How Iowa's Governor Candidates Would Tackle the State's Water Quality Crisis
Iowa has a water problem. That's not a political statement. It's just what the data shows. The Raccoon River, which supplies drinking water to hundreds of thousands of central Iowans, has repeatedly been cited as one of the most nitrate-polluted waterways in the country. The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, now over a decade old, relies almost entirely on voluntary conservation practices, and the needle hasn't moved nearly enough.
With Governor Kim Reynolds not seeking a third term, every candidate in the 2026 race has had to answer the question: what are you actually going to do about it? The Prairie Farm Podcast sat down with three of the candidates — Eddie Andrews, Zach Lahn, and Rob Sand — and asked them directly. Adam Steen has addressed it publicly in other forums. Their answers reveal four pretty different philosophies about how you get from where Iowa is to where Iowa needs to be.
Zach Lahn: The Most Technical Answer in the Room
The Belle Plaine farmer and businessman came onto the Prairie Farm Podcast with a command of the mechanics of Iowa's water problem.
Lahn pointed directly to tile drainage as the core issue, noting that tiling has driven enormous yield gains for Iowa farmers over the past two decades — but when that tile drains directly into streams, the results are predictable. He called the Raccoon River the most polluted tributary in the United States, which tracks with EPA data and independent water quality research.
His proposed solution centers on saturated buffers — a practice piloted at Bear Creek near Ames where researchers found nitrate removal rates approaching 100 percent, because the water filters naturally through the soil rather than moving directly through tile lines to streams. He noted that the USDA currently pays around $9.50 per linear foot for saturated buffers, and that installation costs typically run between $7 and $9 per foot, meaning the economics are competitive for farmers willing to do it.
Lahn's broader argument is that the accountability gap doesn't lie with farmers. "I'm not here to do this on the backs of farmers," he said on the podcast. "There's companies that need to be held accountable, truly accountable." He went further than any other candidate has on the question of agrochemical transparency: "I'm the only person that will sit at this table and tell you that they're lying to us and that we don't actually know the extent by which they're lying to us. But if I'm governor, I'm going to look at this and say, look, you want to sell these products in our state? Hand over your research. Prove to us that it's safe and how to use it safely."
Lahn was also the first gubernatorial candidate in the country to receive an endorsement from the MAHA PAC, the political arm aligned with RFK Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again agenda.
Eddie Andrews: Education and Incentives Over Mandates
State Representative Eddie Andrews, who represents a Johnston/Ankeny district and has won it twice without party money, frames the water quality issue primarily through the lens of farmer education and economic incentives — not regulation.
On the podcast, Andrews referenced the idea that healthy soil produces healthy plants, healthy animals, and healthy humans, and that the reverse is equally true. He cited regenerative farming as a practical alternative that doesn't require catastrophic yield loss — pointing to farmers who have tested their well water before and after implementing different practices and seen nitrate levels drop dramatically.
But on mandates, Andrews is direct: "People respond to incentives. And they hate mandates." He drew a comparison to coal mining communities, who continued working in dangerous conditions for generations even as evidence of harm mounted, because the economic alternative wasn't clear. His argument is that Iowa farmers are in a similar spot — they're not ignorant of the problem, they're stuck in a margin structure that makes experimentation feel impossible.
Andrews also took a clear stand on corporate accountability. He was one of the few Republican legislators to oppose a tort reform bill that limited liability for corporations — including, implicitly, the agricultural input companies whose products are implicated in Iowa's nitrate contamination. "You're going to tell me that there's a good chance they are participating in the cancer causing, but let's give them liability protection beforehand?" he said. Kent Boucher summed it up: "How could the government say more clearly that we are not for protecting your well-being, and we are for protecting corporate interests?"
Andrews also raised the elimination of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University — a research hub that studied Iowa production and Iowa health — as an example of the state moving in exactly the wrong direction. "We get rid of things because they save money, but they cost us in the long term," he said.
Rob Sand: Win-Win or Nothing
Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand, the only Democrat to qualify for the primary ballot, approaches water quality as a framing problem as much as a policy problem.
His argument is that most people in the debate treat conservation as a zero-sum fight — farmers versus environmentalists, pocketbook versus ecosystem. Sand doesn't buy that. "There are lots of win-wins out there," he said on the podcast, pointing to wetland restoration as a prime example: restored wetlands improve water quality, create better habitat for waterfowl, and could support a legitimate duck hunting tourism economy in Iowa — a rare trifecta where conservation and economic development point the same direction.
He also made the case, echoing the research, that owner-operator farms tend to take better long-term care of the soil and water than absentee investors or corporate operations. "If they're doing that, then our water quality is going to be better too," he said. That framing links the land ownership question — who controls Iowa's farmland as the generation that built those farms ages out — directly to the water quality question.
Sand acknowledged that conservation practices are expensive for farmers operating on thin margins, and that you can't just tell producers to adopt them without making the economics work. He was candid that he'd be more specific on policy proposals closer to the election, saying he wants to gather the best ideas from across the state rather than commit prematurely to a plan. That openness could read as thoughtful or as hedging, depending on your perspective.
On the cancer rate — Iowa now leads the nation in cancer growth — Sand said the answer starts with actually funding the research to understand causation. "Think of the cost of treating cancer," he said. "Figuring out what the answers are and doing something about it is going to save a lot of money for taxpayers in the long run."
Adam Steen: Collaborative Approach, Wants the Data First
Former Iowa Department of Administrative Services Director Adam Steen says water quality is "near and dear to my heart" — and his reasoning is personal. His father died of kidney cancer three years ago. "It's very important to me to understand this cancer issue that we've got in the state," Steen told The Iowa Podcast. "Not just to honor my father, but I've got two boys and I have a wife and I've got family and I've got friends."
Steen's public position on water quality is collaborative and cautious. He has said he's "not putting this on the backs of our farmers," and has noted that pollutants enter Iowa waterways from non-agricultural sources as well — golf courses, city lawns, and industrial sites among them. On the question of requiring conservation practices from farmers, which came up directly in his Iowa Press interview, Steen emphasized the need for clear causation before implementing any mandates: "I'm not an Oracle. I don't know everything. I make decisions based upon facts."
He's announced plans to assemble a water quality task force before taking office, noting that in his experience running state government, building a workable plan takes six to eight months of lead time. His goal, he's said, is to be ready to act on day one.
The Common Thread — And the Tension
What's striking about all four of these conversations is that nobody is dismissing the problem. The days of Iowa politicians pretending the nitrate issue is overblown or manufactured by out-of-state environmentalists seem to be giving way, at least among serious candidates, to an acknowledgment that something has to change.
Where they diverge is on who pays, who's accountable, and how fast it needs to happen. Lahn wants corporate transparency requirements. Andrews wants incentives and education. Sand wants collaborative win-wins and better research funding. Steen wants data before he commits to a framework.
None of that is going to filter the Des Moines metro's water supply on its own. But compared to a decade of hoping the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy's voluntary approach would be enough — it's at least a more honest conversation.
If you're working on a prairie restoration or native planting project as part of a conservation effort in Iowa or the Midwest, Hoksey Native Seeds carries seed mixes specifically designed for prairie strips, pasture buffers, and pollinator habitat — all practices that can help keep topsoil and nutrients out of Iowa's waterways.
