Changing how I look at water

I was asked by the League of Women Voters to speak on water quality issues at a forum Saturday at the Indian Creek Nature Center. Here is some of what I planned to say, if it turns out I remained upright and unbruised by flying fruit.

So I never really cared much about water.

Sure, I drank it, took a shower in it. I dodged its drops and shoveled its flakes. I never learned to swim in it., but it looked really good from the beach.

Then, things changed.

I stood in Cedar Rapids in June 2008 and watched the Cedar River fill the city's heart with turbid, stinking brown water. It spared nothing and no one. It ruined the most grand public building and the dive-est tavern. It tore at the city's culture, from the irreplaceable stained glass window in the Veterans' memorial building to the irreplaceable snapshots of weddings, birthdays and graduations. It smashed lives and covered the remnants in muck. They say, at the height of it, in terms of cubic feet per second, that the Mississippi River basically was flowing through the middle of Cedar Rapids.

That's the sort of water that a person should care about. Before 2008, I figured flooding was just bad luck. Heavy rain came down and things got wet. Sometimes the sandbags held and sometimes they didn't. Disasters got declared and concerned politicos flew over it all in helicopters. I saw it on the news.

But then you wade in a little deeper, and realize it's not just bad luck. Flooding isn't just created in a moment by chance. It's also about choices. Long-term choices.

And because we all live in watersheds, the choices we and our communities make can have a direct effect on other people and communities, especially downstream.

It's about the way we use land, the way we alter it in myriad ways, growing crops, building subdivisions, paving roads and parking lots.

It's about the way we handle runoff, both in the country and in our cities. Does it get soaked up on the spot or does it rush off our land and into streams and into rivers?

And it turns out that land use, runoff, soil conservation, water quality and flooding all are linked together. Steps that improve water quality also tend to help soil conservation and mitigate flooding. Changes in land use that lessen or stop runoff also improve water quality, conserve soil and blunt the severity of flooding. Flood mitigation can stop runoff and improve our soil and water. You get the idea.

So it's about choices. Interconnected choices.

So what kind of choices are we making?

Well, on Tuesday, I'm betting the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission will vote to scrap a state rule requiring builders to put 4 inches of topsoil back on finished construction sites. It's likely the EPC will do that on the recommendation of a 'stakeholder group” created by the Branstad administration and packed with builders, realtors and development interests.

The current rule was intended to reduce runoff, but the new rule will be intended to let builders do pretty much what they want with topsoil.

Builders flatly rejected the idea of any compromise that would require them to replace topsoil scraped from sites. Homeowners will be left with compacted clay yards that soak up rain like concrete. The EPC's choice will be between the common good and narrow interests. I fear they're about to make the wrong choice.

In 2014, the Iowa Legislature miraculously chose to provide $25 million for the Resource Enhancement and Protection, or REAP, program. They also approved an additional $11.2 million for soil and water conservation efforts, including money to help farmers implement voluntary conservation practices. It was a banner year for the environment, until Gov. Terry Branstad vetoed $9 million from REAP and the $11.2 million from conservation efforts.

The governor said it was the fiscally responsible thing to do, citing a drop in state revenues during the month of May. So the governor scrapped potential projects that could have benefitted Iowa for decades all because of a bad month. That's the opposite of responsible.

There's a lot of friction in Iowa between folks who want government to get tough on water quality and folks worried that the government will get too tough. One side wants mandates. The other side wants voluntary measures. Voluntary is winning.

That's not all bad. A lot of farmers want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, thanks to the governor's veto, there is less money to help them do that.

And the truth is, neither mandates nor voluntary measures work without money to back them up. And in Iowa, we throw pennies at efforts to preserve priceless natural resources.

It doesn't have to be that way. We have a constitutional amendment on the books creating a Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. If lawmakers raised the state sales tax by a penny, three-eighths of that cent would go into the trust fund.

That's roughly $150 million annually, and nearly a quarter of that would be earmarked for soil and water conservation and watershed protection. Much could be done.

In November 2010, 63 percent of Iowa voters approved creation of the fund, on the same day Branstad was elected with 52.9 percent of the vote. The very next day, the governor declared the idea of providing dollars for the fund dead.

I think it should be brought back to life. The governor swears he cares about water quality. This would be a chance for him to show it. This would be a great legacy.

Sure, maybe it can't pass, but at least debating the issue would be a chance to explain to Iowans why this is important, how protecting water holds the key to protecting so much more. It's possible, like me, they might learn to care about water, and soil and flooding.

It could be a watershed moment.

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