Invest in proven water initiatives

By Rep. Chuck Isenhart

----

To help observe Earth Day 2013, Iowa can take major strides toward a clean water future when the Iowa House votes on the Agriculture and Natural Resources budget bill.

According to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa has 628 impaired waterways (more than half of all those assessed), making them suspect for activities such as drinking, swimming and fishing. Only seven are deemed acceptable for all uses.

The EPA study notes that farm field runoff contaminated by fertilizers - high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen - is the major culprit in this decline. So Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey deserves credit for leading us in the other direction, putting the credibility of his office behind a “nutrient reduction strategy.”

This year, the Legislature can use some of our lost-and-found state revenue to fund his plan at levels far higher than either the secretary or Gov. Terry Branstad has requested.

FARM RUNOFF

Long-term cost estimates to reduce Iowa's water pollution run into the billions. So-called “point” sources of pollution (industrial operations and wastewater plants, for example) are expected to spend some $1.4 billion to solve just 10 percent of the problem. This means that it might cost $15 billion or more to address the “non-point” sources of pollution, such as farm field water runoff and soil loss.

At the insistence of farm groups, commodity organizations and property rights advocates, changes on the farm will be voluntary under the Northey strategy, while changes in the city will be mostly mandatory. That's because the federal Clean Water Act signed by President Richard Nixon does not regulate “non-point” pollution (even though we know where it is coming from), and farmers don't want to be regulated.

“Compliance is voluntary” can't be interpreted to mean “clean water is optional.” That Iowa farmer participation in the federal Conservation Reserve Program has declined by half since 2008 does not bode well.

But given the change of emphasis that Iowa's overall plan represents, many conservation and environmental groups pressuring the EPA but shut out of the nutrient strategy's development are willing to go along with voluntary implementation. Because of the strategy's initial focus on “priority watersheds,” measured results can quickly prove or disprove the effectiveness of voluntary changes in land and production practices.

STRATEGY'S FAULTS

But that's the nutrient reduction strategy's biggest weaknesses: No water quality improvement targets. No timelines. No external evaluation. No accountability for results. Just a menu of steps that farmers can take which, research shows, can reduce the amount of pollution that ends up in Iowa's lakes and streams and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico, where hypoxia is killing the sealife.

Iowans want more: Trust, but verify.

So, the Iowa Senate has added some $20 million more to the budget for water initiatives. The trade-off should be: The money goes to proven efforts, such as the state's lake restoration program, the groundwater protection fund, watershed grants, flood plain management, the closing of drainage wells, soil and water conservation cost-share, and the clean water revolving loan fund.

These resources can be coordinated and focused on priority watersheds. The Legislature also can set up an interim committee to consolidate programs and to provide more oversight to the water quality strategy.

As much as Northey is to be praised, the Senate's proposal for $10 million in “play money” for the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship to engage in undefined “projects” has less definition, accountability and transparency than Iowans expect.

In addition to private-sector businesses and farm groups, active engagement of partners such as Iowa State University Extension, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, the Iowa Flood Center, the UNI Center for Energy and Environmental Education and local watershed management authorities also should be required. The proposal for the creation of a Center for Nutrient Management that involves the three public universities is particularly timely.

THE STRINGS

The money also must have strings attached, with external agencies:

l Identifying the baselines and measuring improvements to be publicly reported.

l Extending organizational and technical assistance to farmer cooperatives.

l Providing ongoing, cutting-edge research to advance the technology, document the economic costs and benefits, apply the dynamics of individual and social change, and evaluate results.

Iowa water was not muddied by one person. All of us must jump in together to make it clean again.

Rep. Chuck Isenhart, D-Dubuque, is ranking member on the House Environmental Protection Committee and an ex officio member of the state Watershed Planning Advisory Council. Comments: chuck.isenhart@legis.iowa.gov