Though each Iowan seems to have his or her own ideas for how money should be cut from the budget, few blame the Democrats for overspending on their key priorities over the past few years.

In all, majorities support Democrats’ expansion of health insurance coverage for children, spending on public schools, repairing roads and bridges, raising teacher pay, and developing renewable energy. A plurality supports expanded free preschool.

On most budget items, pluralities of Iowans agree with the idea of cutting everything by an equal amount, except when it comes to health insurance for low-income residents and the Iowa State Patrol, which majorities say should be spared from cuts. This seems to conform to Gov. Chet Culver’s decision to make an across-the-board budget cut now and use the beginning of the legislative session next year to restore some funding for key priorities.

That said, Iowans have mixed feelings about the decisions that have been made to cut the state budget. Though only 19 percent of respondents said they were “Very Confident” or “Mostly Confident” about the budget-cutting decisions, 44 percent were “Just Somewhat Confident.” 35 percent were not confident.

(Incidentally, it seems strange that this question had three positive responses and just one negative response. These responses may fit people’s opinions best, but they also can also be confusing to interpret. The Register story itself seems to add up “Somewhat Confident” and “Not Confident” to demonstrate a disapproving majority, but “Somewhat Confident” doesn’t sound very disapproving to me. It was the closest thing to a middle ground that pollsters offered, and it implies slight approval, not disapproval.)

You can read the Register’s write-up of the poll here.

In a letter to Senate Democratic leaders, the lawmakers argue that the current formula, which allots permits based half on emissions and half on sales, is unfair to the higher-emitting utilities (i.e., those that burn coal).

Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions.

Well, yeah. And under the current proposed 50/50 formula, the coal burners would also have to purchase more allowances than if Congress did nothing at all. But the whole point of the bill is to discourage the use of high-emission energies like coal by making them less affordable than cleaner alternatives. Sheppard explains further why the lawmakers’ argument makes little sense in the context of the global warming debate:

Of course, this would work against the entire logic of the proposed scheme, which is to offer utilities financial incentives to switch to lower-carbon fuel sources. [...]

Right now, the climate bill needs all the votes it can get from Democrats. So enviros worry that concessions to this bloc could ultimately result in a deal in which coal plants suffer no real penalties for the carbon they pump into the atmosphere. “Dirty coal polluters know their days are numbered and are lobbying for the largest piece of the pie they can get,” said Jason Kowalski, policy coordinator at 1Sky. “It goes against the spirit of this legislation to reward the polluters that caused this problem in the first place.”

Signing on to the letter were Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Roland Burris (Ill.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.).

Mike Lillis covers congress for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.

The study, Iowa Statewide Rural Water Well Survey Phase 2, was led by the University of Iowa Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination. It followed up on the results of a similar study conducted in 1988 and 1989 and concluded that many of the problems of 20 years ago remain today.

Scientists who tested samples from Iowa rural drinking water wells discovered that 48 percent had arsenic, with 8 percent containing it at a level above the Safe Drinking Water Act standard for public water supplies. Wells with high arsenic contamination (greater than or equal to 0.01 mg/L) are marked in red on the above map. The blue marks are wells that had low levels. Click the graphic to read the full study.

Investigators sampled 473 wells in 89 Iowa counties for bacteria, nutrients, metals, common use herbicides and insecticides, and herbicide degradates from May 2006 to December 2008.

Peter Weyer, the study’s lead investigator and associated director for the Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination, said that while nitrate and bacteria detections were expected despite efforts to address such contamination, the presence of arsenic was potentially worrisome.

“Nearly half the wells sampled had some level of arsenic, and 8 percent of those had a level that could be considered a health concern,” he noted.

One of the positive findings of the study was that the levels of the commonly used herbicide atrazine appear to be decreasing.

Of the wells tested, 43 percent had total coliform bacteria, 19 percent had enterococci and 11 percent had E. coli. In addition, 49 percent had nitrate, with 12 percent of those having levels above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for public water supplies.

Pesticides parent compounds were found in a small percentage of wells. A total of 8 percent had very low concentrations of atrazine, 2 percent had metolachlor and less than 1 percent of the wells had acetochlor, alachlor and trifluralin.

Herbicide degradates, or the breakdown products of the parent compound that are generally believed to be less toxic, were also found in a percentage of Iowa wells. The degradate most commonly found was metolachlor ethane sulfonic acid (ESA), which was present in 33 percent of the wells. Alachlor ESA was detected in 27 percent of the wells, while desethyl-atrazine and acetochlor ESA was present in 11 percent of the wells tested. In addition, 8 percent of the test wells had metolachlor OXA (oxanilic acid).

“If you do have a problem with your well — certainly bacteria is a problem — and if you had bacteria contamination of your well, you definitely want to boil your water,” said Weyer. “With nitrate, the research on it is kinda mixed on whether it is a problem. We have looked at things like cancer and blue baby syndrome. Some people think that the nitrate standard should be a lot higher, maybe 20 or 25. And there are others who have done research, including myself, who have found problem with nitrate at less than 10, think we ought to leave the standard alone.”

But, by and large, is the drinking water from these wells safe?

“You know, it is hard to say. I think, in general, the well-water quality in the state of Iowa really hasn’t improved that much,” Weyer said. “Compared to the study that was done in 1988 and 1989 the water quality just hasn’t improved very much with respect to nitrate and bacteria. We hadn’t looked for arsenic before, but now we are seeing that. It is really up to the individual well owner as to how they want to deal with this.”

While there was no one major indicator to determine which wells might contain contaminants, there were variables, such as well depth, that were considered by the researchers to be associated with detection. Wells under 100 feet deep had higher concentrations of nitrate and more total coliform bacteria and herbicide degradate detections than deeper wells. Wells that were constructed prior to 1991 had also had more detections. Other factors, including the construction characteristics of the wells and the presence of a liner, also were factors that could impact a well’s vulnerability to contamination.

Wells located in the northwest, southwest and south-central portions of the state were more likely to have detections of total coliform bacteria, E. coli and enterococci. In addition, wells located in the northwest and southwest regions were also more likely to have higher nitrate concentrations.

Perhaps alarmingly, the study is the state’s first systematic sampling of private wells since 1994. Although water quality in public water supplies is monitored and regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, private drinking water wells are not monitored under any regulatory framework. In addition, despite an estimated 450,000 Iowans using private wells for drinking water, statewide monitoring has been sporadic during the past two decades, often only following catastrophic events like the 1993 floods.

Because there is so little government monitoring and over-sight of contaminants, one of the best factors to determine the health of well water was monitoring, assessment and treatment by well owners themselves. And while some may point to Iowa’s agricultural industry as a potential culprit in the issue of groundwater contamination, Weyers warns that there are many other potential culprits.

“Agriculture is one of the sources — certainly if you are looking at herbicides and pesticides, and we found some herbicide breakdown products in the well water in this study. That is certainly an agricultural source,” he said. “For things like nitrate and bacteria, not only is nitrogen fertilizer use a problem, but it is also potentially septic systems or municipal wastewater systems. So it is sort of an urban-rural mix as to the source of these contaminants.”

Researchers recommend full use of Grants-to-Counties funds for annual testing of private wells for possible contaminants as well as a consumer education initiative to provide information on the sources of bacteria, factors impacting bacterial contamination of wells, possible health impacts of consumption of such water, and available well treatment options.

Because the tested samples revealed the presence of chloride, which typically is only detected in groundwater near deep saline brine, it was also recommended that the state investigate for possible surface activities (such as de-icing compounds and fertilizer salts) that could be impacting groundwater throughout Iowa.

In the meantime, what should private well owners do?

“We suggest that if you have bacteria or high arsenic [levels] that you don’t drink that water, that you do something to treat the water to effectively remove those contaminants,” Weyer said. “It is something the well owner needs to discuss with their doctor or someone like that to determine if that water is OK for them.”

The Waterloo South Quarry, used by the University of Iowa, the University of Northern Iowa and Iowa State University as a coal ash dump. (Photo courtesy of Plains Justice)

Because Iowa allows certain sites to act as coal ash disposal sites without installing protective liners and without groundwater monitoring wells, the worry is that heavy metals in the ash will leach out and poison groundwater streams and aquifers. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report released earlier this year found cancer risks to be much higher for those living near unlined coal ash disposal sites than typically accepted.

But as the federal government weighs stricter rules governing the disposal of coal ash, and as awareness of the potential dangers in Iowa continues to increase, it is important to note that while health risks are a major concern, there are many others that must be considered.

Four sites in Iowa received a waiver from the state Department of Natural Resources to accept coal ash without following strict landfill standards. It was recently announced that one of the sites, a quarry in Waterloo, would begin a strict groundwater monitoring program at the behest of the state’s three largest public universities, which are among the larges ash producers in Iowa.

But the other three sites continue to operate outside of state regulation – no mandatory monitoring, no protective liner and no financial assurance to ensure cleanup if there is a problem.

Lucie Laurian is an associate professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Iowa who has spent years studying the effects of toxic sites on local populations. She says if groundwater is contaminated, the cost of cleanup will skyrocket into the tens of millions of dollars and could take 10 to 20 years to complete.

Initially, this cost would be the responsibility of the owners of the sites, which in Iowa includes four private businesses.

“In a lot of places, when companies start to see millions of dollars of cleanup costs on the horizon, the company will go bankrupt,” she said.

If that happens, the cost of cleanup falls on either the state or federal government, depending on whether the site is declared Superfund, the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 which federal law designed to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites.

“If they become Superfund, the EPA is responsible for clean up,” Laurian said. “There is money already set aside for expenses. But they will go after the responsible parties. So EPA would make some arrangement with the current owners to make them pay.”

For a site to be declared Superfund it has to high enough to qualify. If it does not, the burden will be shifted to the state.

“If the company closes, the state will get stuck with the tab,” Laurian said.

Long-term risks

A study released earlier this year by the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), a non-partisan think tank based in New York City, found the benefits of upgrading disposal sites would exceed the costs of tougher regulations by almost 10 to 1. The research focused mostly on coal ash ponds like the one that failed in Kingston, Tenn., in December. The costs for quarries to upgrade would be much lower than the costs for ponds, according Scott Holladay, an economist who researched the issue for IPI.

“It’s not just the cost of cleanup if there is contamination,” Holladay said at the time. “It is also the cost of health risks, like cancer. The cost of treating bladder cancer, for example, is something we are going to have to pay if we don’t line these facilities and groundwater is poisoned.”

Coal ash contains much greater concentrations of elements such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium than the coal itself. Exposure to these toxins could not only lead to cancer, but also birth defects and reproductive problems.

For those who have had their health costs covered by the company responsible for the site it has usually come after many years of litigation, Laurian said.

Many residents who live near toxic sites feel a sense of betrayal, a feeling that their government has forsaken them and the company responsible has lied to them, she said. That was the feeling of residents of Colstrip, Montana, who told a reporter from the Center for Public Integrity in February that they remember the day when the local power company promised them they would never have problems with coal ash disposal.

It was later discovered the residents drank ash-laced water for years, and there questions are still unanswered as to the potential health consequences associated with drinking that water.

In addition to the health risks, though, Laurian points to a stigma that effects these communities for many, many years.

“For homes near the site, property values plummet,” she said. “It’s very hard to sell properties if there is any sign of extensive pollution. But that all depends on how close to the sites people live. Banks might be resistant to loan people funds to buy property that is near the site.”

Problem for decades

Groundwater monitoring and liners are not the only regulations these types of sites avoid. The Department of Natural Resources does not require soil or hydrogeologic investigation, so even basic information about the site, such as direction of groundwater flow, is not known. DNR officials even admit contamination could already be taking place.

Without more specific site information, Laurian said it is hard to say just how dangerous these sites are. Peter Taglia, a hydrogeologist with environmental watchdog Clean Wisconsin who worked for five years as a consultant for utilities, looked at what little information is available about the site in Waterloo and concluded the risk of contamination is low, but not zero.

“The problem is it may take time for heavy metals to leach off the site,” Laurian said. “That depends on the geology of the site. But they may test the water tomorrow and find nothing, but then it sits there for 15 years. Then there is contamination. The particles take a while to go into the soil. It could be years and years before the groundwater is contaminated.”

The EPA is scheduled to reveal its draft rules by the end of the year, and state officials, among them Gov. Chet Culver, have said Iowa will examine the new regulations and see if state action is needed. The DNR has already said it would like to mandate liners, site restrictions and groundwater monitoring, among other things.

“I think the best argument is that if nearby states mandate these sites be monitored and lined and it is financially feasible for these companies to do it and still make money, why can’t it be done in Iowa?” Laurian said.

The council was authorized in 2007, and the four non-voting members from the legislature serve two-year terms, appointed by the head of each party’s caucus in each chamber. They, along with 23 voting members appointed by Gov. Chet Culver, are responsible for issuing recommendations to help Iowa combat the challenges of climate change.

Watts’s position on the council is noteworthy because he has been an outspoken critic of measures to combat climate change for years. During the 2008 legislative session, for instance, he helped to distribute a book to every member of the legislature that claimed that global warming was natural and irreversible, denying evidence that humans have an impact on climate change. Last February, Watts signed on to a letter written by the American Environmental Coalition, a conservative group founded by evangelicals that calls global warming a “hoax.”

File photo: Sen Charles Grassley. (Lauren Victoria Burke/wdcpix.com)

Grassley, and many farm-state lawmakers, fear legislation passed in the House earlier this year that calls for limits on carbon dioxide emissions through the buying and selling of carbon credits would force the Midwest to shoulder an unfair burden of the costs. He repeatedly said that in order to deal with climate change a global treaty is needed.

“A global approach makes more sense than unilateral action on climate legislation, but if unilateral climate legislation is taken up in Congress it should at least share the economic burden equitably across all states and regions of the country,” Grassley said. “It’s clear that this highly questionable policy must be changed for the sake of fairness and credibility with the legislation.”

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, commonly referred to as the Waxman-Markey bill, passed the U.S. House in June. It aims to reduce emissions by imposing a national limit, or cap, on greenhouse gases. It would then allow polluters to buy and sell their emissions credits. If a polluter emitted less than its allotment, it could sell the excess. Some fear the system benefits utilities operating on the east and west coasts that are less dependent on coal than their Midwest counterparts.

In a letter to the chairs of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which plans to take up the legislation Tuesday, Grassley said U.S. action without an international agreement would have “little or no environmental benefit.”

He also criticized the cost of the legislation, calling it a “national energy tax.”

“The current provision that allocates a large portion of allowances to utilities regardless of a utility’s actual compliance obligation is in effect a transfer of wealth to the East and West coasts at the expense of other regions, like the Midwest, which will already be shouldering a larger share of the burden under the proposed system,” he said in his letter. “Surely you can recognize that this provision will be unacceptable to senators on both sides of the aisle that represent regions on the losing end of this highly questionable policy and it must be changed for the sake of fairness and credibility.”

A study of the plan by the Congressional Budget Office found that the cost of implementing a cap and trade system would vary depending on income. Low-income consumers could expect to save $40 a year, while high-income consumers will see a net cost for energy of $235 to $340 annually.

Here is a copy of Grassley’s letter:

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, Chairman The Honorable John Kerry, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee on Foreign Relations 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 446 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senators Boxer and Kerry:

As you know, the global warming legislation moving forward in the Senate will have far reaching economic impacts for all Americans. I question the wisdom of any unilateral U.S. legislation outside of a fair and equitable international agreement given the acknowledgement by EPA Administrator Jackson and other experts that this would have little or no environmental benefit. However, if the Senate is to consider unilateral climate legislation, it should at least share the economic burden equitably across all states and regions of our country.

According to testimony from the Congressional Budget Office before the Senate Finance Committee, “a cap-and-trade program would lead to higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods” and “Under a cap-and-trade program, consumers would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions.” In order to try to alleviate the burden of increased energy costs on American families in the first years of such a program, current proposals involve a system of free allocation of emission allowances for the electricity sector.

These free allowances are intended to offset a portion of the increased energy costs caused by the requirement to purchase allowances. (CBO has also made clear in response to my written questions that, “The value of the allowances created under a cap and trade program would be large, but would inevitably fall short of the total economic effects of the policy—which would include the cost of allowances themselves as well as the losses associated with the reduction in output associated with transitioning to a less carbon-intensive economy.”) However, the current formula in the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the recently released Boxer-Kerry bill allocates only half of the free allowances based on a particular utility’s requirement to purchase emissions allowances and the other half based on retail sales of electricity. In other words, free allowances will be given for electricity generated by means that entail no requirement for emissions allowances and therefore no increased costs.

It is important for Members of Congress to recognize that since a cap-and-trade system inevitably involves increased costs for American consumers, it is in effect a national energy tax and emissions allowances represent a portion, but not all of the cost of this tax to the American people. Therefore, most, if not all, of the revenue generated by this tax in the form of emissions allowances should be given back to the American people in proportion to what they were forced to pay in the first place.

The current provision that allocates a large portion of allowances to utilities regardless of a utility’s actual compliance obligation is in effect a transfer of wealth to the East and West coasts at the expense of other regions, like the Midwest, which will already be shouldering a larger share of the burden under the proposed system. Surely you can recognize that this provision will be unacceptable to senators on both sides of the aisle that represent regions on the losing end of this highly questionable policy and it must be changed for the sake of fairness and credibility.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley United States Senator

The Marshalltown Times-Republican’s Ken Black reports that Tom Aller,  president of Interstate Power & Light, a subsidiary of Alliant Energy, told the Iowa Utilities Board that a new plan may come in 2010.

From Black’s report:

“What we learned through this process is what we have here,” Aller said at that time. “It’s annexed. We’ve got roads. We know what the water quality is. We know what the transmission capacity is. These are all things we know about Marshalltown.”

What may not be as clear is the available fuel source. Coal was the first choice and was scrapped.

Natural gas appears to be the next choice.

Whether the city has the infrastructure in place to support a a natural gas-fired plant is still unknown, but the city’s chamber of commerce president said the city remains in contact with Alliant Energy in regards to their future plans.

“It just seems to me that the push for cap-and-trade has slowed down very dramatically since the [U.S.] House passed it on the Friday before the July 4th break,” Iowa Republican Grassley said, after noting that he didn’t believe cap-and-trade legislation would make it to the U.S. Senate floor this year. “It has really surfaced as being something that people understand and they don’t like, and that point of view is getting through to Congress.”

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

Members of the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, commonly referred to as cap-and-trade legislation or the Waxman-Markey bill, in June. The legislation proposes limits on carbon dioxide emissions through the buying and selling of carbon credits. Emitters of carbon dioxide above the proposed limits would buy carbon credits from companies that are under the proposed limit, and the credits would be publicly traded by commodity brokers.

Mark-up of the Senate version of the legislation is taking place in the Committee on Environment and Public Works, headed by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Grassley, who indicated Boxer’s committee would begin mark-up in early October, would like to see more input from the committees on energy and agriculture since both will be heavily impacted by the legislation.

“I think it’s very, very important that the Agriculture Committee participate in mark-up because if there’s any segment of the American economy outside of utilities that could be hurt by a cap-and-trade bill, it would be American agriculture,” Grassley said. “And I think, from what I’ve heard so far, that agriculture is not getting adequate pressure or adequate consideration for things that they’ve already done to capture carbon through just one example, no-till farming… and then the use of agriculture energy being a big factor in agriculture production.”

Although members of the Agriculture Committee, now under the leadership of U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), has indicated that they will offer suggestions, Grassley would like to see them be more forceful through their own mark-up process.

“We need to make sure that agriculture has one voice on this cap-and-trade legislation,” he said.

Although admitting that he has concerns that the Agriculture Committee, under Lincoln and U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), might revert to the policy dominance of the rice and cotton industries that was seen during the ’60s and ’70s, Grassley said he does not have concerns about Lincoln leading in terms of potential cap-and-trade legislation.

“I’m not saying that [Lincoln] would do more than what [U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin] would do, but I think [through] her practical approach and her new leadership that she would want to be making sure she’s got her handprint on this piece of legislation,” Grassley said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said federal regulations on the disposal of coal ash can be expected by the end of 2009.

But environmentalists believe if federal officials follow Iowa’s suggestions, the public will still be at risk for contaminated groundwater supplies.

Environmentalists have been pushing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash, the solid waste produced by coal-fired power plants, for more than 30 years. The ash contains high levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and boron, each of which has been known to cause cancer, neurological and development problems, and other illnesses. An EPA report released early 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.

Yet for three decades, rules governing coal ash have been left up to the states, creating a patchwork of differing regulations with questionable effectiveness.

EPA Director Lisa Jackson told Congress earlier this year that her agency would draft new regulations for coal ash, releasing the draft rules by January, and state regulators have said they will hold off on all new rules until those regulations are made public.

In a letter to Matt Hale, director of the EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Iowa’s DNR requested that any federal guidelines mirror the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s subtitle D, which would regulate coal ash at the federal level as a solid waste.

However, Hale told the Environmental Council of the States’ annual meeting in Whitefish, Mont., last week that while he believes subtitle D solid waste rules would protect public health and the environment, the EPA does not have the authority to enforce those requirements, according to InsideEPA.com.

Environmentalists say that Hale’s comments support their claims that subtitle D rules would be insufficient to protect the public because it would leave inspection and permitting to states.

“Essentially, if there were a subtitle D program it would not be that different from business as usual,” said Mary Anne Hitt, deputy director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “The EPA could not require state’s to issue any further regulations than what they already have on the books. They would not be allowed to inspect the sites and would not be allowed to enforce the regulations.”

Under subtitle D, landfills that handle municipal solid waste are subject to regulations such as liners to prevent toxins from leaching off site, location restrictions, financial assurances and corrective action provisions.

Chad Stobbe, an environmental specialist with the Iowa DNR and the agency’s lead staffer on coal ash issues, said implementing RCRA subtitle D standards for coal ash disposal would significantly alter current disposal methods in Iowa.

“An important factor to consider is that implementing subtitle D standards for coal ash disposal would require both coal ash landfills and coal ash quarry reclamation sites to meet the same standards,” Stobbe said. “This would result in significant improvements in how coal ash is currently managed in Iowa.”

Currently, coal ash quarry reclamation projects, known officially as beneficial use sites, are not required to follow landfill standards. This is because the sites — three quarries and a mine — received a waiver from the state excluding them from strict regulations, including protective liners and groundwater monitoring.

Tests at sites that do have protective liners that were analyzed by Cedar Rapids-based environmental law center Plains Justice show toxins leaching out of the landfills, leading many to conclude the same is thing is taking place undetected at the unlined sites. Even the DNR’s Stobbe told The Iowa Independent in March that contamination could be taking place at the sites, but without monitoring there is no way of knowing.

Stobbe said that under subtitle D the sites that received a waiver would be forced to install bottom liners and leachate collection systems, which would sit on top of the liner and remove toxins for treatment and disposal. They would also be forced to conduct regular groundwater monitoring.

Environmentalists want the EPA to regulate coal ash using RCRA subtitle C, which would declare coal ash a hazardous waste.

“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,” Hitt said.

According to the DNR’s letter to the EPA, enacting subtitle C requirements would make coal ash disposal prohibitively expensive in Iowa. But Hitt said those requirements give the EPA enough room to ensure the public health is protected without causing unnecessary expense.

“Subtitle C is not a regimented program that is just a cookie cutter that states will have to apply,” she said. “The EPA has a lot of flexibility under subtitle C. It’s not like they are going to treat this like nuclear waste. They will basically be able to mandate what types of landfills have to be used, what sort of protections have to be installed and they have the ability to enforce those rules.”

Nicole Molt, director of government relations for the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, said the regulations currently governing coal ash in Iowa protect the environment and public health. To prove this she points to a survey released earlier this month by the EPA showing sites in Iowa are not considered to pose any risk.

However, environmentalists point out that the survey focuses on wet coal-ash dumping ponds similar to the type that failed in Tennessee, spilling nearly a billion gallons of coal ash sludge. Those sites are not considered as dangerous in Iowa. It does not include Iowa’s beneficial use sites.

Despite the encouraging words from the EPA, Hitt said the fight to finally pass federal regulations on coal ash disposal is not over.

“The coal industry is going to fight this as hard as they can, and they have a lot of money and connections in Washington,” she said. “So we shouldn’t take anything for granted. At the same time, the EPA has been very clear that these federal regulations are long overdue and they intend to issue these new rules. I’m confident they are going to be true to their word.”

The deliveries coincide with the scheduled U.S. Senate debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, commonly referred to as cap-and-trade legislation or the Waxman-Markey bill. The measure was passed in June by the U.S. House, and proposes limits on carbon dioxide emissions through the buying and selling of carbon credits. Emitters of carbon dioxide above the proposed limits would buy carbon credits from companies that are under the proposed limit, and the credits would be publicly traded by commodity brokers.

The legislation is of specific interest to electric cooperatives that provide service in each of the state’s 99 counties. They argue that the costs associated with the carbon credits would be passed onto their member-consumers. The Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives, headquartered in Urbandale and established in 1942, is leading the postcard initiative.

“Electric cooperatives are working hard to help Congress develop simple, affordable, flexible and effective climate change legislation,” said Glenn English, chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

“Family budgets are already strained by rising energy costs, and climate change legislation that does not take consumer costs into account will place significant burdens on households from coast to coast.”

A poll, commissioned in April by the national organization, found that 77 percent of those who responded were concerned that a market-based cap-and-trade system would allow financiers and multinational energy companies to control the price consumers pay for electricity. Fifty-eight percent agreed that climate change legislation must keep electric bills affordable by focusing only on meeting climate change requirements and not generating federal revenue for other purposes.

“As champions for our members’ best interests, electric co-ops are dedicated to getting the message through to Congress: Any regulations on carbon dioxide emissions must come through simple, affordable and flexible legislation that can be sustained over the decades needed to make any difference,” English said.

The postcards were scheduled to be dropped off at Grassley’s and Harkin’s district offices in Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Dubuque, Sioux City and Waterloo at 10:30 a.m.