Iowa Rep. Charles Isenhart, D-Dubuque, introduced a bill that would ultimately identify, ban and replace the use of chemicals that are known carcinogens.

The ban would ultimately deride the use of the popular pesticide agent, atrazine, because of it’s ability to damage ecosystems, contaminate water and pose possible health risks to humans.

House File 67 has been one of many steps Iowa lawmakers have made in 2017 to protect the environment and water quality, with Isenhart stating that “Iowans will get both cleaner water and cleaner government, with citizens getting both the accountability and return on investment that they deserve when we spend their tax dollars.”

However, not everyone perceives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-inspired legislation as such.

After several EPA studies in 2016 concluded that the chemical atrazine could be a possible human carcinogen and a danger to the environment, farmers around the country were uncertain when or if the agency would ban the use of the popular weed-killing agent.

However, since the recent confirmation of Scott Pruitt to head the agency, Iowa farmers who are fearful of an atrazine ban may no longer have to reel from the suspense of their state government voting on the aforementioned bill.

Pruitt, who was confirmed on Feb. 2 in a 52-46 full Senate vote, has been an avid critic and opponent of the agency he intends to lead.

While vehemently denying human activity as the major cause of climate change, Pruitt also made headlines in 2010, when as the Oklahoma attorney general, he closed the state’s Environmental Protection Unit after it was discovered that the department was investigating claims of illegal dumping and water contamination from local refineries.

Most notably, Pruitt has said that water quality regulations should be handled by the state legislature, and not the federal government, a popular viewpoint among Iowa’s GOP lawmakers and some farmers alike.

In an interview discussing the ramifications of the EPA’s overreach, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, believes that the EPA regulations could produce burdensome restrictions on farmers, while placing them in “extremely precarious position” or even out of business. Grassley believes that these changes could cause a hike in food market prices.

Over the last three years, the average value of Iowa’s farmlands has decreased by nearly 18 percent, according to an annual farmland value study conducted last year at Iowa State University. Farmers could lose as much as $59 an acre if they are forced to stop using atrazine.

Groups such as the Iowa Farm Bureau also believe that the ban of atrazine is underselling a larger issue “that science should drive policy, not the other way around.”

In a submitted comment to Politico, the Farm Bureau and Dan Campbell, the regulatory team lead with Syngenta, the largest atrazine manufacturer in the world, expressed dissatisfaction at the EPA’s carcinogen study, stating that “the well-documented use and beneficial impact of atrazine in U.S. agriculture makes it imperative that EPA conduct a transparent, open and unbiased review in re-evaluating the chemical.”

Other specialists, such as Roger Bruner, a supervisor with the Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Section of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, have peered into the subject matter, and believe that atrazine does not present an immediate threat to water sources in Iowa.

“Are we seeing any concentration that are at or above our water quality standards that we have in Chapter 61?” asked Bruner. “And the answer to that is no. We don’t see any of these synthetic chemicals like atrazine anywhere near the standards we have for drinking water.”

However, when asked if any presence of atrazine in the water poses a risk to aquatic and plant life, Brunner was hesitant.

“Well, that’s a difficult question to answer,” he said. “We do not have a great deal of data that would indicate that there is any impact on aquatic life for or from these synthesis chemicals.”

However, researchers who have studied atrazine have been adamant in their conclusion that the chemical not only damages the human liver, heart and kidney, but also inadvertently acts as a fertilizer for cancerous cells. 

Spiked levels of the chemical, which was shown to alter the sex of amphibians, have been found in water sources in Iowa through the years. Even at its recommended levels, new research suggests it may still continue to plague the state’s aquatic life and human beings alike.

“Aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is (a) potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians and aquatic invertebrates in these same locations,” said the EPA’s Risk Assessment Unit after conducting an extensive review. “(The) EPA levels of concern for chronic risk are exceeded by as much as 22, 198, and 62 times for birds, mammals and fish, respectively.”

Other groups, such as the Iowa Water Environment Federation Student Chapter (WEF), believes we should be using all available resources, including studies conducted by the EPA, to protect freshwater supplies.

However, the diminutive amount of data concerning carcinogen measurement levels in Iowa creates problems for those concerned about its impact on the environment.

“Protecting our water from known carcinogens needs to be a priority,” said Yuqi Song, president of WEF. “These chemicals can cause a build-up of toxins in fish and animals’ fat tissues, but (because of this) we do not have any standard to measure accumulated toxic chemicals.”

Due to the onslaught of support and opposition toward the EPA and state-controlled environmental regulations over atrazine, the passage or failure of House File 67 could present two scenarios for lawmakers. It could either end as a victory for the GOP-led House and Senate or be an enduring, uphill battle for democratic legislators who support the legislation.

The bill currently sits in the Environmental Protection subcommittee awaiting potential review by its chairman, Ross Paustian, and sitting members, House Reps. Ako Abdu-Samad, D-Des Moines, Jarad J. Klein, R-Washington, and Clel Baudler, R-Adair.