Governor Branstad deserves credit for his proposal to provide significant resources to address water quality in Iowa. The proposal is an acknowledgment that water pollution is a serious, immediate problem that will take a major investment of resources to solve. It’s an acknowledgment that the drinking water in communities from Boone to Des Moines is at risk of being unsafe to drink because of high nitrate levels. It’s an acknowledgment that Iowans deserve better than a record number of public beach warnings caused by toxic algae and nutrient pollution. It’s an acknowledgment that while the voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy may provide a framework for solving our water quality problems, without the resources and urgency to implement it, the voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy won’t get us there.
Proposing a significant investment in water quality acknowledges the seriousness of our water quality problem and opens the door for serious discussions about how to find the resources to solve the problem. The Governor demonstrated leadership in starting the conversation, and it will take continued leadership to be open to input to improve the proposal and get buy in from legislators and the diverse constituencies that care about solving our water quality problem.
The leadership of an open mind is critical, because Governor Branstad’s proposal is not without its flaws.
By using the 1 percent sales tax for school infrastructure, it unnecessarily pits education against water quality and investing in kids against investing in farmers. These are not mutually exclusive priorities and investments. In addition, under the Governor’s proposal, we must wait years for the most significant investments. The most significant dollars in the Governor’s proposal come after the 2035 target date that the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force has for meeting nutrient reduction goals. We’ve already been waiting too long to address water quality, and we need a significant investment starting now if we are to have any prospect of staying on track to meet the long term targets of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.
We can come up with a solution that provides the resources to have an immediate meaningful impact on water quality without jeopardizing funding for school infrastructure and without the legislature and Governor having to raise taxes. The Governor’s proposal already points us in that direction. The 1 percent sales tax for school infrastructure started as a local option sales tax that allowed local communities the ability to implement the tax with the revenues dedicated to their local schools. Local communities made the decision to tax, and local communities had the control and accountability to make sure that money was invested wisely according to the needs of their community. A local option sales tax for water quality would empower local communities to act for water quality in much the same way.
A local option sales tax for water quality would have a number of benefits. It would provide significant resources to address water quality much sooner (assuming local communities would authorize the local option sales tax, and I suspect there are many communities that would choose to do so). A local option would recognize that solving water quality problems will look different from watershed to watershed and community to community. It would provide opportunities for local communities and watersheds to innovate. For example, communities like Storm Lake and Dubuque that are actively exploring water quality trading programs could use resources to help implement that approach. Communities in the priority watersheds identified in the Nutrient Reduction Strategy such as the Middle Cedar, Floyd and Turkey could band together to implement watershed projects that are more ambitious than currently envisioned. Polk County could both fund Des Moines Water Works nitrate removal system and partner with communities upstream in the Raccoon River watershed to implement conservation practices.
The Governor started an important discussion about how we can invest in water quality. A local option sales tax for water quality is one idea built around the Governor’s proposal that addresses some of the concerns that have been raised. This proposal is far from perfect, but it would provide resources for water quality without pitting priorities against each other and without the legislature and Governor raising taxes. There are other options that could fund water quality without pitting education against the environment as well including but not limited to passing the Iowa Water and Land Legacy sales tax. We owe it to every Iowan who cares about water quality to finish the conversation and find the resources to protect our water without leaving our kids out in the cold.
4 Comments
Branstad's Recalcitrance
Branstad is clearly attempting to split the environmental community from the educational community, in a classic divide-and-conquer move. The article above suggests an alternative that keeps both groups together in a united front against the Governor’s pernicious strategy. But I doubt he’ll cave unless key Republican leaders take up some reasonable compromise and push him on it. His ties to Bruce Rastetter, for one, were made visible in a Register article when Mike Kilen described how Rastetter picked up the phone and made an appointment for Kilen to meet with Branstad. This suggests a very unethical backdoor access to power that most of us do not have in regard to policy formulation and decisions. Branstad’s capacity to forgive DNR penalties against his brother for a manure spill are also a public matter. These are weak spots that smell of nepotism, cronyism, and political incest. I’d like both Dems and Repubs to use these, by the back door if need be, to push Branstad toward better policies for the state. He is there to do well by all of us, not just the ag and business communities, and not merely the high rollers and campaign donors. Without some pressure on his low-level corruption, he’s not about to back down from this and other tactics of division (his rural versus urban warfare comments about the Water Works law suit), suppression of the majority (the approval of the 3/8ths sale tax for environmental purposes), and furtherance of the wants of the Iowa elite.
compassplant Fri 8 Jan 12:42 PM
Confused about tax increases?
This post says we need to come up with “resources” without raising taxes, then promptly suggests another local option sales tax, or funding the recent constitutional amendment by . . . . .raising the sales tax.
This could be confusing. Discrediting, even.
iowavoter Fri 8 Jan 2:12 PM
Giving a local community the power to choose
I understand how this can be a bit confusing. I think there is a difference between authorizing local communities to raise a tax and the Governor and legislature directly raising a tax. Under a local option proposal, the Governor and legislature give a local community the power to decide, but don’t directly raise the tax. Before the sales tax increases, the community would have to act and pass the tax. If the local community doesn’t think this is a priority, they wouldn’t pass the tax. It’s possible that most Iowans wouldn’t raise the tax, but I think most Iowans recognize the importance of water quality and are willing to pay to get resources dedicated to it. In fact, many people who voted for IWLL thought they were doing just that.
Agua Perdida Fri 8 Jan 3:11 PM
Citizens around Lake Darling set a shining example for Iowa
Remember when there were no electric power windmills in Iowa and suddenly we are leading the nation in wind power. The same kind of citizens movement can help us make amazing progress in getting out water pollution under control. This past December, I was very favorably impressed with citizen action here while attending the World Premiere of the video “Darling Is Back.” It documents how a small focused group of citizens were able to clean the 19 square mile watershed for one of the most polluted public lakes in Iowa. I do not have immediate access to that video. However, I do have an interview with one of the leaders of the citizens movement at Lake Darling. It is on on my website at www.krauseforiowa.com. Cleaning up Iowa’s water will require a blend of volunteerism, time, money, as well as regulatory change. But volunteerism needs to be part of the program to build the enthusiasm and support base necssary to finish the job.
bob-krause Mon 11 Jan 11:38 AM