Nitrate in the News

The Nitrate Elimination Co., Inc. (NECi) -- Lake Linden MI 49945

Home Catalog Products NECi News Ordering
Nitrate & Your Health Nitrate FAQ NECi R&D About NECi

Nitrate in the News

Nitrate News -- February, 2000

Proposal aims to stem tide of Mississippi River pollution (ENN News, Tuesday, February 29, 2000 By Margot Higgins) Legislation proposed by Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wisconsin, may stem the tide of uncontrolled pollution of the Mississippi River. In an effort to clean up the upper Mississippi River basin, Kind has drafted a bill that would increase federal funding for conservation programs and target assistance to high-priority watersheds. This week Kind will introduce in Congress the Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act of 2000. But already the proposed legislation is finding favor with environmentalists. "Representative Kind's proposal addresses the single greatest threat to rivers in the heartland and across the nation," said Jeff Stein, Mississippi River regional representative for American Rivers. "A priority of this bill is getting a good scientific basis for conservation programs," said Mike Fahey, a spokesman in Kind's office. Kind's proposal earmarks $10 million in federal funding for a water-quality monitoring program and $5 million for a scientific evaluation program. The data would be used to create a monitoring system of resources targeted at reducing run-off. Local, state, and federal water quality monitoring efforts would become more coordinated and standardized. The legislation would also expand existing land-conservation programs to combat nutrient runoff and soil erosion. Water-quality standards for tributaries to the Mississippi River are routinely violated, and hundreds of miles of the mighty Mississippi are considered "impaired" by water-quality officials, conservationists say. Runoff from farms and city streets contributes to 90 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that washes into the river. At risk from contamination are more than 400 species of wildlife. Also in jeopardy is the region's annual $1.2 billion recreation industry. Though conservationists have long agreed that pollution of the Mississippi is a serious problem, no comprehensive scientific study of sources or remedies has been conducted. Many landowners are anxious to enroll their land in easement programs such as those managed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. But demand for federal technical assistance far exceeds the budget. "Many of the programs are doing a great job, but there are not enough funds," Stein said. "Farmers are willing to do their part, but we need to recognize the economic risks they take when they adopt new land use practices. Rep. Kind's proposal will give farmers the tools and incentives they need to be better stewards." "Through this legislation, Kind is taking a regional leadership role as well as a national leadership role," said Bill Redding of the Sierra Club. Copyright 2000, Environmental News Network All Rights Reserved

EPA runoff regulations concern agriculture (Thursday, February 24, 2000, By Associated Press) In a public show of division in the Clinton administration, the Agriculture Department is raising concerns about a plan to reduce pollution from farms and logging operations. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to clarify the rules it is proposing and determine how much they will cost landowners, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman told the Senate Agriculture Committee on Wednesday. "Farmers demand clarity. ... What they don't need is more uncertainty," he said. EPA in August proposed to require states to submit plans within 15 years to clean up every waterway that fails to meet water quality standards. The agency estimates that there more than 20,000 streams and lakes that don't meet water-quality standards, including long sections of the Mississippi and Colorado rivers. Glickman disavowed a letter that a senior USDA official sent to EPA last fall questioning the agency's legal authority to regulate farm runoff and other indirect sources of water pollution. EPA has until now concentrated on regulating direct sources, such as pollution from factories and sewage plants. But Glickman said he still had concerns about the plan, including the lack of a comprehensive cost estimate. The rules are "very complex and would present a challenge to any expert on the issue," Glickman said. They also should make it clear that regulators will take into account steps farmers have taken to limit runoff, such as planting trees along a stream. EPA Administrator Carol Browner, who appeared before the committee alongside Glickman, emphasized that it would be up to each state to decide how to meet the reductions in pollutants required by their plans. She said the agency's proposal was a "very, very sensible way to do the final work to ensure clean water for everyone in this country." States have primary responsibility for identifying streams that fall short of water quality standards and making plans to clean them up under the 1972 Clean Water Act. From 1972 to 1998, states only approved 1,000 of the 40,000 runoff-control plans that are needed, according to EPA. Landowners would be required to get a pollution discharge permit only if the agency found they were contributing to nearby water quality problems, and only if a state had failed to draft an adequate plan for improving water quality, the agency says. Some congressional Democrats also have expressed concern about EPA's proposal. Sen. Blanche Lambert Lincoln, D-Ark., introduced legislation earlier this month that would prohibit EPA from regulating runoff from private logging operations. She said it should be left up to states to decide whether to regulate such pollution. The EPA plan would "get us nowhere closer to a cleaner environment than we would get from a voluntary program," Lincoln said. Copyright 2000, Associated Press All Rights Reserved

Gulf of Mexico nitrogen pollution comes from sources thousands of miles upstream (EDIE – environmental data interactive exchange, UK Website, Edie Weekly News Summaries, 18Feb2000) Most of the nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico originates in the upper Midwest and Ohio Valley states and comes from nitrogen sources located near large watersheds rather than near smaller streams, a US Geological Survey (USGS) research has found. The study found that the location of a nitrogen source in relation to streams of different sizes in the watershed has an important influence on the amount of nitrogen reaching the Gulf from that source. The rates of nitrogen reaching the Gulf from upstream areas near large rivers, in such states as Ohio and Minnesota, are much higher than those from neighboring areas near small streams, the study found. Moreover, areas near large rivers in these same states, located more than 1,500 miles from the Gulf, deliver more nitrogen to the Gulf than areas near small streams in the states of Mississippi and Arkansas, located only a few hundred miles from the Gulf. It was not clear until now whether a unit of nitrogen released in different areas of the Mississippi River drainage basin has an equal chance of reaching the Gulf. It had been assumed that the percentage of nitrogen traveling downstream to the Gulf decreased as the distance increased. However, the study found that nitrogen pollution is removed from water more rapidly in small streams than in large rivers. As a result, nitrogen delivery from point and non-point sources is determined by the amount of time the nitrogen travels through small streams, rather than the source's distance from the Gulf. The study found that nitrogen is released from the water by bacteria in the bottom sediments of streams. The amount of nitrogen removed from water depends on the amount of water in contact with bottom sediments. Because water in small, shallow streams has more contact with the bottom sediments than water in deep, large rivers, more nitrogen is expected to be removed in smaller streams than larger rivers. The results of this study strongly support this theory. Nitrogen increases in the Mississippi River have been cited as the leading cause of eutrophication (excessive algal growth) and chronic hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) in Louisiana coastal waters and the Gulf of Mexico during the latter half of the 20th century. This area of oxygen-depleted waters is the largest in the western Atlantic Ocean.

Minnesota ecologist warns of nitrogen fertilizer overuse (Environmental News Network, World Wire, Monday, February 21, 2000, By Dennis Lien, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Minn.) For almost two decades, David Tilman and his colleagues have been tending a large scientific site north of the Twin Cities near Bethel, Minnesota. On 207 plots, each 16 meters square, they have measured how plants handle varying levels of nitrogen, a powerful fertilizer that is a key factor in how plants fare. Over time, a trend has emerged. As more nitrogen fertilizer is applied to plots, progressively fewer species of plants survive. And the ones that do are usually less desirable, non-native ones such as quack grass, which needs high doses of nitrogen to thrive. Now Tilman, a University of Minnesota ecologist, has taken that level of inquiry a step further. As part of a broader effort involving other scientists, he has tried to determine what the world will look like in 50 years, assuming farmers continue to adopt U.S. agricultural methods that depend heavily on nitrogen for high yields. The picture, Tilman will tell a group of scientists today in Washington, D.C., isn't pretty. Oxygen-starved "dead zones," such as the existing one in the Gulf of Mexico, will become increasingly prevalent, many plants will die off, while fewer — and less desirable ones — will take over. The result will be less diverse and healthy ecosystems for plant and animal life, he said. To arrive at that conclusion, Tilman took his own experiments on nitrogen and incorporated them with the best available world population, income, and consumption patterns. He already had found that as the amount of nitrogen doubles, species diversity declines by 25 percent. And as nitrogen levels continue to increase, species are lost at a greater, though less dramatic rate, leveling off at declines of 40 to 70 percent. "The bad news is that low rates of nitrogen are having more impact than expected," Tilman said. To get world food production to double over the past 35 years, farmers have had to use seven times as much nitrogen as they used to, effectively doubling the amount that already comes in from the atmosphere, Tilman said. "The doubling that has happened now is having discernible effects on ecosystems," he said. "Our estimate is that by 2050, the use of nitrogen will quadruple." By then, the world's population is projected to increase by almost 50 percent, Tilman said. It also will become increasingly affluent, resulting in buying power 2.4 times that of today's population and producing a demand for twice as much food. Unless agricultural methods are changed, or technical adaptations made, he said that will add up to three to four times more need for nitrogen, creating more than three times today's environmental impact. Society is not without options, he said. For starters, he recommends more efficient ways to use nitrogen, such as timing applications of fertilizer better and doing a better job of removing it from sewage. Tilman emphasized he isn't trying to rattle cages or offer gloom-and-doom scenarios. Instead, he said he and his colleagues are part of a growing body of scientists that are raising issues that have not often been addressed. In a way, he conceded, they're on the cusp of a new endeavor, inviting others to help form a clearer picture of the future. "These analyses are not easy," he said. "We admit wholeheartedly they are open to alternative interpretations." Other issues that will be addressed at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting include exotic species invasions, 21st century land use, and the global distribution of pesticides. "Humans now dominate the ecosystems of the world, yet we don't understand the implications," Tilman said. "It's not clear what the wisest path is," he continued. "But if we continue on the current one, we're going to create a world we really don't want." Copyright 2000, Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune All Rights Reserved

EPA report cites US government as big water polluter (Environmental News Network, Friday, February 18, 2000 By David Armstrong, The Boston Globe) The federal government is polluting the nation's waterways at a record rate, violating the landmark Clean Water Act more frequently than private companies and six times as often as in 1993, according to a new report by the Environmental Protection Agency. Nearly four out of 10 federal facilities, primarily those operated by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, were in significant violation of the water pollution law in 1998, the last full year examined by the EPA. By comparison, three out of 10 private facilities and those operated by local governments failed to comply with the law during the same year. Most disturbing to environmentalists is the fact the federal government's record of polluting lakes and rivers continues to worsen. In 1993, only 6 percent — or less than one in 10 — of the federal facilities were polluting waterways. The report by the EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office highlights the system of special exemptions and loopholes that often allow the government to pollute with little fear of any consequences. Federal agencies are exempt from many of the penalties levied against private companies under the Clean Water Act, a situation that Congress has not remedied and that critics say has received little attention from the White House. "The federal facilities need to pay penalties just like everyone else," said Nancy Stoner, a former EPA enforcement official who now directs the Clean Water Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington environmental group. Gregory Snyder, the director of the EPA office that produced the report, said government failure to comply with clean water regulations stands out. "We think the decline in Clean Water Act compliance is linked with [agencies] not being subject to penalties," he said. "We think there is something there. The ability to assess penalties influences those statistics." In a series last November, the Globe cited other exemptions and the lack of enforcement that serves to benefit government agencies that violate the nation's environmental laws. The report by the EPA found that federal agencies had a much better record when it came to complying with laws in which they were subject to the same level of enforcement as private companies. For example, the law governing the handling and disposal of hazardous waste was changed in 1992 so that federal agencies faced the same penalties as private businesses. In the years since the change, the record of government compliance has increased steadily and is now similar to that of the private sector, according to the report. A second report, issued Thursday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit watchdog organization that has pushed for tougher enforcement of environmental laws, concluded state agencies and the EPA have not deterred businesses and government agencies from fouling waterways across the country. The report, titled "Poisoning Our Water: How the Government Permits Pollution," said large companies and sewage treatment plants dumped nearly 270 million pounds of toxic chemicals into US waterways during 1997. Much of the blame for the widespread pollution can be directed at the state and federal agencies charged with enforcement, the report concluded. "The most obvious explanation is that government enforcement of the Clean Water Act has been weak," the report charged. "EPA and many of the delegated state agencies charged with implementing the act have lacked both the resources and the political will to enforce the law aggressively and provide a critical deterrent against illegal pollution." Telephone calls to EPA officials for comment on the report were not returned Thursday. The report also chides the federal government for not getting tough with its own agencies that are polluting rivers, lakes, and oceans. "Considering that the federal government is supposed to be responsible for implementation of our Clean Water Act and therefore should be setting an example, these figures are particularly alarming." Copyright 2000, The Boston Globe Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune All Rights Reserved

Kansas health officials farmers to discuss water quality (Environmental News Network, Sunday, February 13, 2000, Phyllis Jacobs Griekspoor, The Wichita Eagle, Kan.) Farmers are going to get a chance to hear, in detail, what proposals are out there for improving water quality in the Arkansas River basin and what changes in regulations might mean to their business—and to discuss how they can respond. Tom Stiles, a representative of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, will be at the Sedgwick County Extension Education Center at 7 p.m. Wednesday to discuss the issue. He will outline the ongoing process to determine standards for "total maximum daily load" of four water pollutants: sediment, pesticides, fertilizer and bacteria. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment's recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency are due by June 30. At this point, compliance with suggested limits is voluntary. But farmers are worried that new regulations are inevitable. It's the bacteria part that most worries farmers such as Frank Simon, who runs a 600-head dairy just north of Wichita. Simon's operation, which he runs with his brother Greg, has an excellent waste management system, one that easily meets current EPA standards. Simon drains waste from his barns into a "slurry pit," then pumps it into a holding area called a slurry store. Eventually, dried manure is loaded from the slurry store and spread on cropland as fertilizer. "I suppose they'll do away with that at some point, too," he said. "There's already talk of forcing us to use injectors and put it under the ground so nobody suffers smell pollution." Dairies like Simon's and many even smaller are big business in western Sedgwick County, where more than 50 dairy farms are still in operation, making Sedgwick County the home of more dairies than any other county in the state. Many of them, which used to be miles out in the country, are finding themselves next-door to housing developments as Wichita sprawls westward. Some, like David Lane's operation on Colwich Road, are virtually surrounded by houses now. For other farmers, the sediment, pesticide and fertilizer regulations are also worrisome. Runoff from fields is something that happens when it rains, and many farmers view increased levels in stream pollution after a rain as inevitable. Others, like Terry May, who farms almost 2,000 acres near Colwich, have switched to no-till farming, a practice which holds the soil exceptionally well and also helps prevent runoff of chemicals added for crop nutrition or weed control. No-till supporters say that a switch of virtually all the county's farmland from conventional plowing, disking and harrowing to no-till planting could go a long way toward eliminating runoff pollution problems entirely. But switching to no-till involves the purchase of new planting and drilling equipment and, at least in the first few years of operation, to heavier use of chemical weed control. No-till advocates say those costs are offset considerably by reduced expenses for machinery repair and for fuel. Plans call for a five-year program to reduce pollution to achieve improved water quality levels. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is stressing that, at this point, the program is totally voluntary. The important thing, the department says, is for farmers to know that they do have a chance to offer their own ideas about how to achieve the goal of less pollution in streams and waterways. Copyright 2000, Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune All Rights Reserved

For information - Email to: ellenr@nitrate.com or Call Toll Free 1-888-NITRATE (1-888-648-7283)