Diane Rosenberg is executive director of Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors, where this commentary first appeared.

With the passage of Senate File 2370 (a version of legislation introduced by the governor’s office), Governor Kim Reynolds’ Executive Order No. 10, issued in January 2023, is now Iowa law. It will have a substantial impact on the state’s ability to protect waterways and communities from factory farms.

State agencies across Iowa will be prevented from strengthening rules and regulations, but will have the ability to weaken them. It’s now a race to the bottom that will adversely affect factory farming’s impact on water quality and public health.

The Iowa Senate approved SF 2370 by 32 votes to 14, with all Democrats present opposing the bill.

In the House it passed by 91 votes to 3. It was expected that the GOP caucus would fully support this bill, as they have with most of the Reynolds administration’s priorities.

But nearly all House Democrats voted for SF 2370, too.

Executive Order No. 10, which overhauls the entire Iowa Administrative Code, was initially to be a one-time, four-year effort beginning in 2023. But under SF 2370, state agencies, boards, and commissions will now be required to go through this process every five years.

That will entail a comprehensive review of each chapter’s rules and regulations to determine whether the costs of each rule justify its benefits, whether there are less restrictive avenues to accomplish its goals and eliminate undue regulatory burden, and to eliminate the rule if deemed unnecessary.

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BENEFITS FROM EXECUTIVE ORDER 10

In its first year, the governor’s executive order already demonstrated how it can harm Iowans. Chapter 65, the section of the Iowa Administrative Code that sets concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) rules and regulations, was among the first chapters to be restructured under the order.

Nearly all of the recommendations that would have strengthened water quality and public health, which Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors and a coalition of other environmental organizations provided during the Chapter 65 public comment period, were cast by the wayside. More than half of the livestock industry’s recommendations (which weaken protections) were adopted.

Probably the most blatant failure of the executive order was illustrated when the governor’s office wouldn’t approve a draft of Chapter 65 that contained a modest improvement for siting new CAFOs in karst terrain. That provision would have better protected vulnerable groundwater, a source of drinking water for many rural residents. The livestock industry opposed the change, and the governor’s office said the revised rule didn’t comply with Executive Order 10. Once the improvement was removed, the governor’s office released the draft for public comment.

Iowa has the nation’s second highest cancer rate and the fastest growing rate of new cancers. Numerous studies link high nitrate consumption to a range of cancers and birth defects.

Yet Executive Order 10 protected the financial opportunities of the industry, rather than vulnerable Iowans at risk of drinking groundwater laden with unhealthy pollutants. 

WHY HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR SF 2370

In the Iowa House, 32 out of 36 Democrats voted yes on SF 2370. (State Representatives Jeff Cooling, Eric Gjerde, and Elinor Levin voted no, while Democrat Ruth Ann Gaines was absent.) General support for CAFOs can be found on both sides of the aisle – many legislators are connected in some way to the agricultural industry or influenced by campaign donations.

However, given the Senate Democrats’ opposition to the bill, we were perplexed to see the nearly unanimous level of support among House Democrats. That included many who previously introduced or cosponsored several bills that protect water quality and communities, such as the factory farm moratorium and clean water bills.

We wrote to every House Democrat who voted yes and asked why. You can read JFAN’s letter here.

Of the 32 representatives we contacted, four responded. The following are three written replies we received:

“Thank you for all the information. Toward the end of session, we definitely pass too many bills too quickly. Hindsight is 20/20. My vote should have been ‘No.’ I apologize.”

 “I’m sorry that I don’t have a strong memory of the details of that particular bill, but I do recall that my colleague Rep. Amy Nielsen had an amendment added to the bill that I know she felt improved the legislation. I cannot speak for anyone else in my caucus about their votes.”

“Contact Rep. Nielsen and ask her. She was the lead Democrat on the bill. It passed the House on the 101st day when individual members had little time to examine and make independent judgements on amendments being made. The House made amendments. Rep. Nielsen recommended their approval.”

Representative Nielsen did not respond to our email.

One House Democrat called to say the session was rushed at the end with a lot coming at legislators. He said he would have voted no if he had more time to review the bill and apologized for his vote.

We learned that Nielsen, the lead Democrat on SF 2370, recommended its passage because amendments somewhat improved the original bill. They lengthened the public comment period for changing or rescinding rules, and they also removed the requirement that all rule changes be pre-cleared by the governor’s office before being released for formal public comments. Removing some of Reynolds’ power was considered a win.

Notably, the governor’s office used the pre-clearance period this past year to remove the regulation that would have improved where CAFOs could be sited in karst terrain.

When pressed on why Nielsen recommended passage of SF 2370 given the clear harm of Executive Order 10 (even with the amendments to the bill), the legislator we spoke to had no answer.

While SF 2370 affects the entire administrative code, it has a significant influence on how the factory farming industry is—or isn’t—regulated. During the Chapter 65 revision, we learned through an open records request that the livestock industry made numerous comments during the public comment period, and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources adopted many of those suggestions.

The Chapter 65 revision also drew some media attention. In his December 24 column Tofurkey of the Year, Dr. Chris Jones wrote, “[Rep. Amy Nielsen’s] campaign contributors include the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, Golden Grain Energy, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Lincolnway Energy, Western Dubuque Biodiesel, Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, Western Iowa Energy, Siouxland Energy and Livestock Cooperative and Little Sioux Corn Processors.”

Given the livestock industry’s influence on the Chapter 65 revision, it does raise a question if that may have impacted Nielsen’s estimation of SF 2370.

Nonetheless, it’s a real problem when legislators don’t have enough time to fully consider and debate consequential bills.

A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM: A SHORT LEGISLATIVE SESSION SHORTCHANGES IOWANS

More than 2000 bills are introduced during the Iowa legislature’s typical four-month legislative session. It’s impossible to thoughtfully deliberate, or even be aware of, a good percentage of these bills. (Just 188 measures got through both the House and Senate in 2024.)

We’ve attended legislative forums and asked about bills that our local elected officials weren’t familiar with because those bills weren’t assigned to their subcommittees or committees. Yet those bills were important to their constituents. It’s not these legislators’ fault; it’s simply not possible to know the ins and outs of 2000+ bills in such a short period of time.

Many bills are pushed through quickly before the session concludes as legislators are reluctant to stay in Des Moines when their per diem allowance for housing and food ends, and they need to pick up their own expenses. Many need to get back to their full-time jobs. Farmers are especially pressed to return home while there’s still time to plant crops.

Before the 2024 session concluded at 4:23 am on April 20, the legislators wrapped up a 38-hour marathon finishing up bills over two-plus days.

As a result, terrible bills like SF 2370 get approved without enough thoughtful consideration.

IOWANS DESERVE A FULL-TIME, MORE DIVERSE LEGISLATURE

Iowa would benefit from a full-time legislature that would pay elected officials accordingly. Iowa legislators are currently paid $25,000 a year for their part-time work along with the per-diem allowance, mileage, and other benefits.

Republican State Representative Phil Thompson, a contractor and expectant father, isn’t seeking re-election this year. In his retirement speech on the Iowa House floor, he said he couldn’t afford to continue to serve as legislator. The Cedar Rapids Gazette quoted from that speech: “As rewarding as this work is, it really just isn’t cut out for working-age families. You guys should fix that if you really want a representative government.”

Democratic State Representative Sami Scheetz echoed Thompson, telling the Gazette, “Unfortunately, it does make it prohibitive for some excellent candidates and potential legislators… to consider doing this work, which is unfortunate.”

Few people have the flexibility to juggle a full-time job and a demanding part-time legislative seat.

State House diversity also is lagging behind the state’s population. The majority of this year’s state legislators are farmers, business professionals, business owners, and educators according to a Cedar Rapids Gazette analysis. At least 16 percent are retired. Women only comprise 30 percent of the 150-member legislature, and the average age of all state lawmakers is 55. Only 8 of the 100 Iowa House members are not white, while 16 percent of Iowans identify as Black, Latino, or Asian-American.

Most state legislatures in the U.S. are part-time, but ten currently meet year-round. Alaska and Hawaii have full-time legislatures with a fraction of Iowa’s population, and three full-time legislatures are in Midwest agricultural states: Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan.

Given how much is at stake for Iowans, lengthening the legislative session would provide a wider range of representation and diversity, which would benefit the broad range of Iowa’s citizens. A full-time legislature could provide more opportunity for introducing, educating, advocating, and debating bills over the course of a year. That work could better protect water quality, communities, and public health along with addressing other important issues and needs in Iowa.

It’s time to end this business of last-minute votes on poorly understood bills. Iowans deserve to have a full-time, truly representative state legislature. Echoing Thompson, we encourage lawmakers to take steps to make that a reality.

---

Editor’s note from Laura Belin: Two days before the legislature adjourned for the year, the Iowa House approved a modest increase to lawmakers’ salaries, which would have taken effect in 2025. However, the Senate did not take up the bill.

Top photo of state capitol building is by Stephen Matthew Milligan, available via Wikimedia Commons.