The fix is in, unless...

Is there a future for Iowa wetlands?

According to Iowa State University, wetlands covered 25 percent of Iowa until 95 percent of the 4-6 million acres were drained for agriculture. Today, only 1.2 percent of the state’s surface area can be called a wetland.

A wetland featured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2022 when it announced a $5 Million Wetland Mitigation Banking Program. In 2024, $1 million was sent to Iowa for a 75-acre project in Wright County.

Yet wetlands are mentioned 121 times in Iowa’s “Nutrient Reduction Strategy.” The plan cites wetlands as the second most effective “practice” (after cover crops) to reduce the runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus that is polluting Iowa’s rivers, streams and groundwater.

To avoid enforcing the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires every state along the Mississippi River to have a nutrient reduction strategy (some would refer to them as “suggestions.”) Iowa’s plan — first adopted in 2013 in a process that excluded formal involvement by the State Legislature — was developed mainly by the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS). Today, the Iowa Legislature simply approves whatever update IDALS submits.

In recent decades, many of Iowa’s remaining wetlands have been protected by the Clean Water Act as “waters of the United States (WOTUS).” After a U.S. Supreme Court decision that requires the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to come up with a new definition for WOTUS, those protections are now threatened.

Public and stakeholder input is being solicited by the agencies for a new definition that will limit the reach of the Clean Water Act. The Iowa Environmental Council testified: “Based on a recent analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Iowa stands to lose protection for between 41 percent and 98 percent of the few remaining wetlands in the state,” leading to devastating impacts on agricultural health in flood-prone areas, urban runoff and stormwater management, habitat for threatened wildlife, and – most notably – “reduced ecosystem services such as natural water quality purification.”

If IDALS were located in Texas, I’d say “Houston, we have a problem.” State and federal taxpayers are ponying up huge bucks for farmers to voluntarily adopt “edge-of-field” practices such as CREP wetlands, saturated buffers and bioreactors to remove farm pollution from water. (“Huge bucks” is a technical term, I know; I am trying to track down some specific numbers.) At the same time, the federal government is removing a barrier that prevents farmers from draining wetlands to grow more crops.

As a director for the Dubuque Area Land and Water Legacy, I was recently invited to testify (remotely via Zoom) at an EPA/Army Corps hearing for “public stakeholders.”

My comments:

“I worked for 16 years until 2024 as a state representative in the Iowa Legislature, serving on the natural resources, environmental protection and agriculture committees.

“The Dubuque Area Land and Water Legacy is a community-based association of individuals allied with a wide array of conservation groups in the tri-state area of Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. We are in the middle of the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge, and at the lower end of the Driftless region. The Driftless is notable for escaping several generations of glaciers, giving us a unique geography found in maybe only one other place in the world.

“We are at Lock and Dam 11 on the Mississippi, so we directly engage with both the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Without clean water, conserving fish and wildlife habitat is impossible.

“So, we are aware, perhaps better than most, that the definition of waters of the US is primarily associated with serving navigation priorities, not protecting wetlands in service of clean water. Indeed, one of the two Coast Guard cutters maintaining the Upper Mississippi’s navigation channel is based in Dubuque.

“From what I have read, going forward, the only streams and wetlands to be protected under the Clean Water Act will be those that have a direct and permanent surface connection to a navigable waterway.

“From a clean water standpoint, this is problematic in the Driftless and particularly for Iowa. At one point, our state was almost completely grassland, wetland and woodland. Now we have the most altered landscape of any state. We are predominately row crops -- corn and soybeans, fertilized with anhydrous ammonia and manure from confined animal feeding operations. As a result, we are the biggest contributor of sediment to the Mississippi River, as well as nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to the so-called ‘Gulf of America.’ Given the name change, it can now be said that we are defecating in our own nest.

From the EPA website: Now defecating in our own nest.

“Our two recommendations are simple.

“First, in separate action the EPA needs to develop a regime to develop new and protect remaining wetlands, separate from and not dependent on the definition of WOTUS. We recognize this may take Congressional action, which would not seem to be imminent. But EPA needs to take the lead.

“Second, before a new rule is finalized, groups like ours should have access to -- and for purposes of regulatory certainty should be able to see -- maps of wetlands and other waters covered under the previous definition of WOTUS that will no longer be covered under a new definition to be adopted. This is the only way that local public stakeholders will be able to know what this means for them. Citizens need to see to understand what federal agencies are doing on our behalf.” (End of testimony)

One of the wild places I regularly visit is a place known as “John Deere Marsh” – between the John Deere Dubuque Works and the Mississippi River. The marsh is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with help from Dubuque County Conservation, as part of the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The marsh is publicly-owned. More than 250 bird species have been found there.

But the marsh has no permanent surface connection to the Mississippi River, which makes me wonder: If the marsh were privately owned, would it be protected as a water of the U.S.? Or could it be drained and farmed? (In the meantime, outside the berms, sediment from eroded farm fields upriver is slowly choking off access to the area for fish and humans alike.)

This year, John Deere Marsh in Dubuque has been a hotbed for rare shorebirds attracted by exposed mudflats (which are growing due to soil erosion upstream and will soon be turned into “island.”)

Iowa’s governor provided joint testimony to EPA on behalf of IDALS, the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Department of Transportation. As usual for ag state leaders who think government over-regulates everything, the comments support scaling back the jurisdiction of the federal government.

This is not surprising. Farm groups that have financed the governor’s campaigns have engaged in hyperbole for years, claiming that every ditch, every puddle, every downspout would be policed under rules adopted by the Biden Administration in 2023. (Those rules sought to reverse the changes made by Trump in his first term.)

Most problematic, Iowa wants to relieve landowners of the burden of proof and require the feds to show that a wetland falls under the Clean Water Act. Good luck getting Congress to cover the cost of that bureaucracy.

As noted in my testimony, the Clean Water Act applies to “navigable waters” — basically waterways that can accommodate boats. Boats move commercial goods. The Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce – thus, the focus on “navigable” waters.

Most wetlands cannot float boats, except maybe some kayaks. So the “navigation” concept divorces clean water from wetlands as a matter of law, though the science is clear on the important roles that wetlands play.

Common, unregulated farm practices In the Mississippi River watershed can be said to deliberately convey pollution to rivers and streams for delivery to the Gulf of Mexico. With 4.5 percent of the land and 5.9 percent of the water, Iowa alone is responsible for 29 percent of the nitrate pollution shipped to the Gulf. That impacts interstate commerce. Try telling Louisiana shrimpers it doesn’t.

This map shows the human waste equivalent of the people, hogs, laying chickens, turkeys, and dairy and beef cattle in the city or state imposed over each of Iowa’s watersheds with the waste of that watershed’s human population only. It reflects an average of nitrogen, phosphorus, and total solids waste. Produced by Dr. Chris Jones, former IIHR Research Engineer, Water Quality Monitoring and Research, University of Iowa, in 2019. These two blogs that explain his data sources and methods:

https://cjones.iihr.uiowa.edu/blog/2019/06/fifty-shades-brown
https://cjones.iihr.uiowa.edu/blog/2019/03/iowas-real-population

Notwithstanding the navigation of ships and boats, dealing with the transportation of pollution on rivers and streams — and protecting the wetlands that can mitigate it whether or not they are directly connected to a navigable waterway — should be a primary function of the Clean Water Act.

Iowa’s undated letter to the EPA asks for “specific and concise definitions,” presumably to cover every potential situation found “in the field.” (In other circumstances this would be derided by ag lobbyists as a “one-size-fits all” solution.)

The letter also asks for categorical exemptions for “ephemeral streams” that flow only during rain events (when the risk of pollution runoff can be greatest). Also: Exemptions for drainage systems that can deliver pollution directly from field to streams. Such exemptions can be problematic if the water from the gullies and drains is not detained and filtered by wetlands. Meanwhile, the letter contains no language seeking assurances that definitions would allow EPA and the Corps to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act.

(Side note: 2025 is a mile marker for reducing the Gulf of Mexico/America Dead Zone. Iowa’s secretary of agrculture is co-chair of the task force. This IowaWatch investigation suggested we are missing the mark.)

If Iowa gets its wishes, many waters in the state will lose federal protection. Perhaps not all require protection, but that determination would fall to the state. Iowa law defines all waters as “public waters and public wealth” of the citizens.

State code requires the Department of Natural Resources to “inventory the wetlands and marshes of each county and make a preliminary designation as to which constitute protected wetlands.” Protection does not require a surface connection to a “water of the U.S.” Under Iowa law, a protected wetland cannot be drained unless replaced.

The National Association of Wetland Managers (NAWM) declined to comment on Iowa’s input on WOTUS because that “could strain our relationship with the State, and thus our ability to collaborate with Iowa’s state wetland program managers.” Not a rousing endorsement.

NAWM’s mission is “to build capacity for state and tribal members, and foster collaboration among the wetland community of practice by encouraging the application of sound science to wetland management and policy, promoting the protection and restoration of wetlands and related aquatic resources, and providing training and education for members and the general public.”

A document on NAWM’s website describes current practice in Iowa. Under the heading “State Wetland Program Plan,” the report says: “Iowa does not have a state wetland program plan at this time.” Under “Innovative and/or Highly Effective Education and Outreach,” the report says: “None by the state.” Under “Climate Change and Wetlands,” the report says: “There is not a formal effort in the wetlands program to address climate change.”

That state law requiring DNR to “inventory the wetlands and marshes of each county” and designate protected wetlands requires the agency to consult with county conservation boards. Maps and lists of the marshes and wetlands are to be filed with the conservation boards and county recorders.

Brian Preston, director of Dubuque County Conservation, told me he has never seen a list and that he did not know the code section existed. According to Adam Schnieders, water quality resources coordinator for DNR, “The Department compiled a list of protected wetlands many years ago under this code provision, but it is not maintained because Federal Clean Water Act regulations exceed the protections outlined in this Code section.”

I am skeptical that federal regulations will continue to exceed Iowa’s protections — or Iowans’ expectations — under a new definition for “waters of the U.S.” I have contacted the DNR wetlands program manager to find out what plans for the future are in the works. I will update this post if new information is received.

Meanwhile, unless Congress or state government acts, the Supreme Court fix is in: Iowa’s wetlands will continue to vanish, along with the clean water and wildlife they harbor.