Gov’s plan gets an icy reception

In August, I wrote, 'What the governor needs is a real water-quality strategy, with money to pay for it.”

So now, in frigid January, Gov. Terry Branstad is, at last, floating his plan. He would extend a 1-cent state sales tax for school infrastructure needs, set to expire in 2029, to 2049. Instead of schools getting all the dough, water-quality programs would get a cut.

Schools would collect an estimated $21 billion over that period, with water efforts getting $4.7 billion. So school infrastructure funding is extended. Folks concerned about water get a new source of bucks. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former Democratic governor, endorsed the plan.

And yet, reaction has been as warm as a frozen pond.

From the Statehouse to social media to opinion pages, reaction has ranged from 'meh” to outright dismissal. The Gazette's editorial Saturday called the plan a welcomed but flawed opening bid. The Quad-City Times called it a 'smoke screen” from an administration that really doesn't care about water quality.

Taking potential funding from schools to address polluted water isn't sitting well. It also could be that Branstad spent last year alienating many Iowans, particularly supporters of public education, with his blindside vetoes and sweeping executive power plays.

It's no surprise when he lays out a plan such as this, Iowans wonder, 'What's the real angle?” Did a fertilizer conglomerate just buy the rights to H2O?

Let's accentuate the positives. He's putting the issue on the front burner. He's engaging in the art of the possible by seeking to build a coalition behind an idea and get it through the Legislature. That's a stark contrast to his recent performance as a one-man government. And, on water quality, it's important to stay focused on what's possible. I'm hearing strident voices calling for strict farm pollution regulations, ASAP. They're demanding farmers pay the entire freight for reducing fertilizer runoff, with little or no public investment. They're angry, and I get it.

But politically speaking, it's like demanding immediate unicorns. Like it or not, Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy will remain voluntary for years to come. So instead of fitting farmers for black hats, we're going to have to cooperate with them, and landowners, to solve the problem. Protecting a critical public resource is going to take a public investment.

So Branstad's got a plan, along with others I've written about, to make that investment. That's the debate. Which plan, or combination, wins? Or do we keep spinning our wheels and pointing fingers? But it's also about more than money. It's about how that money will be spent. If strict regulations are a political non-starter, we should at least have strong, clear water-quality improvement objectives and timelines for meeting them. No matter how we pay for programs, we shouldn't be throwing millions of dollars around with no idea of what's being accomplished.

I don't much like diverting dollars that would otherwise go to aging school facilities, considering that voters in all 99 counties originally approved pennies for schools, not water. I'd rather fill the constitutionally protected Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, and I fear ccepting Bransatd's approach will mean that voter-approved fund for water and other needs will sit empty for years to come.

So will Branstad be willing to engage in a good-faith effort to forge a compromise, even if it looks different from his plan? That's the $4 billion question. We'll know a lot more by the time that pond thaws.

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