Pretty Prairie's Drinking Water

 

The May issue of Harper’s Magazine included an article about the problem of excess nitrogen in the drinking water of Pretty Prairie, Kansas, a small town of about 600. (https://harpers.org/archive/2018/05/drinking-problems/) The author wondered why it has taken so long for the town to invest in a treatment plant. I, on the other hand, wondered why the state and EPA were forcing the town into an investment it cannot afford. My letter to the editor follows:

 

To the Editor, Harper’s Magazine

 

In your May issue, Elizabeth Royte did a fine job of describing the dilemma facing small towns, such as Pretty Prairie, Kansas, in complying with the Federal drinking water standard for nitrogen. She questioned why the townspeople had not acted sooner to build a treatment plant. However, there are other ways to frame the issue. One could sympathize with their dilemma.

 

As a 34 year veteran of EPA, four years in the Kansas City regional office as Water Division Director, and two years on loan as Kansas Director, Division of Environment, there is one iron law which must be acknowledged: Federal laws and regulations have a disproportionate impact on small businesses and towns. And, as we know, Kansas has an abundance of small towns.

 

Yes, Pretty Prairie has received a $2.4 million loan from the state for its treatment plant. The loan has to be repaid, and the maintenance and operating costs borne by the town forever. Will Pretty Prairie be able to attract and retain competent staff for the plant? What if the plant falls out of compliance? More costs down the road.

 

So, let’s look at the reality. The nitrogen drinking water standard is based upon protecting new born infants and the very young from a serious, life-threatening disease. The town originally decided that providing bottled water for its children was a cheaper solution, but now has been forced into a treatment plant. How many children would be born each year, and what would be the cost of their bottled water? Much, much less than the costs of the treatment plant.

 

Beyond the threat to children, high levels of nitrogen in drinking water threaten cattle and sheep with nitrate poisoning, but at levels about 10 times the human standard. Also, there are concerns with long-term exposure about stomach cancer in humans, although these still are not internationally recognized and regulated.

 

So, what are the practical options? Bottled water for infants and young children. Bottled water for adults concerned about long-term exposure. A pipeline to the nearest city with a reliable treatment plant. Each would be much cheaper than a local treatment plant.

 

When I was in Kansas, I helped small towns in at least two cases. The first was the Federal requirement for secondary treatment of sewage for every city. Ignore for the moment that the very largest cities lobbied successfully for many years for exemptions from this requirement on the basis of cost. We formed a trickling Filter Task Force, and concluded that a well-maintained trickling filter in rural Kansas would not harm the environment or people, even if it could not meet the secondary treatment standards. We succeeded in changing national policy on trickling filters.

 

In the second case, we noticed that many enforcement actions were being taken for rather marginal violations of water discharge requirements. Again, we studied the issue, and concluded that most such minor violations were well within the sampling error of our tests. So, again, we proposed that we reserve serious enforcement for significant violations. And again, we changed national policy on this issue. In both cases, small towns benefited without compromise of human health or the environment.

 

The Federal standards set a minimum for all. A reasonable requirement. Yet, they do not always make sense for very small communities. Rather than question Pretty Prairie about its reluctance to build a treatment plant, it would make more sense to help the town protect its people in a practical way. Compliance with a standard should not be a blind obligation. We need to help small towns, not punish them.

​

Saturday, 5 May 2018

Edited version published

  in Harper's, July 2018

​

American Agricultural Suicide

 

A recent news article on the pesticide Dicamba reminded me of our unparalleled ability to blind ourselves to reality, and to forget what what we once knew. Agriculture in America continues on its treadmill to oblivion, to its inevitable disasters from pests toughened by herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, antimicrobials, and the rest of the chemical industry’s profitable arsenal.

 

What in the world am I talking about? Isn’t American agriculture the envy of the world? High productivity per acre? High profitibility per acre? Not really. Nature abides, and nature is stressed.

 

Consider this fact, an inconvenient fact. (1) From a global perspective, the percentage of crops lost to pests has not changed much in 50 years: 30% to 40% crop losses in spite of the vastly increased use of pesticides. Hmmmm... What is going on here?

 

Resistance - Our pests have genetic variability in their populations. Killing less than 100% of a pest leaves behind those who have some resistance to the pesticide. Over time, the target population becomes resistant to many pesticides. How long does this take? Sometimes only a few years, as with bactericides. This means that we always need a new chemical or microbe to replace one which has lost its efficacy.

 

Since the 1940’s we have conducted an experiment in producing super-pests, resistant to our chemicals. We have succeeded, even though that is not what we wanted.

 

What else have we done wrong?

 

Monoculture - We plant the same crops in the same places on an industrial scale, giving pests an ideal environment for multiplying.

 

Genetic monotony - We use only a small number of varieties, again making them better targets for pests.

 

Climatic stretch - We plant crops in places not naturally suited, requiring more artificial support. Example: cotton in California, pesticide-heavy.

 

Cosmetics - We require “perfect” fruit in our stores, again requiring more chemicals.

 

Poor pesticide regulation - We accept industry data, fail to monitor the real-world impacts of pesticide use, ignore complaints of pesticide drift to non-target farms, and pretend that resistance is inevitable.

 

So, what do we need to do?

 

Resistance - Make the potential for development of resistance a major factor in managing pesticide use.

 

Crop rotation - Plant multiple rotations of crops, to replenish soil nutrients, reduce erosion, and starve pests between crops.

 

Biodiversity - Bring back cultivation of many species, bringing variety to stores and again making it harder for the pests.

 

Climatic appropriateness - Plant crops where they will thrive, not on marginal land.

 

Cosmetics - Prohibit cosmetic pesticide use altogether. We can get used to spots on apples again.

 

Strong pesticide regulation - Suspicion of adverse impacts, including real-world reports, should allow an administrative order to suspend pesticide use. The burden of proof has to be on pesticide manufacturers, not on the regulators.

 

These recommendations will favor small farms over large corporate farming. Revitalizing farming communities would be a good thing. Will it happen soon? Not at the Federal level, with a regulation-averse White House and an anti-EPA head of EPA. Progress will have to come at the state and local level, from the people who know how to farm properly, wanting to get off the pesticide treadmill. Not just organic farmers, but also wise farmers.

 

Once, in the early years of the environmental movement, we knew these things. We tried to make them happen. It is not all about profit. It is about moving back from agricultural suicide toward agricultural health. Our time will come.

 

(1)  Centenary Review, Crop Losses to Pests, E.-C. Oerke, Institute for Plant Diseases, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet Bonn, Nusssallee 9, D-53315 Bonn, Germany, published in Journal of Agricultural Science (2006), 144, 31-43. [http://www.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.657.5813]

​

Sunday, 3 September 2017

Published on the Huffington Post