Topsoil rule takes a beating and may be buried

It's looking more and more like Iowa's rule requiring builders to replace four inches of topsoil on finished construction sites is going to be yanked out by its shallow roots.

A stakeholder group appointed by Gov. Terry Branstad's office and the Department of Natural Resources held a public hearing on the rule this past week that amounted to a three-hour meeting of central Iowa homebuilders and their allies. They paraded to the mic to argue, again and again, how the rule is costly, time-consuming and unnecessary, describing it as 'unrealistic” and 'nearly impossible” to follow.

The seven-member stakeholder group, including four members representing homebuilding, real estate and earth-moving industries, then met in closed session for the final time. Although no formal vote was taken, it's clear that the majority wants the state to abandon four inches in favor of a much more vague federal rule. That rule simply directs builders to 'unless infeasible, preserve topsoil.”

And judging by Thursday's testimony, homebuilders and developers see the federal language as a permission to do whatever they deem feasible.

'We still think the four-inch rule should remain in place,” said Pat Sauer, a stakeholder and soil scientist who leads the Iowa Stormwater Education Program. 'They want to use the federal language. They don't want to be held to an exact standard.”

It will be up to the state's Environmental Protection Commission to decide if the rule should be changed. It's unclear when the panel will take up the issue.

But after Thursday's show of force by its detractors, I doubt the rule will survive.

Colin King, president of the Homebuilders Association of Greater Des Moines, argued that the soil rule is just one among many government regulations that have made homes unaffordable. The association's top executive, Creighton Cox, chairs the stakeholder group. What's the goal of this requirement? King asked the stakeholders.

Sauer explained that lawns with topsoil soak up water far better than lawns with sod perched on top of compacted clay. Soaking up that water where it falls reduces runoff and contaminants that would otherwise flow rapidly through storm sewers into rivers and streams. Erosion, water quality and flash-flood mitigation are all at stake downstream.

'So we're worried about fish?” King said.

King talked about the current use of detention ponds. Sauer pointed out that although detention does help with flash flooding, it does nothing for water quality.

A few minutes later, after more back-and-forth, stakeholder Lucy Hershberger, of Forever Green Nursery in Coralville, asked King if what he really wants is no regulation. 'I agree,” King said.

'What happens downstream, those fish will still be there tomorrow,” King said.

Homebuilders insisted that the four-inch rule is impossible to follow, but also unnecessary, because they already preserve topsoil 'on site.” What 'on site” really means is the soil is used in some way, shape or form within the scope of the development. Maybe some of it makes it back to your yard, maybe it doesn't. The builder decides. And the federal language means those decisions don't have to meet any real, tangible standard.

'We are doing the best we can,” King said. So I guess that's the new standard.

I believe these homebuilders when they say the four-inch rule is difficult to follow, costs them money, creates delays and doesn't account for differences in soil types and topography. I believe them when they say inspectors are hard to deal with, and that we should worry about the effect agriculture has on runoff and water quality.

What I don't believe, after hearing their testimony, is that these folks care much at all about runoff and water quality. They care about building homes quickly and turning a profit. That's understandable. That's business.

But the EPC and the DNR ought to care, because they represent every citizen of this state, not just associations with clout or people with friends in the governor's office. Protecting our soil and water is at the heart of the agency's mission. And many more people have a stake in this debate than folks who develop land, build homes and move dirt. What's best for the common good? That's the question.

So the EPC and DNR can fall back on a fuzzy federal guideline, or they can get to work figuring out an Iowa rule that isn't 'impossible” to follow but sets some sort of measurable standard that reduces runoff. In other words, they can do their jobs.

And if the state refuses to do it, cities, who have the power to govern runoff, should get to work on their own local standards and rules that protect soil, water and homeowners left to deal with dysfunctional, compacted clay yards.

Am I optimistic any of that will happen? No. But I'm doing the best I can.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@sourcemedia.net.