Iowa’s Legislature is under a Red Flag Warning.
No, dry conditions are not raising fire concerns under our Golden Dome of Wisdom, now redder than ever. It’s actually about water, specifically Iowa’s dirty water.
So, are lawmakers making it better? Nope.
“I think we’re seeing a lot of bills that raise red flags,” said Alicia Vasto, water program assistant director for the Iowa Environmental Council. Part of her job is to monitor Statehouse actions affecting water. Vasto has been very busy during the current legislative confab.
“It feels like it has been busy, and in a bad way,” Vasto told me.
So many red flags you might think it’s an old Soviet May Day parade. And many remain flying as lawmakers pass the first funnel deadline.
No matter how the dust settles, pollution from cropland flowing into Iowa’s waterways will continue unabated. We have two water quality dead zones, one in the Gulf of Mexico and one at the Statehouse.
Among this year’s greatest hits are bills that would limit the Department of Natural Resources’ ability to accept donated land for conservation, open a new loophole in Iowa’s Manure Management Plan requirements for livestock operations and change the way Watershed Management Authorities operate.
There’s a bill that would prohibit local governments from approving rules requiring the replacement of topsoil on finished building sites. Another would relieve pesticide companies from litigation over long-term health effects. And Gov. Kim Reynolds’ executive order strengthening her control over state regulations could be made law.
There was one really good bill, a measure that would require riparian buffer strips on cropland bordering rivers, streams, drainage ditches, etc. Many farmers are already using buffers, so it seems like a slam dunk. But the bill, offered by Democrats, didn’t even get a hearing.
The bill affecting Watershed Management Authorities has been a moving target. It was sold as a way help WMAs partner with local governments on flood protection while emphasizing Iowa’s voluntary Nutrient Reduction Plan. But it removed language allowing WMAs to assess water quality. State officials worried that volunteers lacked the expertise. The name of WMAs would change to Watershed Management Partnership. In the water quality debate, partnership often means it will be great for photo ops but not so great for water.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Norlan Mommsen, R-DeWitt, has pledged to rework the bill to address concerns. But some lawmakers aren’t convinced.
“Some people refer to the state’s NRS as the ‘Nutrient Reduction Suggestions’ rather than a strategy — that is a voluntary program, some of which we’ll fund and others we won’t,” said Rep, Chuck Isenhart, D-Dubuque, according to the Dubuque Telegraph Herald.
“It will make it much more difficult to address some of the other issues that are important in our watershed — flood risk and protection, some of the emerging threats such as PFAS and threats to drinking water supplies especially in the karst area like northeast Iowa — that those watershed management authorities would like to focus on, that maybe they won’t be able to once they’re put wholly in-service of the Nutrient Reduction (Suggestions),” Isenhart said.
The good news is a bill altering manure management rules has been considerably scaled back. The bad news is it remains a lousy bill. It’s intended to allow livestock producers with open feedlots to spread manure on fields as an emergency measure to avoid a water quality violation. But Vasto contends the bill actually opens a loophole.
“It leaves a big loophole and creates perverse incentives,” Vasto said in an email. “An open feedlot owner can start operating, wait until their basin is almost full (risking water quality violations), then in quick succession submit an NMP, call DNR, and land apply the manure — even if the NMP is deficient and ultimately disapproved.”
She notes the bill would allow a producer to do the same thing every year. Producers can reduce their risk by only submitting a nutrient plan in case of emergency and the DNR is not required to keep records of the manure application requests.
“The public basically never gets to weigh in on or even learn about what’s happening,” Vasto said.
Also under the amended-but-still-lousy category is the bill prohibiting local governments from requiring topsoil replacement on finished building sites. An amendment to the bill would allow cities to require stricter rules if officials are willing to pay for them. It also allows local governments to forge agreements with developers on enhanced rules. Why would developers do that when the state has their back?
So the burden of requiring the replacement of topsoil, which slows runoff, mitigates flash flooding and improves water quality, would likely fall on taxpayers. Or stormwater will fill their basements. Tough choice.
The land use bill would bar the DNR from bidding on land at auction or acquiring land from a nonprofit that bought the land at auction. This is the latest effort to thwart the addition of conservation projects so farmers can buy the land.
More than 24 million acres of cropland in Iowa simply isn’t enough.
Under another bill, pesticide companies that put certain labeling on their products would be protected from litigation pertaining to long-term exposure. So if someone who regularly used a product develops cancer in 30 years, the companies are off the hook.
Last, but potentially the most significant bill, would give the governor’s office far more control of administrative rules that carry out our laws. One fun feature is every rule would be subject to “preclearance” by the administrative rules coordinator, who serves at the pleasure of the governor.
And if you’re waiting for lawmakers to approve a sales tax increase to fill the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, you’d better get comfortable. It’s not happening anytime soon.
None of this is terribly surprising. Agriculture gets protection, loopholes and no regulations whatsoever to stem the tide of pollution running off cropland. Our waters and Iowans who want to enjoy them get the shaft. We’d be better off if the Legislature did nothing on water quality.
Instead, we get a squadron of red flags. Maybe this summer we can use them to close beaches.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette .com
www.thegazette.com
No, dry conditions are not raising fire concerns under our Golden Dome of Wisdom, now redder than ever. It’s actually about water, specifically Iowa’s dirty water.
So, are lawmakers making it better? Nope.
“I think we’re seeing a lot of bills that raise red flags,” said Alicia Vasto, water program assistant director for the Iowa Environmental Council. Part of her job is to monitor Statehouse actions affecting water. Vasto has been very busy during the current legislative confab.
“It feels like it has been busy, and in a bad way,” Vasto told me.
So many red flags you might think it’s an old Soviet May Day parade. And many remain flying as lawmakers pass the first funnel deadline.
No matter how the dust settles, pollution from cropland flowing into Iowa’s waterways will continue unabated. We have two water quality dead zones, one in the Gulf of Mexico and one at the Statehouse.
Among this year’s greatest hits are bills that would limit the Department of Natural Resources’ ability to accept donated land for conservation, open a new loophole in Iowa’s Manure Management Plan requirements for livestock operations and change the way Watershed Management Authorities operate.
There’s a bill that would prohibit local governments from approving rules requiring the replacement of topsoil on finished building sites. Another would relieve pesticide companies from litigation over long-term health effects. And Gov. Kim Reynolds’ executive order strengthening her control over state regulations could be made law.
There was one really good bill, a measure that would require riparian buffer strips on cropland bordering rivers, streams, drainage ditches, etc. Many farmers are already using buffers, so it seems like a slam dunk. But the bill, offered by Democrats, didn’t even get a hearing.
The bill affecting Watershed Management Authorities has been a moving target. It was sold as a way help WMAs partner with local governments on flood protection while emphasizing Iowa’s voluntary Nutrient Reduction Plan. But it removed language allowing WMAs to assess water quality. State officials worried that volunteers lacked the expertise. The name of WMAs would change to Watershed Management Partnership. In the water quality debate, partnership often means it will be great for photo ops but not so great for water.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Norlan Mommsen, R-DeWitt, has pledged to rework the bill to address concerns. But some lawmakers aren’t convinced.
“Some people refer to the state’s NRS as the ‘Nutrient Reduction Suggestions’ rather than a strategy — that is a voluntary program, some of which we’ll fund and others we won’t,” said Rep, Chuck Isenhart, D-Dubuque, according to the Dubuque Telegraph Herald.
“It will make it much more difficult to address some of the other issues that are important in our watershed — flood risk and protection, some of the emerging threats such as PFAS and threats to drinking water supplies especially in the karst area like northeast Iowa — that those watershed management authorities would like to focus on, that maybe they won’t be able to once they’re put wholly in-service of the Nutrient Reduction (Suggestions),” Isenhart said.
The good news is a bill altering manure management rules has been considerably scaled back. The bad news is it remains a lousy bill. It’s intended to allow livestock producers with open feedlots to spread manure on fields as an emergency measure to avoid a water quality violation. But Vasto contends the bill actually opens a loophole.
“It leaves a big loophole and creates perverse incentives,” Vasto said in an email. “An open feedlot owner can start operating, wait until their basin is almost full (risking water quality violations), then in quick succession submit an NMP, call DNR, and land apply the manure — even if the NMP is deficient and ultimately disapproved.”
She notes the bill would allow a producer to do the same thing every year. Producers can reduce their risk by only submitting a nutrient plan in case of emergency and the DNR is not required to keep records of the manure application requests.
“The public basically never gets to weigh in on or even learn about what’s happening,” Vasto said.
Also under the amended-but-still-lousy category is the bill prohibiting local governments from requiring topsoil replacement on finished building sites. An amendment to the bill would allow cities to require stricter rules if officials are willing to pay for them. It also allows local governments to forge agreements with developers on enhanced rules. Why would developers do that when the state has their back?
So the burden of requiring the replacement of topsoil, which slows runoff, mitigates flash flooding and improves water quality, would likely fall on taxpayers. Or stormwater will fill their basements. Tough choice.
The land use bill would bar the DNR from bidding on land at auction or acquiring land from a nonprofit that bought the land at auction. This is the latest effort to thwart the addition of conservation projects so farmers can buy the land.
More than 24 million acres of cropland in Iowa simply isn’t enough.
Under another bill, pesticide companies that put certain labeling on their products would be protected from litigation pertaining to long-term exposure. So if someone who regularly used a product develops cancer in 30 years, the companies are off the hook.
Last, but potentially the most significant bill, would give the governor’s office far more control of administrative rules that carry out our laws. One fun feature is every rule would be subject to “preclearance” by the administrative rules coordinator, who serves at the pleasure of the governor.
And if you’re waiting for lawmakers to approve a sales tax increase to fill the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, you’d better get comfortable. It’s not happening anytime soon.
None of this is terribly surprising. Agriculture gets protection, loopholes and no regulations whatsoever to stem the tide of pollution running off cropland. Our waters and Iowans who want to enjoy them get the shaft. We’d be better off if the Legislature did nothing on water quality.
Instead, we get a squadron of red flags. Maybe this summer we can use them to close beaches.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette .com
Opinion: Iowa’s Capitol is awash in bad bills for water quality
In this July 26, 2013, photo algae covers the surface of Corydon Lake in Corydon, Iowa. The ethanol mandate has …
www.thegazette.com
