Blog: Are you killing the Gulf of Mexico?

Resize text          Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from water runoff from farm fields and other sources causes human health effects, kills dogs, and has even caused human death in Wisconsin. Nutrient pollution produces toxic substances called cyanobacterial toxins (toxic blue-green algae) which cause respiratory distress and neurological problems in people and pets swimming in contaminated water.

These statements come from an environmentalist petition filed at EPA in 2008.

Environmental groups from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana want to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control the discharges of phosphorus and nitrogen from your farm and other sources. 

We use nutrients to grow corn, soybeans and other crops. The environmentalists claim with some support that the excess levels of nitrogen and phosphorus from our farms "…are responsible for impairing the Gulf of Mexico and a huge list of waters in nearly every state."

The petition claims water runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus "is causing a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that threatens numerous human and ecological communities as well as the basic health of the Gulf,..."  It asserts the Gulf's dead zone is the "largest in North America and the second largest in the world out of 169 hypoxic dead zones in the world."

Nutrient pollution impairs fresh-water systems in the Mississippi River basin and watersheds across the country. The environmentalists' petition says EPA recognizes "…the massive problems caused by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution." It also claims the U.S. Geological Survey has a model that ranks the 31 states contributing nutrients that drain into the Mississippi River Basin.

According to the model, Illinois contributes 16.8 percent of the total nitrogen going into the Gulf of Mexico. For phosphorus, Illinois contributes 12.9 percent, which makes the state the Number 1 contributor to the dead zone. Iowa is ranked second; Indiana is third and Missouri is fourth for phosphorus.

Overall, the petition is an indictment of EPA's lack of regulation of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. I have seen nothing to date that defends agriculture and the steps producers are taking on tillage practices and animal nutrient waste management to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

The Department of Justice's and EPA's briefs I have reviewed agree with all of the charges made by the environmental groups.

High toxicity
The 2008 petition charges that high concentrations of nutrients being discharged cause high toxicity of nitrates in drinking water. An example cited is the cyanobacteria, a specie capable of producing toxins. According to the environmental groups, the toxin can cause respiratory distress and neurological problems in people and pets. The petition claims eight dog deaths have been caused by the toxins. 

The petition even claims the death of a teenage boy may have been caused by toxins from nutrients.

The environmental petition pulls no punches and backs its arguments with data from numerous studies, World Health Organization, and studies from around the world.

Legal arguments from EPA come across as pathetically weak in light of the charges made against nutrient runoff allegedly from agriculture

Tillage agriculture is not without its merits, but these merits are certainly not being told to the courts. The University of Illinois and Cornell University have engaged in a major study of the Mississippi River basin with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Even though the university study looks at fertilizer inputs, it also examines atmospheric deposition of nutrients, the number of people in the basin and livestock to calculate nitrogen inputs and outputs for all 153 watersheds in the Mississippi River basin.

The study does not exonerate agriculture, but it certainly explains the facts, which to date I have not seen in any legal brief filed with any court.

The University of Illinois lead researcher has said, "Farmers are not to blame" for the huge increase in the seasonal hypoxia dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. "They [farmers] are using the same amount of nitrogen as they were 30 years ago and getting much higher corn yields, but we have created a very leaky agricultural system," he adds. "A lot of people just want to blame fertilizer, but it's not that simple."

Agriculture's representatives had better start telling the complete story on nutrients to the courts of this country. Agriculture loses when the environmental groups and EPA control the narrative, and we are losing!

Gary H. Baise is a principal at OFW Law (Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz P.C.). This article first appeared in Farm Futures magazine. The opinions presented here are expressly those of the author. For more information, go to www.OFWlaw.com 

 

 

 

 


Prev 1 2 Next All

View All Blogs »


Comments (4) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

bill    
Ohio  |  October, 18, 2013 at 09:23 AM

What did the researcher mean by a "very leaky system"? Is he referring to the amount of subsurface drainage?

maggie b    
MS  |  October, 18, 2013 at 09:42 AM

Environmental activists, greenies, vegans & animal rights groups are unburdened with the need for truth or scientific facts. They use Saul Alinsky's Rules for radicals to further agendas. Step 1: Tell a really big lie and repeat it over and over till it is believed. Just look at cow farts for instance. According to them they are responsible in part for global warming.

Keith    
Iowa  |  October, 18, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Bill, there's been a massive increase in subsurface drainage over the past 30 years and this is a huge contributor to n pollution, I doubt if that explains the p pollution. I question the researcher who says we're not using more n than 30 years ago because we now grow more corn and more continuous corn. Farmers like myself aren't idiots. We're trying to not waste nutrients and using economic optimum rates but the problem is that the economic optimum is probably far more than the ecological optimum. There's the rub. Economists would suggest a fertilizer tax to bring the economic optimum application closer to the ecological optimum. Or perhaps a tax on subsurface drainage. Are you ready for that?

Bob    
Minnesota  |  October, 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I'm with you. I thought this article was not accurate. To say we(farmers) do not have a role in this is sticking our heads into the sand. The question is what was the dead zone before industrialized agriculture? What is it now? What are all the causes? What are the sources of nutrients and what are the trends in terms of their volume over the last 10-20 years? I have never seen this stated in a credible document. Its like people getting critical of hog production in Mower County, Minnesota 10 years ago affecting water quality. Yet all of the water quality statistics are improving in the County. Do we have the metrics to fully grasp this situation in the Gulf? Until we have the metrics are we just "Peeing in the wind". The burden of proof must be on the activists.


Total Nutrition

In today’s swine industry, the efficient use of supplemented energy is paramount. This is not only important in performance but ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Generate Leads