The Week — War, ignore buttons and polls

An irregular Friday feature on the week that was.

WAR!

Fresh from his Condition of the State showstopper on Tuesday, Gov. Terry Branstad sprinted to a meeting with The Des Moines Register editorial board. He meets with The Gazette's editorial board on Jan. 28. I guess that's more of a relaxed saunter.

During that fateful DMR session, the governor spoke of war and rumors of wars:

Gov. Terry Branstad strongly opposes plans by the Des Moines Water Works to file a federal lawsuit against three rural counties over nitrate levels in the Raccoon River, saying the matter should be resolved through a collaborative approach.

Asked if rural Iowans are going to war with Des Moines over water quality, Branstad told Des Moines Register editors and reporters on Tuesday, 'I would put it the other way around. Des Moines has declared war on rural Iowa. I think instead of filing a lawsuit, Des Moines should sit down with the farmers and people who want to do something about it.”

These city slickers may be letting slip the dogs of war, but they are not seeking damages. What they really want is the state to get serious about curtailing farm runoff, instead of lowballing already chronically underfunded water quality programs. Iowa has an ambitious, but voluntary, Nutrient Reduction Strategy, designed to reduce fertilizer runoff. So far, it's received both kinds of funding. Diddly and squat.

Our governor included just $5 million in new money in his 2016 budget to back up our grand plan to reduce fertilizer runoff, and to cap a few ag drainage wells. That's tucked within a $7.3 billion general fund budget. The proverbial spit in the ocean. His 2017 budget doesn't include that new money, although he's 'hopeful” it might be included.

Branstad spends less in his new budget than lawmakers tried to spend on water quality last year, before he vetoed $11.2 million late on a lovely Friday afternoon. That vetoed money was approved by Democrats and Republicans who sat down and forged a compromise. Now, the governor says we should use a collaborative approach to solve this problem. Funny.

Truth is, thousands of Iowa farmers and landowners want to do the right thing, reduce runoff and conserve soil, but the dollars needed to help them are as scarce as hen's teeth. It's going to cost hundreds and millions and probably billions of bucks to make voluntary runoff reductions into more than just a herd of fanciful bureaucratic unicorns. But the governor has shown little interest. Nickels, dimes, platitudes and vetoes.

And if our grand voluntary plan fails, the next plan might come from the feds. It probably won't be voluntary. And farmers probably won't like it much.

But, fear not, the governor has other ideas:

Branstad suggested one of the solutions to the nitrate problem could be improving access to broadband services in rural Iowa to permit farmers to use precision agricultural practices that reduce overuse of chemicals and fertilizers.

Super. I'd also support precision governing, reducing the chronic overuse of spin and flimflam.

So, with war looming, the governor's defense plan for rural Iowa amounts to shortchanging collaborative efforts to clean up its water and conserve its valuable soil while potentially inviting federal action. And broadband. To the ramparts!

WILL THE EARLY VERNON CATCH THE BLUM?

Cedar Rapids City Council member, and mayor pro-tempore, Monica Vernon, sensing Iowans' unease after nearly three months without a political campaign, announced her candidacy for Congress this week. With any luck, we'll be seeing TV ads real soon.

Vernon is taking a second shot at winning the Democratic nomination in the 1st District. She lost to Pat 'SHUT DOWN THAT SWITCHBOARD!” Murphy in what many observers regarded as the nation's least interesting hotly contested primary. She also served as Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jack Hatch's running mate, a thankless job akin to co-piloting the Hindenburg.

She explained her very early entry to Radio Iowa:

'I think there's no time like the present,” Monica Vernon says. 'I've always been a person that if I want to do something, which in this case is make progress for Iowans, I get at it early. There's no sense in pulling the covers back over yourself or pushing the ‘ignore' button. If I see a problem, I jump right in.”

Republican U.S. Rep. Rod Blum hasn't even unpacked his patriotic, but tasteful, bric-a-brac and already he has a challenger. Sheesh.

But he has found the time to get noticed by the boss. In his first vote, Blum threw his support behind Florida Rep. Daniel Webster for speaker, immediately endearing him to Speaker John Boehner. How this bold move will affect Blum's effectiveness is unknown, although his official Capitol Hill parking spot is now in West Virginia. Odd.

Blum said he struck a blow against the status quo, like how we used to have a representative who didn't take cues on big decisions from Rep. Steve King. It's a new day.

So let's assess Vernon's chances. On second thought, let's pull back the covers over ourselves and push that ignore button. It is way too freaking early.

POLL OF THE WEEK

An interest group has released a new poll confirming the popularity of its perspective.

Iowans for Tax Relief, still a thing, released a poll showing 77 percent of Iowans oppose a 10-cent gas tax increase to pay for fixing up roads, bridges and the like. The poll of 400 Iowans was conducted by Victory Enterprises of Davenport.

Also, according to the poll, 66 percent of those surveyed agreed with this statement: 'Iowa state government has enough money to fix and maintain our roads and bridges, and we need smarter spending and better priority-setting instead of raising taxes.”

Asked to set better priorities, 100 percent of respondents named 'the roads I drive on most often” as the top priority. OK, I made that up.

These numbers underscore the difficulty our heroic lawmakers face. Sure, there's clear and convincing evidence that Iowa is struggling with a widening deficit between the cost of maintaining its transportation system and available revenues, with far-reaching economic consequences. But, then again, it would be a whole lot easier, and popular, to pretend there's really no problem.

What to do? I suggest we simply outsource the whole gas tax debate to another state's legislature. That way, no one here has to make a tough decision, and we can blame someone else. I bet the Idaho General Assembly has some time on its hands.

Problem solved. You're welcome.