The coal plant at Iowa State University, which disposes of its coal ash in an unlined quarry in Waterloo (photo by Jason Hancock/Iowa Independent).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency originally promised to release draft regulations on coal ash disposal by the end of 2009, and in doing so, open the rules up for public comment. That deadline was pushed back indefinitely last month following revelations of differences between the EPA and White House officials. And as The Iowa Independent reported in December, a potential loophole in those guidelines — designating coal ash as a hazardous material if it’s kept wet and non-hazardous if it’s moved to a dry landfill — has many worried that the federal rules won’t adequately deal with the issues in Iowa.

Last month Cedar Rapids-based environmental law center Plains Justice, along with Washington, D.C.,-based Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, called on the EPC to publicly support federal regulations designating all coal ash as a hazardous waste. The EPC, a nine-member board charged with advising the state on environmental policy, has agreed and will demand federal regulators craft new rules that address the public health risks associated with current disposal practices.

“Recent delays in EPA action is of concern to the EPC and we felt that it is important to let EPA know that the commission feels that new rules are necessary and important to assure protection of public health and the environment in Iowa,” said Susan Heathcote, a member of the EPC.

In Iowa, there are four coal ash disposal sites that are considered dry landfills and have received state waivers allowing them to accept ash without protective liners to prevent toxins such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium from leeching into groundwater. The sites are also not required to test groundwater to see if the pollution is already taking place.

An EPA report released last year found the cancer risk to be 1 in 2,000 from exposure to arsenic in drinking water for residents living near unlined landfills containing coal ash and coal refuse, which is 500 times the level usually regarded as safe by current federal regulations.

Gov. Chet Culver and legislative leaders have said that once the EPA releases draft rules the state will determine whether to work on its own regulations. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources began drafting tougher coal ash regulations in 2008 before opposition from site owners and coal-burning businesses, along with uncertainty about what regulations the federal government may eventually impose, caused the effort to stall.

Heathcote said the EPC also considered updating the state’s coal ash disposal rules last year, but that effort was abandoned based on the original promise from the EPA to issue its own rules by year’s end.

“Since Iowa would need to comply with any new federal requirements for coal ash disposal, and since the and the time-frame for federal action was relatively short, the DNR staff recommended, and the EPC agreed, to postpone action on state rules until we saw what EPA would propose in the federal rules,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that in an unusual move, the office of President Barack Obama’s regulatory czar has held nearly 20 meetings with coal industry groups since October. The topic of discussion is whether the EPA should classify coal ash, the toxic byproduct of coal combustion, as a hazardous waste.

Watchdog groups say it is unusual for the OMB to insert itself so prominently, and so early, into the process. In this case, the EPA has yet to publish its proposed new regulations for coal ash, a step that would then open the door to public comment and hearings.

“Industry is trying to influence the process in a back-door fashion,” said Lisa Evans, a senior attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental organization.

The EPA originally promised to release draft regulations of coal ash by the end of 2009, and in doing so, open the rules up for public comment. That deadline was pushed back indefinitely last month. The fear among many hoping for tough new rules is that the EPA will issue regulations that either don’t classify coal ash as hazardous waste or split its designation between wet and dry ash.

In Iowa, there are four coal ash disposal sites that have received state waivers allowing them to accept ash without protective liners to prevent toxins such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium from leeching into groundwater. The sites are also not required to test groundwater to see if the pollution is already taking place.

Gov. Chet Culver and legislative leaders have said that once the EPA releases draft rules the state will determine whether to work on its own regulations. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources worked for more than a year on tougher coal ash regulations before opposition from site owners and coal-burning businesses, along with uncertainty about what regulations the federal government may eventually impose, caused the effort to stall.

Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge, right, visits with Cedar Rapids flood victims on the one year anniversary of the massive 2008 floods (Iowa Independent file photo).

However, while the figure may be massive it remains less than a third of the $3.6 billion in disaster recovery funds that have been promised to Iowa.

While more than 20 individual funding streams exist, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s funds have been the most utilized by Iowans. The agency’s Other Needs Assistance (ONA) funds, jointly administered by FEMA and the Iowa Department of Human Services for victims immediately following a disaster, has spent all but roughly $1 million of the $136.5 million allocated to Iowa.

More than $750 million of the total disaster recovery funds promised to Iowa remains unallocated or earmarked for specific projects or entities.

State officials involved in recovery efforts are to quick to point out that such a massive recovery will take time, and that especially mitigation projects need to be methodical and thoughtful in order to prevent future disasters. They also point to the fact that Iowa remains ahead of other natural disaster sites in the nation in terms of receiving and distributing recovery funds.

Much of the recovery effort in Iowa centers in northeastern Linn and Johnson counties, where Cedar Rapids and Iowa City were both hard-hit by June 2008 floods. Local officials in Cedar Rapids, who were displaced from their facilities by the flood, continue to debate and accept public comment regarding the future of certain structures. Until plans such as those are closer to reality, it is difficult for the Rebuild Iowa Office or other state and federal agencies to allocate funds to the projects.

According to figures from the Rebuild Iowa Office, more than 39,800 Iowans have registered with FEMA, and more than 35,000 Iowans have visited disaster recovery centers throughout the state. In addition to the 85 Iowa counties eligible for federal assistance, 77 counties are also eligible for state and public assistance.

A detailed look at the various funding streams, the amounts that have been promised/allocated to Iowa, what’s been approved for local use and the totals spent as of Dec. 4 are in the chart below:

The Iowa Legislature Web site also makes a document available for download with estimated disaster recovery funding by county.

For three decades, rules governing the disposal coal ash, the toxic byproduct of burning coal, have been left up to states, creating a patchwork of differing regulations with questionable effectiveness. However, after the massive coal ash spill in Kingston, Tenn., last year, which resulted in nearly a billion gallons of coal ash sludge flooding 300 acres of land, the EPA promised it would finally regulate coal ash.

But some fear the new rules may only cover ash stored in wet ponds, leaving sites many consider the most dangerous in the Hawkeye State unregulated.

A report released last month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office laid out several potential options for federal regulations. Included among the possibilities is designating coal ash as a hazardous material if it’s kept wet, and non-hazardous if it’s moved to a dry landfill.

In Iowa, environmentalists are most concerned with disposal of dry coal ash in unlined, unmonitored former quarries and mines that received a waiver from the state allowing them to use the ash as fill. The sites face little state oversight and few regulations.

And because the sites are considered dry landfills, many fear new federal regulations wouldn’t apply.

“Regulating wet coal combustion waste as hazardous waste is an important first step, but it doesn’t go far enough,” said Carrie Le Seur, founder and president of Cedar Rapids environmental law center Plains Justice. “The EPA itself has documented many cases of proven damage around the country where coal ash landfills have contaminated groundwater because water leaches through the fill site.”

Coal ash contains much greater concentrations of elements such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium than coal itself, but it is currently not considered hazardous waste by federal law. An EPA report released earlier this year found the cancer risk to be 1 in 2,000 from exposure to arsenic in drinking water for residents living near unlined landfills containing coal ash and coal refuse, which is 500 times the level usually regarded as safe by current federal regulations.

The fear among environmentalists is that using it as fill in a quarry or mine reclamation project could result in the toxins leaching off the site into groundwater, something which has been documented in other states. Even in Iowa, officials with the state’s Department of Natural Resources have said contamination could already be occurring, but without monitoring it would go undetected.

“This contamination process can take many years, but for nearby residents, the health risk is very real,” Le Seur said. “The difference between coal ash and municipal waste is that every time a coal ash fill leaks, it leaks toxic heavy metals that poison human beings and other living things. We know that.”

Numerous paths to regulation

The GAO document said the wet-dry designation was only one potential method of regulating coal ash. Also under consideration is for federal guidelines to mirror the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s subtitle D, which would regulate coal ash at the federal level as a solid waste. The ash would not be considered hazardous waste and regulation would largely be left up to the state. Iowa’s DNR has come out in support of this method, saying it would force the state’s most potentially hazardous sites to install protective liners, test groundwater for contamination, and provide financial assurances and corrective action provisions, among other provisions.

Opponents of this method say the EPA couldn’t inspect disposal sites or require permits, and public involvement would be limited. They also contend states may not be able to regulate the sites as well as the federal government due to lack of resources.

Another option would be regulating the ash using RCRA subtitle C, which would designate coal ash as hazardous. Under Subtitle C, states are required to adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as whatever federal standards are set up and the EPA will have the power to inspect sites and bring enforcement actions.

Opponents of this method say it would be prohibitively expensive and would eliminate any and all beneficial use of coal ash in most states.

State action

Iowa’s DNR worked for nearly a year on rules to toughen regulations on coal ash disposal. But opposition from site owners and coal-burning businesses, along with uncertainty about what regulations the federal government may eventually impose, caused the effort to stall.

Several elected officials have said that once the EPA releases its draft rules, the state may need to rework its rules to make sure the public health is protected.

In July, Charlotte Hubbell, chair of the state’s Environmental Protection Commission, called on the state legislature to hold public hearings on tougher rules regarding coal ash.

The chair of the state Senate Environment and Energy Independence Committee, Sen. Dennis Black of Grinnell, said at the time that he would request that Legislative Council, a bipartisan group of Senate and House leaders that serves as a steering committee for the General Assembly when it is not in session, to appoint a committee to look into the matter after the 2010 session. He said doing so before the EPA released its rules would be improper.

In September, Gov. Chet Culver joined the call, saying he was confident the EPA would take the appropriate steps, but if state action was needed there should be no hesitation. He said he was open to the legislature looking at the issue in 2010.

Now, throw former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee into the mix.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Des Moines last year promoting another book (Jason Hancock/Iowa Independent).

The winner of the 2008 Iowa Caucuses make three stops in Iowa Sunday, Nov. 8, to promote his latest book, “A Simple Christmas: Twelve Stories That Celebrate the True Holiday Spirit.” Huckabee will be in Davenport at 2:30 p.m.,  Cedar Rapids at 5 p.m., and Des Moines at 8 p.m., a day after Pawlenty gives the keynote speech at a Republican Party of Iowa event in Des Moines.

It will be Huckabee’s second appearance in Iowa this year. In May, he spoke at the Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s annual convention before holding a fundraiser for GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats.

After Pawlenty and Huckabee leave town, Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul will return to Iowa for the first time since the 2008 Caucuses, where the Texas lawmaker finished fifth. Paul is scheduled to speak at Iowa State University in Ames on Nov. 13 at 7 p.m. The next morning he will headline a fundraiser for state Rep. Kent Sorenson’s Iowa Senate campaign at the Des Moines Airport Holiday Inn.

At the beginning of the call, Huckabee provides an introductory statement. The person answering the call is then asked if he/she is a registed voter. In the second question, call receivers are asked if they are aware that Pres. Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court.

From this point the call moves to a more social conservative bent as listeners are asked whether or not they are “pro-life.” Those reporting this information to The Iowa Independent all provided a negative response to this question, so there is no way of knowing if further anti-abortion questions or commentary (or a donation pitch) would result from an affirmative response.

The final three questions are primarily demographic in nature. Listeners are asked if they are over the age of 50, if they are male and if they have ever contributed to a religious organization, a non-profit or a political campaign. In each known case, however, the calls ended without asking for money.

Exact caller ID information varies with some showing “Washington, DC” while other show “Fedrsrch09″ or “unknown.” The number listed remains consistent as 202-461-3454. Although no further details are yet available about who owns this auto-dial service, it does appear to be a different company than the one Huckabee used to phone Iowans in November 2008.

The plan, according to The Des Moines Register, amounts to $1.9 million a year of taxpayer money and up to $20,000 in tuition breaks for each student. As long as the student is from Davenport they can attend any school in the nation.

Supporters hope offering free college tuition will draw people to the town of 99,000. Davenport has gained population in recent years but its work force shrank by nearly 10,000 between 2000 and 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. plan is modeled after a similar program in Kalamazoo, Mich. But, a donor put up the tuition money for the kids in Kalamazoo.

Critics say it is unlikely families will uproot to move to Davenport simply to participate in this plan and that the money could be more wisely spent on other needs, like streets and sewers.

The Quad City Times is reporting that turnout is on par with a typical city primary. Polls close at 8 p.m. and officials are expecting about 10,000 residents to cast a vote.

In the month of December 2008 alone, Iowa had 887 properties with foreclosure filings, up 70 percent from the previous month and a 58 percent increase from December 2007.

“Foreclosure activity increase only moderately in Iowa during 2008,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive of RealtyTrac, publisher of the largest national database of foreclosure and bank-owned properties. “Although up 1 percent from January, the state’s unemployment rate finished 2008 well below the national average. Additionally, home sales declined only moderately compared to 2007. Taken altogether, these factors support the notion that foreclosure activity grew only slightly statewide last year.

Nationally, Iowa ranked 37th in total foreclosures for the year. With one in every 245 housing units receiving a foreclosure filing, Iowa’s foreclosure rate ranked 40th among the 50 states.

Five Iowa counties were responsible for 67 percent of all foreclosure activity in the state during 2008: Polk County (Des Moines) led the way, reporting 1,735 properties. Linn County (Cedar Rapids) was second with 627 properties. Scott County (Davenport) was third with 519 properties. Pottawattamie County (Council Bluffs) and Woodbury County (Sioux City) finished off the top five with 425 and 297 properties respectfully.

Looking at foreclosure rates, Pottawatamie County’s was the highest in Iowa, with just over 1 percent of its housing units receiving at least one foreclosure filing during 2008. Polk County was second with .96 percent, and Jasper County was third with .79 percent.

Overall, Iowa accounted for less than 1 percent of the 2,330,483 properties nationwide that had foreclosure filings. The national total represented an increase of more than 81 percent from the total reported for 2007.

Iowa Foreclosure Market Data by County – Year end 2008

Thousands of U.S. farmers have a decision to make this month, as they must choose to either keep their acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or put those acres into crop production.

Conservation Reserve Program (Photo: usgs.gov)

Nationwide, there are 1.1 million acres in CRP contracts that will expire this month. Landowners holding those contracts will be weighing their options, making a judgment on whether to renew or to pull their acres out of the CRP program.

The number of CRP acres up for renewal jumps to 3.8 million acres in 2009, and then 4.4 million acres in 2010, according to a statement from U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer in July.

Typically, the type of land that is enrolled in the CRP program is environmentally sensitive and erodible. The program was designed to keep those lands out of production to conserve soil and protect water resources, as well as to improve wildlife habitat. With millions of acres of farmland in CRP, the program also tends to protect against the overproduction of crops and can help maintain steady grain prices.

CRP has long had its detractors. Those critical of the program have called it a wasteful handout to landowners, paying farmers not to farm. Since its creation in the early 1980s, however, the program has been renewed every five years as a part of the federal farm bill. In 2005, the USDA spent approximately $1.7 billion in CRP payments to landowners.

Now that global demand is strong and commodity prices are high, many farmers may choose against renewing their CRP contracts to plant more corn and other grains. The CRP rental rates simply are notas lucrative as planting a field of corn.

In an interview last week with the Iowa Independent, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey said farmers are going to have some difficult decisions to make regarding CRP. Northey said some farmland may now be worth significantly more in cash rent than in CRP. For those farmers, he said, “it’s got to be really hard to keep it in CRP. You’ve got to really believe in [CRP] to keep it in, when you could be getting almost twice as much by farming it.”

With CRP rental rates not keeping up with the value of farmland, landowners will consider the bottom line.

“I run into some farmers out there that ask about it. I can see that they’re thinking about it,” said Northey. “They’re trying to figure out what to do.”

Opponents of alternative fuels such as ethanol have pointed to federal renewable fuels incentives as the reason farmers may choose to opt out of CRP. The demand for corn has increased because of ethanol, but landowners will consider other factors as well.

The penalties for taking land out of a CRP contract before the agreed-upon time can be steep. A farmer typically must return all payments received during the entire period of the CRP contract in order to be released early from the contract.

A simple lack of flexibility in the program may be what turns some farmers off. The USDA attempted this year to release CRP land for haying and grazing under its critical feed use program, but that action was mostly thwarted by a lawsuit filed by the National Wildlife Federation. Because of that lawsuit, it is now more difficult for the USDA to use its discretion and release CRP for feed uses when farmers really need it.

Conservation Reserve Program (Photo: usgs.gov)

According to a press release from Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the USDA will release CRP acres for haying in counties that have received a presidential disaster declaration and contiguous counties because of the recent flooding. This release includes almost all of the state of Iowa.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer issued a release for livestock grazing on CRP acres for these same counties on July 7.

Harvesting of hay on CRP lands under the emergency release comes with several stipulations. CRP participants will receive a 25 percent payment reduction and harvesting will be limited to one cutting of hay. Additionally, one half of the field or contiguous fields in CRP must be left unharvested for the protection of wildlife, and all haying must cease on Sept. 30. Participants must write their county Farm Service Agency office and receive a modified conservation plan and approval before beginning to harvest hay.

Harkin had submitted numerous requests for the emergency CRP release for haying, and just this week he was joined by all of the members of Iowa’s congressional delegation in calling for the release.

“The disaster caused by this summer’s flooding has forced us to look at new ways to allow Iowa producers to provide for livestock,” said Harkin in the press release. “It was critical for USDA to release CRP lands for grazing. Yet it is important for producers in Iowa — many of whom no longer have fencing or livestock watering facilities on their CRP land — to be able to use CRP hay to feed their livestock or to market it. Emergency haying and grazing is permitted on lands affected by drought, and with the nesting season over, it only made sense to open this land for haying.”

The primary nesting season for wild birds in Iowa was determined by the USDA to be completed by Aug. 2 this year.

The emergency release of CRP acres for haying and grazing will only affect designated counties in 16 states. And while it will be welcome news to many livestock producers who have been struggling this year with the high cost of feed, a broader nationwide release of CRP land was what many really had hoped for.

That nationwide CRP release, under the Critical Feed Use program, was mostly derailed when a Seattle court found in favor of the National Wildlife Federation in a lawsuit two weeks ago.

Iowa’s other senator, Republican Chuck Grassley, said Tuesday in a conference call with agriculture reporters that he wants to change the law to override the court ruling on the CRP Critical Feed Use program.

Grassley announced that he is co-sponsoring a bill with Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., that will “implement the Critical Feed Use program and do it as originally intended by the USDA.”

Grassley said that the court stepped in and ruled in such a way to “dilute the value of the critical feed program,” adding that the lawsuit came at a very bad time for farmers. “The court issued an arbitrary ruling, which, well, just simply and essentially cut off many farmers who wanted to participate,” said Grassley.

Grassley said that the court, in fact, may be accurately interpreting the law, but if that is the case, “then we need to rewrite the law.” He said that the arbitrary ruling of the court resulted in farmers being treated inequitably, because some farmers who had applied before the deadline would be allowed to participate, while others who had missed the deadline would not be allowed to participate.