have already stepped up to prevent erosion by contour farming, installation of grassed water ways and terraces across the state, but more needs to be done. Addressing agricultural sources of pollution will not solve all of our challenges. In my research, we are finding more indications of human waste in our rural streams than we expected, which means that our management of septic systems and wastewater in small towns needs improvement, too. There is also work to do in suburban and urban areas. We need to plan and construct suburban areas carefully in order to manage the water that runs off during heavy rains, otherwise the folks downstream will experience more flooding, and we need to continue investing in our infrastructure so that we can better manage clean and dirty water in our cities.

We need to develop a real statewide plan that focuses on Iowa’s water, with real goals, real accountability, and real funding. I think we have talked too long about the Dead Zone in the Gulf. Today the challenges to serving out safe drinking water in central Iowa are front and center, but Iowans are starting to talk about water challenges in small towns and for folks on private wells, too. We are talking about cancer. We are talking about reproductive and developmental outcomes. We are talking about the ability to swim and fish in our lakes and streams. These issues affect every single Iowan.

Q: In the executive summary, six top concerns were highlighted, with the first in the list “livestock manure management” and the last in the list being “nutrients.” Are these of equal concern?

A: All of these issues are related, so I am not sure we ever agreed that one was more important than another. Manure management rises to the top because the public has raised this concern over and over again. My personal opinion is that manure, if applied correctly, can be beneficial to our soils, which can get depleted in organic carbon by repeated application of chemical fertilizers. However, right now, there is no limit to the number of animals in a watershed in Iowa.

We know there is a limit above which it is no longer safe or sustainable to grow more livestock in a certain area. If we pack animals too closely together on our landscape, the potential for outbreaks of diseases increase, which puts animals and people at risk, and we will continue to see excessive loss of nutrients, and more and more fishkills.

Q: The executive summary mentions regenerative agriculture. What role does that play, or could play, in addressing the water problems?

A: Long-term, regenerative agriculture will be better for the sustainability of our communities for many reasons, including improvements to water quality, resiliency to droughts and floods, and reduction of greenhouse gases. But, our current food system, land prices, and federal subsidies for corn and soybeans, make it hard for individuals to take the risk on something new. And, yes, there are political pressures from folks who benefit from the current system.

Q: Was there any pressure from the agricultural industry or its allies on the authors of the report seeking to downplay the industry’s role in poor water quality?

A: Not that I am aware of, but the change in leadership at the county did change the way we were expecting the report to be released. Some of the members of this team work for agencies or institutions where political pressure can be exerted, but many members of the group are from outside of the state, or work for institutions which are less easily pressured. Everyone in the group is a well-respected scientist, with varying specialties, and many many years of combined experience. We all believe that the data speak for themselves. I think the result is a very unbiased report.

Efforts like this, that go beyond the borders of any one county, should involve the state agency that is tasked with managing water resources for all Iowans. DNR has great employees, who have expertise and care about the communities they live in, but the budget to support the work they do continues to shrink and their hands are tied by limits to the amount of money they can charge for violations to existing law, and by resistance to any new regulation that could be perceived as anti-ag or anti industry.

Water quality challenges are everywhere. Flint (lead), Jackson (infrastructure), Minnesota (PFAS), Colorado and California have supply issues … this list goes on. Iowans have been hit hard in recent years by flooding, drought, and pollution. The pressure on politicians from special interests isn’t new, but it seems to be more pronounced that it was 20 years ago.

In my opinion, we are feeling the result of decades of inaction now. These crises are only going to continue as federal support for environmental work is also eroded.

Claire Hruby is an assistant professor of environmental science and sustainability at the College of Arts and Sciences at Drake University.

www.thenewlede.org/2025/07/iowa-pollution-waterways-study-qa/