Iowans weigh in against tossing topsoil rule

So your Iowa Environmental Protection Commission has received an earful about its plans to wash away a state rule requiring builders to put topsoil back on finished sites.

More than 700 Iowans weighed in through letters, emails and at three public hearings. Of those who commented, 632 oppose scrapping a current rule mandating that four inches of topsoil be replaced where feasible, 65 are in favor and 7 comments didn't fit in either camp. A large number of opposition comments, 492, came as 'form letters” from members of the Sierra Club and other groups mobilizing on the issue.

In case you're just tuning in, it has been roughly a year since the Branstad administration appointed a stakeholder group tasked with looking at the topsoil rule, which applies to housing developments and other projects requiring a stormwater permit. It was adopted in 2012, with input from builders.

Preserved topsoil on lawns and other areas soaks up rainfall and reduces runoff, improving water quality and mitigating flooding. In too many housing developments across Iowa, topsoil has been scraped away and not replaced, leaving rock-hard, compacted clay that contributes to rapid runoff. It also leaves many Iowans with dysfunctional yards where planting is difficult and just growing grass requires heavy watering and fertilizer.

The governor's office packed that stakeholder group with housing industry interests who favor deleting the four-inch rule and replacing it with vague language directing builders to replace topsoil unless 'infeasible.” They decide what infeasible means, and there's no objective, measurable standard. So, in a nutshell, they'll put the dirt wherever they please.

So far, the EPC is siding with Branstad and his industry friends. But the hefty batch of public comments commissioners received this month has got to make that water-carrying a lot more uncomfortable. And it wasn't just environmental groups and allies that voiced opposition to burying the four-inch rule.

'MidAmerican believes the (proposed) language is much too broad and vague to be readily enforceable. The proposed revisions lack clear performance standards or definitions ...,” said a comment attributed to MidAmerican Energy. Last year, company officials urged the commission to convene a new stakeholder group representing a broader array of interests.

Ditto the Iowa Department of Transportation, which ''would welcome the opportunity to participate in a stakeholder group that more fully represents GP2 permit holders in Iowa.”

The City of Davenport also expressed concern that the proposed vague language doesn't represent a reasonable compromise 'but that of a forced majority due to the partisan way the (stakeholders group) was selected.”

The Cedar Rapids Public Works Department opposes the change. 'We see many lots where the builder has attempted to sod a lot where sod is simply placed on compacted impenetrable clay.”

And the city's Utilities Department contends that rolling back the topsoil rule flies in the face of its effort to work with rural landowners upstream along the Cedar River.

'To reverse the topsoil is the wrong direction, wrong message and does damage to the relationships we are building with landowners and producers regarding soil health and the effects of stormwater runoff,” said an excerpt from the department's comments. 'Cities and farms are all in this fight together, we are dependent on each other, we need to pull in the same direction …”

Several comments skewered the commission for considering a regulatory giveaway to urban builders at the same time it's trying to convince farmers to partner with the state and spend tens of millions of dollars to reduce rural runoff.

'What is wrong with this picture ...?” asked a representative of the Indian Creek Watershed Management Authority.

'Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy counts on all of us to practice good land stewardship to reduce nutrients in Iowa's waterways,” wrote the Iowa Land Improvement Contractors Association, an alliance of nearly 500 earth-moving contractors who 'actively promote soil and water conservation.”

Home building interests pushing to scrap the four-inch rule insist they care, too. 'Water quality and stormwater runoff is extremely important to our industry,” the Homebuilders Association of Greater Des Moines argued.

And yet, it's really not their problem, because 'our industry is accountable for less than 1 percent of the problem, ' the homebuilders said.

Builders and allies contend they already preserve topsoil, 'on site,” although, as many homeowners know too well, that doesn't mean it will be returned to yards. They argue that the four-inch rule adds $3,500 to $6,000 to the cost of a new home.

'This is an unfair cost to the buyer of a new home that if you asked 1,000 of them, maybe one would be all for it…,” Jerry's Homes told the commission.

Never mind the dozens of actual, not hypothetical, homeowners who have told the commission exactly the opposite.

And what are the costs of getting rid of the rule?

'Removing or changing the rule … has a domino effect,” the city of Ankeny told the commission. 'Less topsoil means less infiltration of rainwater and limited ability to grow vegetation … more stormwater runoff … more urban flashiness in our streams … soil is lost from stream banks, poorer water quality and downstream flooding.”

So, based on the pile of public comments it's received, when the commission discusses the issue again in May and votes on the rule change in June, it's got some clear choices.

It can continue compelling builders to do the right thing, even if it adds to their costs, or stick the rest of us with a much higher price tag for lousy lawns, dirty water, eroded soil and flash flooding. It can let urban builders off the hook and alienate farmers at a critical moment or send a clear message that runoff is everyone's responsibility, no matter where they live. It can endorse an unfair, stacked-deck, closed-door process or seek a broad consensus solution. So what's it going to be, EPC?

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com