One of the recurring themes of our meetings with various groups, such as the Iowa Pork Association and the Iowa Corn Growers Association, have been regulation. The general consensus among these various groups have been very staunchly anti-regulation, particularly environmental regulations. That is not to say that these associations did not at least claim to consider environmental protection a priority, they just made it clear that they resented any sort of regulations. This theme continued with our appointment today with the Iowa Environmental Council which presented a different perspective. During the meeting with the IEC I learned the huge impact that non-point pollution run-off, run-off that does not come from one specific source (such as a factory or plant), has the greatest negative impact on water quality. Perhaps the most extreme example of the severity of this problem is the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

To resolve these issues Iowa has passed the “Nutrient Reduction Strategy” which sets a goal for a 45% reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous leaving Iowa. The issue with this legislation is that it is relying on the voluntary participation of farmers. While farmers do not want their water to be polluted any more than anyone else there still exists a strong rural culture that emphasizes individualism and autonomy that leads to the attitude of “It’s my land and I will do what I want with it.” This aspect of the culture is also seen in the disdain of regulations we have seen expressed by various groups. Another big barrier is farmers getting access to the technical and financial resources that some conservation practices require. I had never considered this particular aspect of agricultural conservation practices until today.

Despite these legitimate problems there are still some basic things that farmers can do to minimize their environmental impact. The issue then becomes how to convince them to voluntarily comply with standards such as the Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The game-plan of the IEC seems to be to focus on the impact water quality has on humans, particularly recreation that also has economic implications for the state. This also makes sense because often to convince people who are reluctant to change it is necessary to appeal to self-interests. The IEC suggested this when they pointed out that the Nutrient Reduction Strategy might be more effective if it included consideration of water quality inside Iowa rather than exclusively on the water leaving Iowa. It seems that the best strategy will be one that pushes better conservation practices through working with and listening to, rather than working against and talking at, farmers.