Without leaders, no water win in Iowa Legislature

The old axiom proved true again. You can lead a Legislature to serious water-quality issues, but you can't make them reach consensus. OK, maybe not so old.

And if you were thirsting for spin as the Legislature concluded its 2016 session on Friday, water quality was a good place to start. Gov. Terry Branstad expressed 'disappointment” that dastardly Senate Democrats 'decided to bury” a House Republican-backed water-quality measure without producing an alternative. It's true, Senate Democrats did not coalesce around an alternative plan.

But, honestly, the lack of leadership on this issue was contagious, and bipartisan.

It starts at the top. Branstad spent the first five years of his second act largely ignoring the sorry state of Iowa's impaired waterways. In 2014, he vetoed increased water-quality spending and a boost in funding for the chronically shortchanged Resource Enhancement and Protection program, or REAP. Branstad didn't seem to care much until the Des Moines Water Works filed a lawsuit against officials in three rural counties over nitrate runoff.

When the governor finally did come up with a plan, it was a proposal to extend a sales tax for school buildings and snatch future growth for water quality. But pitting schools versus water proved unpopular in the General Assembly. Surprise.

The issue simmered on the back burner for months. Then, in the closing weeks of the session, House Republicans rolled out a plan that would divert more than $464 million in state infrastructure dollars, aka gambling taxes, and a tax on water bills to water-quality projects. What that money would be spent on and how success would be measured were left unanswered.

The Senate buried it, arguing it took money from one set of needs to pay for another. New revenue is needed, senators insisted. So, naturally, the Senate passed a three-eighths- cent sales tax to fill the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation trust fund created by voters in 2010. Right?

Nope, that didn't happen. Skittish Democrats punted with an election looming.

And maybe you think that's all swell. I've heard from plenty of folks who oppose new public investments. They don't like raising taxes or increasing spending. Or maybe they want to soak farmers through tough new regulations.

But whether we invest or don't invest, we're all going to pay. People forget that water quality is tied tightly to soil conservation, which is tethered to flood mitigation, all of which are tied in knots to tourism, public health, public safety, quality of life and economic growth. Runoff carries multiple costs, and the continued failure to curtail those costs carries its own steep public price tag.

The long-term public benefits of smartly using tax dollars on watershed-based projects with benchmarks, timelines and measurable results can outweigh any upfront costs. But lawmakers need to stop squabbling over funding and first decide what it is they want to accomplish. Throwing money for the sake of appearances is a mistake.

There's talk of convening a water summit after the election. That's not a bad idea. It also would be nice if water quality became a campaign issue. But I fear a deluge of spin.

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