Chronicle Editorial

New plan would be a big win for Iowa’s water
     Despite vocal criticism, a plan unveiled last week by Gov. Terry Branstad has the potential to generate much needed revenue for projects that target pollution and improve water quality across Iowa.
     The governor’s proposal is one of the most aggressive attempts at fixing a problem that will only intensify if leaders fail to act. It would shift additional money generated from a 1-cent sales tax to water quality improvement projects, which would result in around $4.7 billion over a 32-year period. Branstad called the plan one of the “biggest and boldest” initiatives proposed during his long tenure as governor, but it was met with resistence from some lawmakers and education leaders.
     Many critics feel Branstad’s plan “robs Peter to pay Paul,” as one Democratic lawmaker put it. It would extend the 1-cent SAVE sales tax used to generate money for school infrastructure projects to 2049; however, in exchange for the extension, a portion of additional revenue would be used to fund statewide water quality improvement projects. According to a report in the Des Moines Register, schools would be guaranteed all current SAVE funds in addition to an extra $10 million each year, but any revenue generated beyond that figure would get used for water projects.
     Taking money away from education isn’t a popular move in today’s dicey political climate. However, SAVE funds don’t affect funding for classroom resources or other educational necessities. Revenue generated from the special tax is spent on school infrastructure for things like building expansions and facility upgrades. While it’s true SAVE money will get diverted from Iowa schools under Branstad’s plan, they will still receive more money than they’re getting now thanks to growing sales tax revenue.
     Branstad’s proposal couldn’t be more timely. Pollution caused by agricultural runoff and municipalities has become a contentious issue over the past few years, but lawmakers have failed to allocate funds to address the problem. Though some critics believe the issue should be addressed by those doing the polluting, it’s clear lawmakers are unwilling to bend in that direction. After all, much of Iowa’s drainage infrastructure is dated and in need of replacement. Additional tax revenue could help pay for new drainage systems that keep nutrients in the fields and out of Iowa’s water.
     Branstad’s proposal simply has more teeth than previous plans aimed at improving statewide water quality. Programs like the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy have made strides at cutting pollution, but funding constraints and other hurdles have limited their success. Lawmakers would be wise to thoroughly investigate Branstad’s plan and approve some form of it in the upcoming legislative session.
     This proposal won’t be the cure-all solution to Iowa’s water woes. However, it’s a worthwhile attempt at cutting pollution through increased financial support. Many lawmakers expressed caution towards the plan last week, but they should at least give it a long lookover before kicking it to the curb. Water pollution is one of the most pressing issues affecting Iowa and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Failing to fund additional water quality initiatives would be a huge disappointment for future generations of Iowans forced to clean up the mess.