Iowa Net Farm Income
$7.0B
▼ Down from $9.8B peak (2022)
USDA-ERS via Iowa LSA [FE-1] · 2024 est.
Data Note: County-level values marked INTERPOLATED are modeled from regional patterns and 2022 USDA Census data. Values marked MEASURED come directly from primary sources. Estimates are used only where exact county data is unavailable; methodology follows INRS/USDA regional protocols.
Impaired Waterbodies
577
↔ Slight decrease from 597 (2022)
Iowa DNR 303(d) list [WQ-1] · 2024 cycle
HPSA-Designated Counties
~68%
↔ Persistent shortage (any discipline)
HRSA HPSA Find [RH-2] · As of 07/2026
Avg Nitrate (Des Moines R.)
>9.0 mg/L
▲ Long-term increasing trend
Des Moines Water Works [WQ-7] · June 2022
Cover Crop Adoption
~2.6%
▲ Increasing; below INRS goals
INRS/ISU [PC-1] · 2016 DATA GAP
View
Map Layer
Iowa Farm Economics (2015–2024)
State-level data from USDA-ERS via Iowa Legislative Services Agency [FE-1]. County-level net farm income is not reported separately; county cards use interpolated estimates based on USDA Census land use data [FE-5]. INTERPOLATED
Iowa Total Net Farm Income vs. Production Expenses
Annual totals, statewide (millions $). The 2021–2022 surge reflects historic commodity price increases; expenses have remained elevated.
Source: USDA-ERS via Iowa LSA [FE-1] · Note: Correlation between income and expenses does not imply causation; input cost structure is multi-factor.
Input Cost Breakdown (2024 est.)
Share of total farm production expenses by category.
Source: USDA-ERS Iowa farm income statistics [FE-1]
Farmland Value Trend (avg $/acre, Iowa)
Average value per acre across Iowa counties. Reflects cash rent markets and land tenure pressures. ~54% of Iowa farmland is rented.
Source: USDA-NASS Iowa Land Values Survey · ISU Extension [FE-4]
Farm Size Distribution (2022 Census)
Share of Iowa farms by size class. Large farms (>1,000 acres) account for most production value despite being fewer in number.
Source: USDA-NASS 2022 Census of Agriculture [FE-5]
Framing note: Economic pressures on farmersFarm income in Iowa is highly volatile — driven by commodity prices, weather, and input costs largely outside individual farmers' control. The 2022 peak of ~$9.8B net income has fallen to ~$7B in 2024. With median farm-operator debt-to-asset ratios rising and ~54% of farmland rented (ISU Extension [FE-4]), decisions about conservation practices are made within tight financial margins. Cost-share programs matter.
Water Quality & Agricultural Connections
Waterbody impairment data from Iowa DNR's 303(d)/305(b) process [WQ-1]. Impairment listing indicates a waterbody does not meet standards — it does not prove a single cause. Agricultural practices are one factor among many.
Nitrate Levels: Des Moines & Raccoon Rivers
Annual average nitrate concentration (mg/L). EPA drinking water standard is 10 mg/L. DMWW nitrate removal facility activates above 9 mg/L.
Sources: Des Moines Water Works [WQ-7] · IWQIS [WQ-3] · 2015–2021 INTERPOLATED from monitoring trends
Iowa Impaired Waterbodies (Category 5)
Count of waterbodies on Iowa's 303(d) list requiring a TMDL. Assessed on a biennial cycle; not all waters assessed each cycle.
Source: Iowa DNR ADBNet [WQ-1] · 2024 cycle data published 2025
Conservation Practice Adoption (Statewide)
Estimated percent of cropland with cover crops and cumulative bioreactors installed. Increasing trend but below INRS 2025 goals.
Sources: INRS [PC-1] · INRS Science Assessment 2025 [PC-2] · INTERPOLATED trend 2017–2024
INRS Conservation Practice Effectiveness (Modeled)
Estimated % nitrogen load reduction achievable by practice type. These are modeled scenarios, not measured field outcomes. Reductions are not additive.
Source: INRS Nonpoint Source Science Assessment [PC-2] · MODELED SCENARIOS
The Des Moines Water Works Case StudyThe Des Moines Water Works operates a nitrate removal facility that cost $4.1M to build and costs up to $10,000/day to operate when activated [WQ-6]. When Raccoon River nitrate exceeded 9 mg/L in June 2022 [WQ-7], the facility activated. This treats the symptom rather than the source, and creates a nitrate-rich waste brine that must be managed. Upstream watershed conservation practices offer a more durable (but slower and higher-upfront) solution.
Rural Health Landscape
HPSA designations from HRSA [RH-2]. Food insecurity modeled by Feeding America; obesity from CDC PLACES [RH-6] (modeled estimates, not direct measurements). Cancer incidence from NCI State Cancer Profiles [RH-5] — small-county rates have wide confidence intervals and should be interpreted cautiously.
Health Professional Shortage by Discipline
Estimated % of Iowa counties with any HPSA designation by type. Mental health shortages are most pervasive.
Source: HRSA HPSA Find [RH-2] · As of 07/2026 MEASURED
Food Insecurity & Obesity by Region
Average rates by Iowa region. Southern counties show higher rates across both indicators.
Source: Feeding America Map the Meal Gap (food insecurity) · CDC PLACES (obesity) [RH-6] · MODELED
Prostate Cancer Incidence by County Region (age-adjusted, 2017–2021)
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 population. Thin black whiskers show 95% confidence intervals; overlapping intervals mean regional differences should be read cautiously. Counties with <16 cases are suppressed.
Source: NCI State Cancer Profiles [RH-5] · MEASURED (registry) · Wide CIs in small counties limit comparisons
Farm Family Mental HealthISU Extension's Iowa Farm Family Wellness program provides mental health support in 20 Iowa counties [RH-11]. Farm financial stress, weather disasters, and social isolation are documented risk factors. Mental health HPSAs cover the majority of rural Iowa counties.
Rural Health Clinic AccessIowa has certified Rural Health Clinic (RHC) service areas in most rural counties [RH-1]. RHCs are a key mechanism for extending primary and preventive care in shortage areas, but are distinct from HPSA designation. Both must be queried separately to assess full access landscape.
County Comparison Tool
Comparisons use 2022 USDA Census data and modeled health estimates. Statistical caution: Cancer incidence confidence intervals often overlap between counties — this indicates differences are not statistically significant. See [RH-5].
| Metric | Polk Co. | Ringgold Co. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net Farm Income (est.) est. | $2.10M | $0.64M | Higher=better |
| Farmland Value est. | $6,800/ac | $6,316/ac | Context-dependent |
| Median Farm Size est. | 145 acres | 294 acres | Context-dependent |
| Tile Drainage (%) est. | 35% | 36% | Context-dependent |
| Cover Crop Adoption (%) est. | 3.8% | 3.7% | Higher=better |
| Avg Nitrate (mg/L) measured | 4.2 mg/L | 6.5 mg/L | Lower=better |
| Impaired Waters (%) measured | 18% | 55.6% | Lower=better |
| Food Insecurity (%, modeled) est. | 11.8% | 15.8% | Lower=better |
| Obesity Rate (%, modeled) est. | 29.8% | 39.8% | Lower=better |
| Primary Care HPSA measured | No shortage area | Shortage area | Context-dependent |
| Mental Health HPSA measured | No shortage area | Shortage area | Context-dependent |
| CRP Enrollment (% of land est.) est. | 2.1% | 3.6% | Context-dependent |
Multi-Metric Radar Comparison
Normalized to Iowa county range (0=lowest, 100=highest). Higher is not always better — context matters.
What Could Improve Iowa's Agriculture-Water-Health Outcomes?
About this panelEvidence-based interventions framed within economic reality. Costs are estimates from field research. "Effective" means documented reduction in the target problem — not a guarantee of local outcomes. Farmers are shown as economic decision-makers operating under real constraints, not the sole responsible party.
Cover Crops
Planting non-cash crops (e.g., cereal rye) after harvest to cover soil over winter. Reduces nitrogen runoff and erosion, builds soil organic matter. Currently adopted on ~2.6% of Iowa cropland — well below INRS targets.
Farmer Cost
$15–40/acre (seed + termination)
Public Cost-Share
$15–25/acre via EQIP/IDALS; up to 50% of costs
N Reduction (modeled)
Up to 30% nitrogen loss reduction
Economic Constraint
Negative cash flow in early adoption years; spring termination timing can delay planting. Most impactful when cash-rent arrangements align landlord/tenant incentives.
Available Programs: EQIP [PC-3], CSP, IDALS State Cost-Share [PC-6], RCPP, Greater Des Moines Watershed Program (22 counties, up to $25/acre, launched June 2026)
Sources: INRS Science Assessment 2025 [PC-2] · IDALS [PC-6]
Denitrifying Bioreactor
A buried trench of woodchips installed at a tile drainage outlet. Bacteria in the woodchips convert nitrate to harmless nitrogen gas. Targeted at tile-drained fields — highly relevant to north-central Iowa where tile drainage exceeds 70% of cropland.
Farmer Cost (post-share)
$3,000–$15,000
Total Cost
$15,000–$30,000 (public + farmer)
N Reduction (field research)
9–54% concentration reduction; average 43%
Site Requirements & Constraints
Requires active tile drainage system; specific site conditions (slope, drainage area). Woodchips last 10–15 years then need replacement. High upfront capital is a barrier for many operators.
Available Programs: IDALS Water Quality Infrastructure Program [PC-5], EQIP, RCPP
Source: ISU/INRC bioreactor field research [PC-7] · Results from research settings; on-farm performance varies
Saturated Buffer
Diverts tile drainage laterally through a streamside grass buffer before it enters the stream. Removes nitrate through biological uptake and denitrification in saturated soil. Complements but doesn't replace other practices.
Farmer Cost
Lower than bioreactor; cost-share available
N Reduction
High effectiveness at suitable sites; research ongoing
Constraint
Requires specific soil type and stable streambank; limited applicability
Available Programs: IDALS Water Quality Infrastructure Program [PC-5], EQIP
Source: ISU/INRC field research [PC-7]
Constructed Wetland
A strategically placed small wetland (5–10 acres) that intercepts tile drainage from multiple upstream fields. Can treat thousands of acres of contributing area. One of the most effective tools in Iowa's nutrient reduction toolbox — but requires willing landowners and capital investment.
Farmer Cost
Minimal (land out of production) but opportunity cost is real
Public/Partnership Cost
High capital; mostly public/private funded
N Reduction (modeled)
~50% of nitrogen load from drainage area
Available Programs: CREP (CRP), IDALS Water Quality Infrastructure Program [PC-5], RCPP · Only 32 installed statewide post-2011 [PC-1] — far below potential
Sources: INRS 2017 Report [PC-1] · INRS Science Assessment 2025 [PC-2]
Nitrate Removal at Public Water Systems (Downstream Treatment)
Ion exchange facility at a public water utility to treat high-nitrate raw water before distribution. Ensures finished water meets the EPA 10 mg/L standard. Treats the symptom rather than the source. The Des Moines Water Works facility is a key example.
Farmer Cost
None directly
Public/Ratepayer Cost
$4.1M capital (DMWW); up to $10,000/day operating
Effectiveness
100% at ensuring finished water standard compliance — but does not address source or ecology
Available Programs: State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans, USDA Rural Development loans/grants [PC-8]
Sources: DMWW Nitrate Removal Facility Fact Sheet [WQ-6] · DMWW 2022 news release [WQ-7]
Important limitation: The INRS 41% scenario nitrogen reduction [PC-2] assumes broad simultaneous adoption of multiple practices. Modeled reductions are not additive (you cannot sum individual practice reductions). They also do not account for lag times — nitrate already in the soil and groundwater continues entering waterways for years after practice adoption, due to Iowa's extensive tile drainage network.