Gov. Terry Branstad’s latest revenue-neutral proposal to free money for water quality work in Iowa is either a misguided slap in voters’ faces or a great idea, depending on who is giving an opinion.
State Sen. David Johnson said it’s a lousy idea. He had strong words for the governor and his colleagues. A representative of the Iowa Environmental Council also disagreed with Branstad’s approach, but a key leader of a Greater Des Moines Partnership water quality task force supported the governor’s approach.
A leader of an environmental nonprofit called Branstad’s idea “very encouraging.”
Branstad on Wednesday floated a compromise idea during an appearance at the Westside Conservative Club in Urbandale, the Quad-City Times reported.
The idea: Extend the school infrastructure sales tax beyond its 2029 expiration, use three-eighths of the penny tax to fill the
Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, and the rest for school projects. The trust fund would pay for trails, lakes and other recreation projects, and for conservation projects that could reduce farm runoff. Lawmakers have failed to approve the three-eighths of 1 percent sales tax called for by the legislation and expected to raise $150 million to $180 million a year.
Contacted Thursday, Johnson, an independent state senator from Ocheyedan and a strong supporter of the trust fund, wasn’t impressed. In fact, he was angered by what he saw as a thinly veiled attempt by Branstad to continue to stand in the way of the fund, approved by lawmakers and voters in 2010.
“That’s just so much curly pondweed,” Johnson said of Branstad’s idea, referring to a nuisance plant that has been causing problems in East Okoboji Lake in Johnston’s legislative district.
“I told the governor last year that I’m going to be 79 by the time the tax is extended. I’m not waiting.”
Johnson said Branstad is in effect “stealing the election” until 2029 after voters in 2010 approved the trust fund by a 63 percent majority. “Can he really be serious?” said Johnson, who left the Republican Party recently in protest of Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.
The fund was seen as a way to set a protected account for recreation and conservation that couldn’t be raided by Branstad, or others, to balance the budget. Lawmakers approved the constitutional amendment twice, but have steadfastly refused to raise the sales tax, so the account sits empty.
Farm interests and some others are backing the Iowa Nutrient Management Strategy, which calls for voluntary conservation efforts by farmers, and not the regulations many environmentalists would like to see.
Johnson for several years has co-sponsored a bill to raise the sales tax, fill the trust fund, and spend the money according to a formula that is listed in the state documents after years of negotiations that included farm, environment and legislative leaders.
“It couldn’t be more simple,” said Johnson, noting that the trust fund got more of a majority than Branstad did in his election during that same period. “I don’t want to get into complicating the situation. Either you are for the people of Iowa or against the people of Iowa.”
Water quality is widely seen as one of Iowa’s most critical environmental issues and it is the subject of Des Moines Water Works’ high-profile
federal lawsuit against three counties that run drainage districts that are the source of nitrate pollution.
“I throw that out as a possibility of what we could do and do it without raising taxes,” Branstad said of his proposal, the Times reported. “I’d be willing to consider replacing it, so it’s not a sales tax increase — one expires and the new one could go five-eighths for school infrastructure and three-eighths for that. Then you would meet two commitments.”
“I’m willing to look at options,” the governor told the Times. “But not something that raises taxes.”
Branstad said he would support a plan, approved by the House last year, that would shift $478 million over 13 years to water quality projects from a sales tax on water and from gambling receipts.
Steve Bruere, who co-chaired the Partnership’s water and soil quality task force before the Legislature convened last session, said, I think it makes a lot of sense.”
Bruere said the move would provide money both for schools and the environment. “I appreciate the governor’s continued interest in finding a solution to the funding.”
“If the $478 million can be shifted now, that provides the necessary funding to develop an implementation strategy for the 2013 Nutrient Reduction Strategy, which hopefully includes a watershed approach in anticipation of major funding in 2029,” Bruere added.
The state’s strategy called for initial investments of up to $4 billion and annual costs of up to $1.2 billion.
Joe McGovern, president of the nonprofit Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, called news of the Branstad ‘s idea “very encouraging.”
“I think the dialogue is great and we need to continue to explore all options that will fund the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, of which 60 percent goes toward water quality under the existing formula,” McGovern said.
Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, said the nonprofit organization would prefer that the state simply raise the sales tax to provide cash for the trust fund. “We have such a tight state budget” that shifting money that otherwise would pay for other needs is not feasible, Heathcote said. New money is needed.
Heathcote said the money is needed now, not in 2029. “What about the urgency he was talking about?” she asked. “That doesn’t sound very urgent to me.”