A Victory for Iowa Waters and Soils

On November 2, in a year with a high turn-out at the polls and Iowans divided on many issues, voters sent an overwhelming message of commitment to the protection of Iowa’s natural resources. Almost two-thirds of Iowa voters approved an amendment to the Iowa constitution to create a Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. 

The trust fund will begin to accrue an estimated $150 million a year the next time Iowa legislators approve a sales tax increase. A regular audit will be conducted to ensure monies are used only for specific conservation and recreation work as outlined in a bill passed earlier this year.

Coalition members of the campaign called Iowa Water and Land Legacy are celebrating today.

“This is a win for all Iowans,” said Marian Riggs Gelb, executive director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

“We can attribute this overwhelming victory to the power of coalition—of people working together to accomplish much more than anyone could alone,” said Gelb.

One hundred and thirty organizations, representing over 300,000 Iowans have worked together since 2005 to first, examine how best to create state funding for natural resources in a way that protected designated funds from being raided for other uses. Later the coalition worked to educate Iowans on how the money would be spent, to protect the intent of the fund by passing legislation that spells out the allocation of the funds, and to get out the vote.

“Much work is still ahead of us, but today is a day for celebrating. Voters can tell their grandchildren that they did act to stop water pollution, protect our precious agricultural soils, prevent floods, and preserve wildlife habitat.”

About the Author(s)

IowaEnvironmentalCouncil

  • I would rather see this trust fund

    filled through direct appropriations, but that’s not going to happen in a Republican legislature.

    I don’t support a sales tax increase now. Anyway, I think Republicans are less likely to go in that direction now that they know a large chunk of the proceeds would go toward the environment.

    • I disagree

      I think it’s important to recognize there is a distinct difference in framing when talking about “natural resources/conservation” vs. “the environment”.  I’ve found a number of Republicans that support increases in funding for natural resources/conservation.  

      Whether they support a sales tax increase is a different story, but I do believe that the vote last week was a mandate for:

      1) Protecting existing levels of funding from further cuts

      2) Increasing funding for soil conservation, water quality/watershed improvements, and outdoor recreation

      • I hope those Republicans

        will advocate for some direct appropriations to this fund. It’s important not to let it sit empty for five or ten years, waiting for a sales tax increase.

Comments