History: For decades, environmental groups have unsuccessfully pushed the state to come up with a long-term source of cash to help clean Iowa’s waterways. Voters overwhelmingly approved a state trust fund that would help, but lawmakers have declined to raise the sales tax to pay into the constitutionally protected account, as envisioned. Des Moines Water Works’ federal lawsuit against three northwest Iowa counties over nitrate pollution from drainage ditches has increased the pressure to boost spending on water quality.

Who favors legislation: Dozens of agricultural and environmental groups have called for action, but they have different approaches. Some environmentalists suggest it’s time to regulate farming more aggressively, while farm interests suggest paying farmers more to complete voluntary conservation work to help improve water quality. 

Governor’s position: Gov. Terry Branstad has proposed an extension of a sales tax that pays for school infrastructure projects and would earmark $4.7 billion in added sales tax revenue for water quality work over the next 30 years. 

Democratic position: Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal said the state needs to be more aggressive in efforts to improve water quality, perhaps with the help of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He continues to support using leftover cash in good revenue years for the effort. He doubts that a proposed 3/8ths of 1 percent sales tax for conservation or recreation, or Branstad’s plan to siphon money from an extended sales tax for school projects, will gain traction in the Iowa Legislature. 

Republican position: Even House Speaker Linda Upmeyer wonders if Branstad’s plan will gain support. She wants to look at existing sources of cash and budget adjustments to try to free money for water quality work.

The Iowa Legislature appears to be poised to meet this year’s hottest environmental debate — water quality — with more questions than answers.

In an unprecedented ramp-up to the session, Iowa’s polluted waterways have been the subject of prime-time smear ads, a Greater Des Moines Partnership task force of 100, hand-wringing in agricultural groups’ conference rooms, renewed calls for a designated sales tax for the environment and Gov. Terry Branstad’s call for diverting money from schools to clean waterways. 

Runoff pollution, especially from farms, has landed Iowa in the national limelight as Des Moines Water Works pursues a federal lawsuit against three northwest Iowa counties over nitrate pollution from their drainage ditches. The lawsuit has galvanized a debate that has been growing over the past several decades as hog confinements proliferated and growing interest in paddle sports led more Iowans to see firsthand that the waters were troubled.

Water Works has continued to run its nitrate-removal system — for a record number of days in 2015 — and made sure customers knew about the added cost of running the aging plant and the $80 million it will take to build a new one. 

Lots of well-meaning discussions have led to several proposals that seemingly have the potential to make a big difference over the next few decades but have run into political problems even before the session started Jan. 11. 

Among them: 

— Many have used the recent push for action on water quality to once again advocate a sales tax increase to raise $150 million to $180 million for the voter-approved Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. By some estimates, 60 percent or more of that money could go to farmers and other landowners who voluntarily install conservation measures. But House Speaker Linda Upmeyer said she’s concerned about raising taxes for a fund that also would pay for recreation. And Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal said he’s been assured that a sales tax increase would be dead on arrival in the House. “I do not hear any kind of interest amongst the Republicans in the 3/8ths of a cent,” Gronstal said in an interview. “We have talked about that in each of the past three or four years. I see little or no interest on their part in that subject.” 

Gronstal said Democrats, who control the Senate, would consider the tax were it not a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled House.

Branstad buried the proposal further. “I am not recommending an increase in the sales tax, and I don’t think there is support in the Legislature to raise taxes,” Branstad told Iowa Public Radio. “I think we can find a better way to address water quality.”

Upmeyer said “it’s too early too tell” which of the many potential solutions lawmakers will support. 

“We have looked at many opportunities, generally, using one-time money to address water quality to augment what we are doing through conservation and watershed work,” she said. “We are, without a doubt, wanting to look at opportunities. There certainly is interest in trying to find a sustainable water quality initiative, instead of having this discussion every year.” 

— Similarly, one of the ideas suggested by a Greater Des Moines Partnership task force on water quality,  a tax credit for landowners for conservation work, appears to have mixed reviews. Upmeyer said a bill is being drafted, but added: “We want to do things based on research. We need to balance the needs.” 

Gronstal said he doesn’t see the difference between a tax credit and the $20 million appropriation for the work approved by lawmakers and vetoed by Branstad in 2014. 

“We already have cost share for putting in practices through the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship,” Gronstal said. “Whether it’s a direct appropriation to do the practices or a tax mechanism, it’s still dollars that come out of the state treasury.”

— Branstad proposed extending the sales tax for school buildings and equipment, with water quality projects getting $4.7 billion from sales tax growth over three decades. “Simply put, we must significantly accelerate our water quality efforts in order to avoid eroding our path to prosperity,” Branstad said in his Condition of the State address.

Although the figures are rough and now several years old, scientists from Iowa State University and others estimated it would take $1.2 billion to $4 billion up front, and $77 million to $1.2 billion per year, to meet a federal task force’s goal for nitrogen and phosphorus pollution cuts by 2030. 

Even Branstad’s GOP colleagues weren’t buying the idea immediately after the governor floated the plan. “The governor floated a bold idea,” Upmeyer said. “There are detractors. This is the place where we weigh options.”

Gronstal was harsher, suggesting in an interview that Democrats would see the move as taking money away from already cash-starved school systems. In an appearance on Iowa Public Radio, Branstad countered: “It’s not education money. It is education infrastructure money. We are one of few states that use the sales tax to help with infrastructure.” 

On Iowa Public Radio’s “River to River,” a listener asked Branstad why he doesn’t ask farmers, manufacturers, consumers and others involved in agriculture to pay a tax to clean the waterways. “They pay their taxes,” Branstad responded. “And it isn’t just agriculture” causing the issues, he added. The governor then suggested that Iowa’s organically rich soils are the source of some of the nitrate and called for more cover crops. 

Gronstal said many know the state needs to do more about water quality, an issue that has failed to gain much traction at the Statehouse even when Gov. Tom Vilsack, now the U.S. agriculture secretary, pushed hard to beef up programs. The question is how to get it done, he said. 

“We are looking for willing partners,” Gronstal said in an interview. “A couple of years ago, we passed an extra $20 million in voluntary (conservation project) dollars, and the governor ended up vetoing that. I think there are really issues out there. At this moment in time, we cannot meet the voluntary demand for (matching money for) soil conservation practices in the state. The state has to do more than it’s doing right now.”

“We were able to persuade the House Republicans to go along with one-time dollars of $20 million (before the veto),” Gronstal said. “I thought at that time that in good years, when the economy was going better than expected and ending balances were growing, we could scoop significant amounts of money from there and invest that in water quality and soil conservation efforts. The governor vetoed that $20 million pretty much to the surprise of everyone in the Legislature.”

Is there room for negotiation?

“I don’t think there are a lot of willing partners right now,” Gronstal said. “I think we have to have a much more aggressive response than we’ve had so far. I’ll cooperate with people to find a way to do that. “

Gronstal has talked to Vilsack about matching money. “I think he’s indicated that the federal government could be a willing partner with Iowa if we were to make a more significant effort to deal with these challenges,” Gronstal said. He wouldn’t describe the details of his discussion with Vilsack.