Water quality as an issue is on the back burner during this legislative election cycle. I get it.
Abortion rights, the plight of public schools, conditions in nursing homes and Iowa’s shortage of mental health care are among the top issues. As they should be.
Still, we took a shot at giving local legislative candidates the chance to share their views on Iowa’s dirty water. Twenty-two candidates returned questionnaires asking them about a variety of issues.
That included question 6. “What if any, measures would you enact to improve water quality in Iowa? Why do you feel this approach is the best way to move forward?”
Simple, straightforward. And as you might guess, results were mixed. If this was a graded test, I wouldn’t be giving out any As.
Some races are better than others.
In Senate District 40, a Cedar Rapids seat, Republican candidate Kris Gulick was the top Republican among GOP candidates who filled the thing out.
ADVERTISING
Initially, his answer was conventional. “Provide resources for incentives, cost share, etc. for proven water quality programs. Specific to the agriculture industry, farmers do not want their nutrients nor soil running off from their land,” He wrote.
Many, many candidates used words such as incentives, partnerships and encouragement when discussing how best to convince farmers and landowners to adopt conservation,
But wait, that’s not all.
“I cannot only talk the talk but walk the walk as well,” Gulick wrote. “On my family farm I have taken numerous steps to reduce runoff including establishing riparian buffer strips, cover crops and additional tree plantings.”
So Gulick knows how it’s done. But other than being another Iowa politicians talking about incentives, he really didn’t say what measures he would enact to improve water quality.
His opponent, Democratic state Rep. Art Staed, “establish a water quality base” using stream monitoring and identification of sources. He too argued the state could partner with “the largest contributors of nitrate pollution” to reduce flow rates from fields.
But the rest of his answer was more interesting.
“The Legislature should give the DNR and Iowa counties more authority to enforce manure management practices and the siting of new and expanded CAFOs that threaten our public waterways and the environment. The new measures need to be taken as everyone should realize that the voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy is not sufficient,” Staed said.
So Staed dropped a truth bomb on the voluntary strategy. Trouble is, not everyone realizes it’s not sufficient. Staed didn’t say what should replace it.
In House District 83. Incumbent Rep. Cindy Golding wrote “water quality is a complex problem that will require participation from every community.” She said the agricultural sector has programs, and urban areas are reducing stormwater runoff.
If you’ve followed this issue a long time, you know what’s coming next.
“While we currently measure nitrogen contamination from agriculture, we need to investigate all sources that contribute to decreased water quality — PFAS, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, etc. These may come from landfills, industry, sewage plant leaks, and stormwater runoff,” Golding wrote.
Well, 90% of nitrate in waterways comes from farming operations. We could shut down industry, patch the sewage leaks and convert every manicured lawn into prairie, and still not make much of a dent in the flow of nitrates into our water and on to the gulf dead zone.
When everyone is responsible, that means nobody is responsible.
Her Democratic opponent, Kent McNally, didn’t give voters much of a choice.
“Research, research, research and hold companies accountable for pollution issues, McNally wrote. “EPA also should be doing their job by being properly funded and supported.”
We’ve done the research. We know what the problems are. And the Iowa Legislature doesn’t have the power to increase funding for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Although more EPA funding is a good idea.
Then, there was the good.
“ We must also fund monitoring sites to identify nitrate sources to know where to apply our efforts. Additionally, we should empower county and city governments to be able to adopt conservation means within their jurisdiction and take action within their respective watersheds,” wrote Aime Wichtendahl, the Democrat running in House District 80.
House District 86 Democrat Rep. Dave Jacoby wrote as part of this response, “It may be unpopular, but without measurable benchmarks, we are wasting taxpayer dollars.”
Jacoby wants to form a commission charged with cleaning up our water in 10 years. Unfortunately, if the governor appoints it, she’ll just round up the usual suspects.
“Want to help keep young people in Iowa? in my conversations with UI graduating seniors, water quality and activities in and around water sources are the second most offered concepts, close behind reproductive rights and IVF,” Jacoby wrote.
Jacoby ranked cleaning up water as one of his top priorities.
Ian Zahren, a no-party candidate in House District 64, would support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to clean water.
There was the less than good.
“The DNR and EPA already have many regulations on the books to protect our waters. There will always be bad actors and people will have accidents and spills etc. I do not believe that we need stricter regulation, but I do know that regulations are necessary,” said Republican Jason Gearhart in House District 74. He’s an environmental specialist with the DNR.
And the ugly.
“Our water quality has increased every year, but we still can increase the water quality. I believe Farm Bureau has played a great part in increasing our water quality,” wrote House District 66 Republican Rep. Steven Bradley.
So, there you have it. Water quality is so complicated. We must encourage the incentivized and incentivize the encouraged. Win-win partnerships also are a must. Enact even minimal regulations pushing landowners to use proven tactics? Perish the thought.
Our leaders will handle it. As soon as they figure out what the problem is.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
www.thegazette.com
Abortion rights, the plight of public schools, conditions in nursing homes and Iowa’s shortage of mental health care are among the top issues. As they should be.
Still, we took a shot at giving local legislative candidates the chance to share their views on Iowa’s dirty water. Twenty-two candidates returned questionnaires asking them about a variety of issues.
That included question 6. “What if any, measures would you enact to improve water quality in Iowa? Why do you feel this approach is the best way to move forward?”
Simple, straightforward. And as you might guess, results were mixed. If this was a graded test, I wouldn’t be giving out any As.
Some races are better than others.
In Senate District 40, a Cedar Rapids seat, Republican candidate Kris Gulick was the top Republican among GOP candidates who filled the thing out.
ADVERTISING
Initially, his answer was conventional. “Provide resources for incentives, cost share, etc. for proven water quality programs. Specific to the agriculture industry, farmers do not want their nutrients nor soil running off from their land,” He wrote.
Many, many candidates used words such as incentives, partnerships and encouragement when discussing how best to convince farmers and landowners to adopt conservation,
But wait, that’s not all.
“I cannot only talk the talk but walk the walk as well,” Gulick wrote. “On my family farm I have taken numerous steps to reduce runoff including establishing riparian buffer strips, cover crops and additional tree plantings.”
So Gulick knows how it’s done. But other than being another Iowa politicians talking about incentives, he really didn’t say what measures he would enact to improve water quality.
His opponent, Democratic state Rep. Art Staed, “establish a water quality base” using stream monitoring and identification of sources. He too argued the state could partner with “the largest contributors of nitrate pollution” to reduce flow rates from fields.
But the rest of his answer was more interesting.
“The Legislature should give the DNR and Iowa counties more authority to enforce manure management practices and the siting of new and expanded CAFOs that threaten our public waterways and the environment. The new measures need to be taken as everyone should realize that the voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy is not sufficient,” Staed said.
So Staed dropped a truth bomb on the voluntary strategy. Trouble is, not everyone realizes it’s not sufficient. Staed didn’t say what should replace it.
In House District 83. Incumbent Rep. Cindy Golding wrote “water quality is a complex problem that will require participation from every community.” She said the agricultural sector has programs, and urban areas are reducing stormwater runoff.
If you’ve followed this issue a long time, you know what’s coming next.
“While we currently measure nitrogen contamination from agriculture, we need to investigate all sources that contribute to decreased water quality — PFAS, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, etc. These may come from landfills, industry, sewage plant leaks, and stormwater runoff,” Golding wrote.
Well, 90% of nitrate in waterways comes from farming operations. We could shut down industry, patch the sewage leaks and convert every manicured lawn into prairie, and still not make much of a dent in the flow of nitrates into our water and on to the gulf dead zone.
When everyone is responsible, that means nobody is responsible.
Her Democratic opponent, Kent McNally, didn’t give voters much of a choice.
“Research, research, research and hold companies accountable for pollution issues, McNally wrote. “EPA also should be doing their job by being properly funded and supported.”
We’ve done the research. We know what the problems are. And the Iowa Legislature doesn’t have the power to increase funding for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Although more EPA funding is a good idea.
Then, there was the good.
“ We must also fund monitoring sites to identify nitrate sources to know where to apply our efforts. Additionally, we should empower county and city governments to be able to adopt conservation means within their jurisdiction and take action within their respective watersheds,” wrote Aime Wichtendahl, the Democrat running in House District 80.
House District 86 Democrat Rep. Dave Jacoby wrote as part of this response, “It may be unpopular, but without measurable benchmarks, we are wasting taxpayer dollars.”
Jacoby wants to form a commission charged with cleaning up our water in 10 years. Unfortunately, if the governor appoints it, she’ll just round up the usual suspects.
“Want to help keep young people in Iowa? in my conversations with UI graduating seniors, water quality and activities in and around water sources are the second most offered concepts, close behind reproductive rights and IVF,” Jacoby wrote.
Jacoby ranked cleaning up water as one of his top priorities.
Ian Zahren, a no-party candidate in House District 64, would support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to clean water.
There was the less than good.
“The DNR and EPA already have many regulations on the books to protect our waters. There will always be bad actors and people will have accidents and spills etc. I do not believe that we need stricter regulation, but I do know that regulations are necessary,” said Republican Jason Gearhart in House District 74. He’s an environmental specialist with the DNR.
And the ugly.
“Our water quality has increased every year, but we still can increase the water quality. I believe Farm Bureau has played a great part in increasing our water quality,” wrote House District 66 Republican Rep. Steven Bradley.
So, there you have it. Water quality is so complicated. We must encourage the incentivized and incentivize the encouraged. Win-win partnerships also are a must. Enact even minimal regulations pushing landowners to use proven tactics? Perish the thought.
Our leaders will handle it. As soon as they figure out what the problem is.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
Opinion: Iowa legislative candidates send mixed messages on water quality
USGS water quality specialist Jessica Garrett uses a multi-parameter water quality sensor to record temperature pH, dissolved oxygen and salt …
www.thegazette.com
