Republican water quality proposal debated; Democrats’ plan en route

DES MOINES - Finding state money for projects designed to reduce pollutants in Iowa's waterways remained atop the governor's and state lawmakers' agendas Monday.

Consensus on a funding path, however, remains elusive.

The Iowa House spent Monday evening debating Republicans' water quality funding proposal, which shifts $478 million over 13 years to water quality projects from a water metering tax and the gambling-funded state infrastructure account.

Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday morning that water quality funding is his top priority for the remainder of the legislative session and that he supports the House plan as a starting point. Legislators rejected the governor's original proposal to share future school infrastructure sales tax revenue with water quality projects.

Senate Democrats said they plan to introduce their water quality funding plan this week; they have not yet released details.

'We should get this done this year,” Branstad said Monday. 'We're willing to stay and work with (legislators) as long as necessary to get it done, because it is an important priority for the citizens of the state.”

The governor and state lawmakers are grasping for ways to fund projects that would achieve the nutrient reduction strategy's goal of a 45 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous loads in Iowa's waterways.

The House plan, which was approved late Monday by a 65-33 vote, diverts $478 million of existing state funds to water quality projects, but Democrats expressed concern that it reduces future state revenue that otherwise would fund public education, and does not provide sufficient funding for water quality projects.

'Water quality in Iowa is a serious problem. It's a $5 billion problem, and it calls for serious legislation, a serious solution to this problem,” said Rep. Sharon Steckman, D-Mason City. 'I see this as a shell game. We're taking funds … and just moving it all around. … This bill falls far short of what we should be doing as a legislative body to help our water quality problem in Iowa.”

Rep. Peter Cownie, R-West Des Moines defended the funding plan, saying it is sound because it uses a tax on water metering to fund water quality projects. Cownie also called the bill a 'good start” on addressing the issue.

'What this bill does is prioritize those dollars they pay on their water bill for water quality. I believe that is good government that prioritizes those dollars that Iowans send to the statehouse,” Cownie said.

The governor's plan would have raised $4.7 billion over three decades, according to estimates from the governor's office. But opponents balked at diverting money from the sales tax that public schools use to fund building projects.

Senate Democrats' plan, which they said they would introduce this week, could pursue an option of funding future water quality efforts with money left over in the state general fund.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, recently gave a glimpse of what that might look like, telling reporters he has proposed a plan that would commit $250 million over 10 years to water quality projects.

'You could say if the ending balance was over $100 million, we would do X, and if the ending balance was over $200 million, we would do Y, and if the ending balance was over $300 million, we would do Z,” Gronstal said at a news conference in late March.

Gronstal said that in most years, there would be sufficient ending balance funds to devote some dollars to water quality projects, and in some years, there would not be.

'Maybe two or three out of 10 years, revenues would be tight enough that we would do the same thing farmers do when they don't have enough revenue: They don't make investments,” Gronstal said.

House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, R-Clear Lake, said Republicans would be hesitant to embrace a proposal that spends ending balance funds on a long-term need such as water quality.

'I think we all agree water quality is something we want to make sure that we're not just using one-time money for,” Upmeyer said last week. 'We want to build a structure. That's the goal, to build a structure that we can fund in the out years as well as this year.”

The varied levels of support for the myriad plans underscore the challenge facing lawmakers and the governor.

'The good news is lots of people really want to something on this,” Gronstal said. 'The bad news is I'm not sure we're getting consensus on it.”