Donnelle Eller

The Des Moines Register

This story has been modified to clarify environmental concerns about a state program that shares the cost of cover crops and other conservation practices.

Republican leaders are pushing Iowa House members to get behind a $27 million water quality bill the state Senate passed last session, calling it the Legislature's most viable option for long-term, sustainable funding.

"I feel pretty strongly that it’s a good bill. Nothing is perfect, but it's a good bill," said Sen. Ken Rozenboom, R-Oskaloosa, the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee chairman.

"I'd be delighted if we could pass what we have in the House and move on," he said.

Gov. Kim Reynolds says she wants water quality to be the first bill she signs into law next year.

And getting legislation passed to clean Iowa's water could be critical to Reynolds' and other lawmakers' re-election efforts, with pressure mounting for state action, political watchers say.

The House also approved a water quality bill last session, and even though it doesn't carry over to the new session, Republican members want some of its features built into the Senate legislation.

That could be tough.

"I'm reluctant to open up the discussion again," Rozenboom said. "I fear some who supported it last year might be a little softer on it this year.

"Our budget problems not only haven’t improved since last year, they’ve gotten worse," he said.

Obradovich: Does it take threats for lawmakers to fix water quality?

Iowa lawmakers will likely be faced with making $45 million to $90 million in budget cuts during the next legislative session, the state's chief budget officer said Monday.

House GOP leaders have been trying to win over colleagues, saying a second "fix-it" bill will get introduced to address any lingering legislative concerns.

"We can pass the Senate version ... and then come out with some fix-it language yet this year," said state Rep. John Wills, an assistant majority leader.

Changes to the bill would send it to conference committee, and "we just don’t know where people are at, what would happen," said Wills, a Spirit Lake Republican.

"It’s easier to pass the bill, send it to the governor, and then come back with language" to improve it, he said, adding that he's started drafting a second bill.

'Health and safety' should be top priority

Democrats and Iowa environmental groups are concerned the Republican push to get something passed will result in flawed legislation getting put into law.

"It seems like we’re trying to speed this through, but speed isn’t the most important factor here," said Jennifer Terry, executive director of the Iowa Environmental Council.

"Getting meaningful water quality legislation that protects the health and safety of Iowans should be our No. 1 goal to passage," Terry said.

Terry said the House bill had a broader group of agriculture, environmental and public health and water utilities backing it than the Senate bill during the last session.

She and other environmentalists are upset after Iowa Ag Secretary Bill Northey said last month he's been talking with lawmakers, farm groups and others to drum up support for long-term funding for water quality legislation.

"I don't think that Iowans' voices are being heard," Terry said, following Northey's comments at a budget hearing with Reynolds. "They think this is the best piece of legislation, but I don't know how they arrived at that decision."

The Senate bill that Northey supports would redirect about $12 million in sales tax dollars that Iowans already pay on their water bills as well as $15 million that will come available after paying off Vision Iowa project bonds. It would become fully funded in 2021.

When combined with money already being appropriated annually for water quality projects, the legislation would generate an estimated $50 million per year to address the issue, Senate Republicans said.

Sen. Bob Dvorsky, a Coralville Democrat, said the Senate bill lacks many of the important accountability features that voters need to ensure water quality is improving.

"I'm not interested in just passing something that says water quality on it. ... We need something that's actually going to work," said Dvorsky, a ranking member of the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee.

The Senate bill "just continues what we're doing now," he said. "It's just a hodge-podge of programs.

"Some of them work real well and some don't. But under this bill, there's no way of knowing how practices are working," Dvorsky said. "There's no evaluation. There's very little monitoring or assessment ... to know where to focus your money."

Watershed approach missing

The Iowa Environmental Council and other groups also are concerned about assessing water quality efforts.

But another key component that's missing is the watershed approach, which was part of the House bill. That process helps bring rural and urban areas together to determine where limited tax dollars should be spent, advocates say.

"We need to spend money where we can have the greatest effect," said Darren Fife, who owns EcoSource, a Des Moines environmental consulting firm.

Environmentalists also would like targeted in high-priority watersheds a state program that provides cost-share money to farmers who plant cover crops, try no-till farming or other practices that can help hold nitrogen and phosphorus.

"Why sprinkle money across the state? It's a fundamental flaw" of the state's current approach, Terry said.

But Wills and others said Iowa needs programs like the cover crop initiative that encourage all parts of the state to get involved in improving water quality.

State Rep. Chip Baltimore, R-Boone, said the Senate bill places "both the blame and the responsibility for Iowa's water quality problems squarely on the shoulders of Iowa's farmers."

"If the Legislature adopts this legislative approach, Farm Bureau and the other ag groups supporting (it) must own and accept the problem for the foreseeable future," he said. "We can do better, which is why the Iowa House rejected (the Senate bill) last session."

The Iowa Department of Agriculture said Monday about $420 million in public and private investment was spent on conservation practices in 2016-17 that cut the nutrients that leave farm fields and city streets and make their way into the state's waterways.

Among the gains: At least 88 percent of Iowa's land drains into waters that have monitoring sensors. And about 623,000 acres are planted with cover crops.

Iowa seeks to reduce by 45 percent the nitrogen and phosphorus that contribute to the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, an area about the size of New Jersey last year that was unable to support aquatic life.

Wills, an environmental coordinator in Dickinson County, said most Iowa water quality projects take a watershed approach that includes water monitoring and assessment.

With 56 demonstration projects, Iowa has 15 targeted watershed projects, seven projects focused on innovative practices, and 34 urban water quality demonstration projects.

Still, the Senate bill doesn't spell out that approach, Wills said, but relies on state ag and natural resources agencies to develop rules around a new law.

"We can over-exert our influence on a bill," said Wills, the assistant majority leader.

"We need to let the departments who know better, who work with this every day ... let them take a look at it, and use their professional judgment" about where the money is spent "vs. lawmakers who come down and say this is what you're going to do."

Dvorsky disagreed. He said the best way to ensure money is spent where it's most needed is to put it in the legislation. "That's silly," he said.

"You have to legitimately put in the bill that you have monitoring, that you have goals" and that you assess whether they've been met, Dvorsky said.

Does sales tax disappear?

Dvorsky worries that passage of the Senate bill will put on a shelf the possibility of getting a sales tax — three-eighths of 1 cent — to help fund water quality efforts.

Environmental and outdoor advocacy groups back raising the state's sales tax to fund programs for water quality, trails, conservation and other programs.

More than 60 percent of Iowa voters approved creating the fund in a 2010 vote, but it's up to lawmakers to put the financing in place.

However, that proposal has been dead-on-arrival with many conservative legislators, who oppose any tax hike.

"We'll say we did water quality and we'll never visit it again. And (Republicans will) campaign on it," Dvorsky said. "There's a lot of pressure to do something."

Donna Hoffman, a University of Northern Iowa political science professor, said "anybody going into a re-election ... wants to have accomplishments."

"And given that the Republicans have unified control of the governor's office and both chambers, it's doubly important," she said

Voters use elections to hold legislators accountable, and "it's easier for voters to assign accountability" when one party controls the Legislature, she said.

It will be particularly interesting in the primary, Hoffman said, since one opponent of Reynolds, Ron Corbett, former mayor of Cedar Rapids, says he would support a sales tax for water quality.

"He's setting up some differences there," Hoffman said, adding that it's hard to say how important water quality will be, given other issues such as education and the economy.