Dubuque Telegraph Herald. March 31, 2024.
Editorial: Iowa still facing water-quality challenges
Even though some area waterways in this neck of the woods have a chance to be removed from Iowa’s list of impaired waters, the state has a long way to go to mark real improvement in water quality.
A portion of the Mississippi River between Guttenberg and Dubuque and a portion of Whitewater Creek that runs from Jones County into Dubuque County are among the 97 segments of Iowa waterways that are candidates for removal from the federally mandated list of polluted, or “impaired,” waters.
The two waterways would be removed from the impaired list upon approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Iowa officials are accepting public comments on the state’s proposed list through April 12.
One comment the state should hear is simple: Do more.
E. coli was found in segments of the following area waters: Catfish Creek, North Fork Catfish Creek, South Fork Catfish Creek, Middle Fork Catfish Creek, Maquoketa River, North Fork Maquoketa River, Middle Fork Little Maquoketa River, Whitewater Creek, Granger Creek, Tete des Morts Creek, Lux Creek, Roberts Creek, Dry Mill Creek, Turkey River and Bloody Run Creek. A fish kill caused by ammonia was recorded in an unnamed tributary to the North Fork Maquoketa River, the list states. Loss of aquatic mussel species was confirmed by the DNR in John’s Creek north of Cascade and Plum Creek near Earlville. Low aquatic macroinvertebrates, which indicates low water quality, was reported in the Little Maquoketa River, Middle Fork Little Maquoketa River, Hickory Creek, Cloie Branch, Buck Creek and Miners Creek.
While overall the list notes a net decrease of 21 water segments impaired across Iowa, still more than half of the rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs sampled were designated as impaired. These are waterways that kids play in and people fish in and kayaks skim.
It’s important that Iowa officials seek opportunities to strengthen water quality efforts. Instead, the Iowa House of Representatives proposed legislation in February that would eliminate water management authorities’ ability to assess water quality in their watersheds and take away funding for water quality projects from the authorities.
There are solutions that could work for farmers and improve water quality. Polk County is leading a local, state and federal partnership to build saturated buffers and bioreactors. The structures are said to be one of the most effective ways to keep nitrogen and other runoff out of Iowa’s waterways.
The DNR has seen success with its Watershed Improvement program and wants citizen help to keep the positive momentum going. The DNR program provides assistance on how to start a water quality effort and seek grant opportunities.
Iowa needs more such efforts. Six years ago, the first legislation of 2018 signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds was a water-quality measure, something the Iowa governor was proud to support. Its backers hoped the legislation would set a higher bar for water quality. Though it finally was on the books, its critics complained there wasn’t enough money or enough teeth in the bill.
Iowa needs to further compel landowners’ compliance with clean-water initiatives. The state must establish benchmark goals and monitor progress to get a real handle on whether water quality is improving.
Iowans cannot expect the state’s water quality to improve overnight. But citizens should demand incremental progress over time.
___
Daily Nonpareil. March 30, 2024.
Editorial: Show caution in restricting future action
No one likes paying taxes.
Voters sent representatives to Des Moines in no small part to find ways to curb government spending and limit how much each of us is asked to contribute to funding the essential services that make up our society.
Statehouse Republicans have been meeting that expectation. But taxes are a tricky issue because what one person considers a luxury might be critical for someone else. Just how important is, say, the Iowa Public Information Board?
One proposal that advanced in the Iowa House this week would call for voters to enshrine a constitutional amendment carrier a barrier for future lawmakers who might seek to raise income taxes on individuals and corporations. The bill comes as GOP lawmakers are looking to bring down and eventually eliminate the income tax altogether.
House Joint Resolution 2006, if adopted by two successive General Assemblies and by a majority of voters in a general election, would amend the Iowa Constitution to require a two-thirds majority to pass future income tax raises.
Sen. Dan Dawson, R-Council Bluffs, chair of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, introduced the measure alongside his counterpart in the House, Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton. It was initially proposed alongside a flat tax proposal, which has been split into Senate Joint Resolution 2003.
Kaufmann argues that 17 other states have similar measures, including Democratic-led states like California, Washington and Delaware, according to reporting by the Iowa Capital Dispatch. He says the “the sky did not fall” in those states, and he’s right.
We don’t think this proposal becoming enshrined in the Iowa Constitution would be an awful outcome for the state. But we also don’t think it’s a good idea.
Setting a higher bar for future legislative sessions should be done with caution.
The proposal would ensure that so long as income tax opponents can keep a sizable presence, far less than a majority, they can essentially veto tax policy proposed by a majority of their colleagues. Imagine if the Democratic Party had such a tool to prevent tax cuts in the current session.
Advocates for the constitutional amendment seem to be coming from a place that’s summed up, perhaps a little simplistically, with the mantra: “Taxes are bad.”
But the government services they fund aren’t, at least on the whole. And the options for raising money as a state or local government are fairly limited and don’t include the federal government’s right to print more money.
Sales taxes and property taxes have their drawbacks, and opponents. Even if you’re in favor of eliminating the income tax, there’s a difference between setting the rate at zero and seeking to prevent its implementation altogether.
To be clear, the constitutional amendment wouldn’t bar an income tax hike or reinstatement. But it would create a barrier that makes such raises unlikely, with no corresponding check against lowering that source of revenue.
Future lawmakers, and the future Iowans they represent, might end up wishing they didn’t have their hands tied. We think it’s best to leave them the choice.
END