To Tackle Climate Challenges, Empower the States and Communities
As in: Addressing the growing threat of wildfires to the US heartland's water supply.
If you’ve grown up in the U.S. heartland, you’ve probably never considered wildfires your concern. Now, studying climate adaptation in the Mississippi River basin from my perspective in New Orleans—where we confront our own climate challenges—I recognize that this assumption is rapidly becoming outdated. Rising temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and extended dry periods (including “flash droughts”) are transforming areas of the Midwest into vulnerable fire zones. When these wildfires occur, they can severely impact the region's drinking water resources.
Water is fundamental to heartland identity and daily life, from Minnesota to the Louisiana bayou. However, the burned forest debris, chemical contaminants, and eroded soil that wildfires can produce can overwhelm rivers and reservoirs—potentially compromising clean drinking water access for entire communities. Facing this emerging threat, a critical question arises: Who will take responsibility for protecting these water resources?
If federal leadership on climate and environmental protection remains limited, states and communities must assume greater responsibility.
Currently, federal leadership on climate and environmental issues appears limited. This reality places the onus on heartland states—and their constituent municipalities—to develop their own protective measures. Fortunately, state and local responses can be highly effective. Below is an assessment of wildfire-water risks and several initiatives that state agencies, tribal governments, municipalities, and local utilities can implement without requiring extensive federal intervention.
A Shifting Threat: Wildfires in the Heartland
Historically, major forest fires were primarily associated with the mountain West. Climate change is altering this pattern. Research indicates extreme wildfire events could increase by 30% globally by mid-century, with the Upper Midwest's boreal forests and grasslands increasingly susceptible.
Minnesota's 2021 Greenwood Fire burned over 25,000 acres in and around the Boundary Waters. The 2011 Pagami Creek Fire consumed 100,000 acres in the same region. Throughout Wisconsin's Northwoods and Michigan's Upper Peninsula, conditions are developing for more frequent, larger-scale fires. In Iowa and Kansas, grassland and agricultural fires are becoming more common during flash drought conditions.
When these wildfires occur, water supplies experience multiple impacts:
Ash-laden runoff can contaminate rivers and obstruct treatment systems;
Chemical pollutants (heavy metals, toxic fire retardants, PFAS from firefighting foams) can infiltrate water sources; and
Infrastructure damage (melted pipes, destroyed pumping facilities) can isolate entire communities.
Even moderate wildfires can trigger long-lasting water quality changes. For instance, the 2021 Greenwood Fire generated sharp increases in nutrients, sediment and organic matter in dozens of lakes whose watersheds had burned. Post-fire erosion and pollutant influxes can persist for a decade or more, especially after high-severity fires. And because climate change will bring more frequent fires as well as more intense ones, water utilities in fire-prone areas must start grappling with a new normal of chronically stressed source waters. The Midwest won’t be immune from these challenges.
Without external assistance, smaller water utilities are particularly vulnerable—making it essential for state governments and local entities to develop independent resilience strategies.
Why Water Systems Are Especially Vulnerable–and Which Ones Should We Be Targeting?
Most water providers in the Midwest—part of the 97 percent of public systems in the region that serve under 10,000 people each—often depend on single reservoirs, streams or shallow well networks. A significant wildfire upstream can overwhelm these limited resources with ash, sediment, and contaminants. This creates substantial challenges for communities with limited advanced filtration capacity.
Surface Water Quality: Burned forests lose their natural erosion protection, allowing precipitation or snowmelt to transport debris and harmful pollutants into water bodies.
Groundwater Recharge: Intense heat can transform soil into a water-repellent surface, decreasing aquifer replenishment, reducing overall supply, and intensifying drought impacts.
Infrastructure Vulnerability: Rural distribution systems, often constructed with PVC or HDPE materials, can be damaged or destroyed in rapidly advancing fires. Loss of water pressure creates additional contamination risks.
While all Midwestern states could experience some increase in wildfire risk by 2050, certain regions and water systems stand out as particularly vulnerable:
Forested ecoregions of the Upper Midwest—including northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula—are expected to see the greatest uptick in wildfire activity as the climate warms. These areas contain vast tracts of boreal and mixed hardwood forest that, under hotter, drier summer conditions, could burn more frequently and intensely than in the past. The Great Lakes region’s projected warming of 1.8–5.4 °F by mid-century will increase evapotranspiration and the likelihood of lightning strikes, while more periodic drought and insect outbreaks may leave more dead trees (fuel) in forests. Combined with more human development in forested areas, the ingredients for larger wildfires in the Great Lakes states are coming together.
Duluth, MN, which sources drinking water from Lake Superior, could be affected by wildfires on the lake’s watershed (ash and sediment runoff into the St. Louis River or near-shore Lake Superior).
Likewise, Minneapolis–St. Paul’s water supply (the Mississippi River) begins in north-central Minnesota’s lake country; a severe fire in parts of that watershed could increase sediment and organic matter in the river, complicating treatment for the Twin Cities.
Wisconsin’s Northwoods and the Michigan Upper Peninsula are similarly vulnerable – e.g. the Peshtigo River watershed in Wisconsin or the Huron-Manistee National Forest region in Michigan contain reservoirs and rivers used by downstream communities. A large fire in these areas could send sediment surges into reservoirs (reducing capacity and causing turbidity that breaches safe limits for drinking water), or introduce contaminants that local utilities are ill-equipped to remove.
The central and western Midwest’s grasslands and agricultural areas face wildfire risks that, while different in character, can still threaten water supplies. In states like Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, extreme droughts and heatwaves are projected to increase by mid-century, potentially leading to more frequent grassland or crop stubble fires.
For instance, Kansas and Nebraska have experienced large prairie wildfires during recent droughts (burning hundreds of thousands of acres of rangeland). Such fires can degrade water quality in nearby streams and rivers by removing protective ground cover and causing heavy soil erosion when rains return.
The Great Plains portion of the Midwest also includes critical river systems like the Missouri and Platte. If a major wildfire scorched a portion of these rivers’ watersheds (or their tributaries), subsequent rainfall could dump ash and debris into the waterways. Municipal water intakes on the Missouri River (which serves cities like Kansas City and Omaha) might then face extreme turbidity or chemical spikes. While the Missouri is a large river that can dilute some pollution, localized effects — such as a foul taste/odor episode, or a need to shut down intakes for weeks — are possible. Smaller rivers and man-made reservoirs used for drinking water in the Plains (for example, reservoirs in eastern Kansas or the Platte River for Lincoln, NE) are even more at risk, since they have less volume to buffer pollutant loads.
South Dakota’s Black Hills region (at the western edge of the Midwest) is another hotspot; it has seen increased fire activity and contains important watersheds for the Missouri River and local aquifers. If forests in that area burn more often, erosion could accelerate sedimentation in Missouri River reservoirs that supply water and hydroelectric power downstream.
Overall, the Midwest’s most at-risk water systems are those that rely on forested or natural watersheds for their source water and those that lack alternate supplies. These include many small community water systems in forested northern counties, tribal systems in wooded areas, and rural utilities adjacent to grasslands.
For example, a small city drawing water from a single upland reservoir in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri or the Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin could find its supply suddenly undrinkable if a wildfire sweeps through its watershed. Unlike large cities that often have multiple water sources or deep financial resources, these smaller systems might have no immediate fallback. Even the Great Lakes themselves are not entirely immune – while the lakes are vast, parts of their basin (especially the Lake Superior and Lake Michigan watersheds) include fire-prone forests. A series of large fires could, in theory, increase sediment and nutrient runoff enough to affect nearshore water quality where municipal intakes are located.
While comprehensive federal engagement might offer certain benefits—greater resources, broader coordination—state and local leadership provides distinct advantages.
Midwestern water managers must broaden their risk planning to include wildfires, a hazard traditionally associated more with the West. Ideally, federal authorities would provide comprehensive funding packages or robust national standards. However, current circumstances suggest an alternative approach is necessary. Encouragingly, state legislators, local officials, and regional partnerships possess the authority to act—with solutions that can be implemented at reasonable cost.
Five State & Local Moves to Protect Midwest Water
1. State-Funded Controlled Burns and Forest Thinning
The concept of using fire as a management tool may seem counterintuitive. However, prescribed burns and strategic thinning reduce available fuel, decreasing the intensity of future wildfires. Some counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin already collaborate with state Departments of Natural Resources on such initiatives, though funding remains inconsistent.
Local/State Action: State DNRs can intensify controlled burn programs in watersheds serving as key drinking water sources. Counties can implement modest tax incentives or cost-sharing programs for private landowners adopting these practices.
Benefits: Preventative investments yield significant returns in avoided cleanup and reconstruction costs, while preserving water quality.
2. Strengthen Source Water Protection Programs
Many Midwestern states have established Source Water Protection guidelines that identify rivers, lakes, and aquifers supplying public water systems. However, wildfire risk has not always been prioritized in these frameworks.
Local/State Action: Revise state regulations to explicitly incorporate wildfire risk when designating "Critical Water Supply Areas." This could include new zoning provisions or enhanced restrictions on development in fire-susceptible forests or grasslands.
Benefits: Protecting forested watersheds maintains natural filtration capacity and reduces the probability that ash and sediment will compromise local treatment facilities.
3. Utility Upgrades and Fire-Hardening
Proactive infrastructure protection is more cost-effective than post-disaster reconstruction of melted pumping equipment or debris-clogged reservoir intakes.
Local/State Action: State infrastructure grants or revolving loan funds can prioritize fire-resistance measures, such as subsurface pipeline placement, fire-resistant materials for utility structures, and backup power systems. Smaller communities can form regional cooperatives to negotiate more favorable terms for materials and services.
Benefits: Basic preventative measures—like vegetation management around utility facilities—offer high value at moderate cost. More sophisticated solutions, such as advanced filtration for managing ash and elevated metal concentrations, represent larger investments that could be partially offset through state resilience funds or regional cost-sharing arrangements.
4. Expand Local Monitoring and Early Warning
Water utilities with advance warning of potential contamination events can implement more effective responses—whether temporarily closing intakes, applying specialized treatment chemicals, or activating alternative supplies.
Local/State Action: Establish partnerships with academic institutions or local agencies to deploy water-quality sensors near vulnerable ecosystems. Remote sensing technologies (satellite or drone-based) can track active fires in real time, providing utilities with critical preparation time.
Benefits: Statewide data-sharing networks that alert utilities to potential sediment surges or chemical contamination reduce operational disruptions and service interruptions.
5. Build a Statewide or Regional "Wildfire-Water" Relief Fund
In the absence of targeted federal assistance programs for wildfire-water disasters, states can aggregate resources or establish dedicated funds to support community recovery. This functions as a specialized insurance mechanism.
Local/State Action: State legislatures can enact legislation creating a Wildfire Water Security Fund, capitalized through modest fees on high-risk land uses or general environmental assessments. Following significant fire events, communities can access the fund for emergency repairs, sediment management, or interim water supply.
Benefits: This approach reduces dependence on federal disaster declarations, which may be delayed or uncertain. A dedicated fund ensures more responsive, predictable assistance for localities experiencing water emergencies.
But Doesn’t Climate Adaptation Require Federal Coordination? (AKA, The Advantages of Local Leadership)
While comprehensive federal engagement might offer certain benefits—greater resources, broader coordination—state and local leadership provides distinct advantages:
Flexibility: Each state presents unique topography, forest composition, and hydrological characteristics. Solutions appropriate for northern Michigan's pine forests may not transfer effectively to Kansas prairies. Localized programs can develop more tailored responses.
Responsiveness: State and municipal governments can typically implement measures more rapidly than federal agencies. A state natural resources department can initiate a controlled burn program or adopt new fire-resistant building standards without navigating multiple federal administrative processes.
Community Engagement: Citizens often demonstrate greater trust in local government regarding land and water management. Rather than externally imposed directives, local officials can engage directly with residents and property owners to develop practical, contextually appropriate strategies.
Implementation will present challenges. A state-administered relief fund requires sustainable revenue, which presents political complexities. Upgrading small-town water infrastructure may necessitate municipal bonds or increased local taxation. However, if we value water security—a resource fundamental to public health, agriculture, industry, and recreation—these represent prudent investments.
We Need to Act Now. That Means States and Communities Must Act First.
Though I now reside in New Orleans, my Midwestern roots remain central to my identity and perspective. The wildfire threat that once seemed distant has become increasingly relevant to the region.
The evidence is clear: wildfire incidence in the Midwest is increasing, creating significant water quality concerns. If federal leadership on climate and environmental protection remains limited, states and communities must assume greater responsibility. The necessary actions are straightforward, if challenging: protect forested watersheds through controlled burns, strengthen utility infrastructure against fire damage, and provide local water systems with early-warning capabilities and financial support mechanisms.
The Midwest is known for its pragmatic, solution-oriented approach to challenges. With thoughtful, localized leadership, we can safeguard our water resources, protect valued ecosystems, and ensure that even in a changing climate, the region maintains its resilience and quality of life.