Protecting our state’s water should be a top health priority

Some public health debates feel abstract, buried in statistics and distant places. This one does not.
For many in Hamilton County and across rural Nebraska, dealing with the question of nitrates in drinking water is deeply personal. It lives in memories of children and classmates who disappeared at a young age, in whispered worries shared at kitchen tables, and in the quiet fear that something as basic as a glass of water could carry unseen risk. Sarah Lyon’s story, recounted through her podcast interview with University of Nebraska Medical Center professor Jesse Bell, puts a human face on an issue that has lingered for years on the local horizon. The story in this week’s ANR is worth your time and attention, as is Lyon’s hour-long podcast exploring this important topic.
To be clear, the science detailed in this report does not claim certainty. Bell and his colleagues are careful to draw a line between association and causation. Their county-by-county analysis does not “prove” that nitrates cause pediatric cancer, but it does confirm that Nebraska consistently ranks among the states with the highest rates of childhood cancer, and that higher cancer incidence overlaps geographically with elevated levels of nitrates and agricultural chemicals in drinking water.
Public health has never waited for perfect certainty before acting. Seat belts were encouraged before every mechanism of injury was defined. Smoking restrictions came long before every molecular pathway was fully understood. The question is not whether nitrates are the sole cause of pediatric cancer — they are not — but whether they are a preventable risk factor we can reasonably reduce. The growing body of research reflected in Bell’s study suggests the answer is yes.
The troubling part is not only what the science shows, but what it reveals about our response. Too many Nebraskans remain unaware of nitrate levels in their water, particularly those relying on private wells. Too many healthcare providers admit they lack training to even ask the question. Too many families are left to shoulder the cost, both financial and emotional, of disease that might be mitigated through prevention.
Bell’s emphasis on prevention deserves serious consideration. The United States spends the vast majority of its health care dollars treating disease rather than preventing it. When childhood cancer enters a household, the costs multiply through missed work, crushing medical bills, and long-term financial instability. Preventing even a fraction of these cases would save not only money, but immeasurable human suffering.
Education appears to be the most immediate and affordable step forward. Testing private wells should be routine, not the exception. Clear, accessible information about nitrate levels, health risks, and treatment options should be readily available through clinics and local health departments. Reverse osmosis systems and other mitigation tools should come with stronger financial support and simpler access for families who need them.
Equally important is leadership. Lyon’s acknowledgment of state-level attention to water quality is encouraging, but priorities must translate into sustained investment, transparent data, and accountability. Protecting water resources is not anti-agriculture; it is pro-community. Nebraska’s agricultural strength and its public health should never be framed as having opposing values.
Perhaps the most powerful moment in this conversation comes not from a chart or study, but from Lyon’s reflection regarding the lingering dread that maybe, just maybe, something simple could have made a difference. That question haunts too many families.
We cannot eliminate cancer, but we may be able to reduce known risks. When the science points home, quite literally to the water beneath our feet and in our faucets, we owe it to our children to listen, to act, and to do better.
-- Kurt Johnson