Iowans should meaningful water quality improvement a top campaign issue

No, we really didn't expect the election year 2016 legislative session to yield a major breakthrough on improving Iowa's water quality.

But we did hope lawmakers would make progress toward implementing the sort of strategy we endorsed in February - one that would provide sustainable statewide funding for targeted water quality initiatives leading to measurable improvements of our impaired waterways.

Lawmakers let us down.

So as we approach the 2016 primary and general elections, it will be up to candidates and voters to elevate the conversation and set our state on a clearer path to cleaner water.

Back in February, we called on state leaders to activate the constitutionally protected Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund that was created by voters in 2010, but never funded. We accepted that some sort of tax reduction might be needed to make a fund-filling three-eighths cent sales tax increase more politically palatable.

We recommended that dollars aimed at water quality improvements be allocated through watershed authorities, so all projects would be part of a larger, comprehensive water quality improvement plan.

We called for farmers to create farm-based water quality plans, with state technical assistance, that would be initially voluntary but eventually mandatory.

And most importantly, we insisted that any effort that pumped new public dollars into water quality should have timelines, deadlines and targets for meeting goals set out in the state's Nutrient Reduction Strategy, aimed at curtailing nitrates and other farm runoff. And that progress should be measured through expanded water monitoring, with results available to the public.

We developed these recommendations with input from several Iowa water quality stakeholders representing diverse interests and perspectives. We recognize that improving the quality of more than 700 Iowa streams, lakes and rivers impaired by pollution will require a sustained effort, significant investment and broad-based support of diverse stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the Legislature did not step up to the challenge.

Rather than initiating serious conversation about implementing a comprehensive, watershed-based, accountable and measurable strategy, our lawmakers waited until the final days of the 2016 session to cobble together inadequate measures that swiftly became entangled in partisan differences. Beyond status-quo funding for some existing programs, very little in the way of progress was made toward a more ambitious effort.

Gov. Terry Branstad's plan for siphoning dollars from a sales tax intended for school infrastructure never gained traction, mostly because it pitted education vs. the environment in a contest for scarce state dollars.

House Republicans pushed a late-session plan that would use gambling tax dollars to fund mostly existing programs within the Department of Agriculture, along with using a tax on water bills to pay for urban water treatment improvements. Democrats who run the Senate balked, insisting the House plan simply took dollars from other state programs and projects. And yet, no coherent Senate alternative emerged.

A three-eigths-cent sales tax increase that would provide new revenue through the voter-approved trust fund stalled before reaching a full Senate vote. Many skittish lawmakers refused to consider a tax increase, or any tax trade offs that might have made a compromise possible.

Having watched all the plans for begging, borrowing and stealing to clean up water, we're convinced more than ever that Iowans were wise when they voted overwhelmingly in 2010 to create the natural resources trust fund. As the state wrestles with how to find the billions of dollars it will take to meet nutrient reduction goals, the trust fund remains the most obvious, stable and constitutionally protected option.

Aside from opposition to a tax increase, there are ideological barriers. Some lawmakers think the problem is being overblown. While others who believe the problem is large don't want public dollars invested in the cleanup. 'Make polluters pay,” has become their mantra.

We believe farmers should take responsibility for their effect on the environment, and make investments in new measures and practices that reduce pollutants running from their fields.

But the issue is far more complicated than a slogan can convey. Farmers must, for example, deal with fluctuating commodity prices and, in many cases, absentee land ownership far beyond producers' control. An effort of this scope, with its intertwined public benefits for soil conservation, improved water recreation, flood mitigation and enhanced water quality, we believe, also requires a public investment.

We think a spirit of cooperation can coexist with real and measurable standards, benchmarks and timelines. Public dollars should only be spent in ways that achieve results.

Now, the water quality debate moves from the Statehouse to the campaign trail. We urge voters who care about these issues to ask candidates about filling the trust fund. We'll be asking candidates during our endorsement process this fall.

Groups backing the trust fund, gathered under the umbrella coalition Iowa's Land and Water Legacy, must step up efforts to inform voters and hold candidates accountable. Although the coalition includes a large array of organizations, efforts to expand its base of support are needed.

Next year, we expect lawmakers - who have repeatedly told their constituents that water quality is a priority - to take up the issue long before the final, hectic days of the session. We expect, and Iowans deserve, much more than nice tries, trial balloons and good first steps.

' Gazette editorials reflect the consensus opinion of The Gazette Editorial Board. Share your comments and ideas with us:(319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com