Clean Water: Somebody Else's Cost

THE IOWA FARM BUREAU Federation has recently made a shift calling for a 3/8ths of one cent cent Iowa state sales tax increase to primarily fund water quality improvement ( creating $180 million; 60% to Iowa’s polluted waters and soil conservation, with 40% going to wildlife and outdoor recreation.  This is not a completely new idea as in the past they had called for such a fund to be covered by existing state resources.  This new approach to Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy has engendered support from many groups, launching the Iowa’s Water and Land Legacy Coalition, including “The Greater Des Moines Partnership, Iowa State Association of Counties, Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Ducks Unlimited, and about 17 other groups. [William Petroski, “Coalition to push tax hike for water quality,” DSM Register, 9/13/16]. Politically, it has generated resistance as both an additional tax on Iowans and a regressive tax that externalizes industrial “costs onto Iowans, while operating business-as-usual with no accountability.” [Wm. Petroski quoting Erica Blair, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement]

Current primary “water cleaners” are the urban water and sewage treatment facilities.  They are not listed as approaches that will be funded.  They are funded currently by water users who will continue to see increases and be subject to proposed sales tax increase.

“Clean water” is increasingly seen broadly as not only a good thing but as a priority.  Reasonably, what would farm water quality improvement mean?  Changes would likely result in reduced area of cultivation.  Any sensible primary approach to addressing rivers and streams involves mitigation of field runoff with something equivalent to European hedgerows, and wetlands, and redirection of tiles to not bypass field parameters.  

Driving around rural areas now, reveals much cultivation out to the road ditch, often without even fences to maximize the area for cultivation.  Would agriculture take actions that would reduce the size cultivation areas, and do this for the for the long run?  Best of luck with this concept!

Given the vastness of the problem of dirty rivers and streams, funding that come from beyond the financial capacity of farmers is realistic.  But the absence of major financial contribution and accountability by by the primary cause-source--agriculture--distorts the problem source and diminishes the actions that are likely to be taken, and makes it somebody else’s problem and responsibility, and that is wrong.