Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad on Jan. 5 announced a proposal that would extend a school infrastructure sales tax in the state for 20 years, but the revenue generated by the tax would be shared between schools and water quality programs aimed at cleaning up nitrate pollution and nutrient runoff.
The proposal, which requires legislative approval, comes nearly one year after the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) utility announced its intention to sue three neighboring counties for violating the Clean Water Act by polluting the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers with high levels of nitrates from farm runoff (GM Jan. 19, 2015).
Branstad, who was joined by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack in making the announcement, said the one-cent sales tax would be extended from 2020 to 2049, with the first $10 million in new revenue each year going to schools and the remainder to water quality programs. Branstad said the proposal “is probably the biggest and boldest” he’s ever made during his 20-plus years as Iowa’s governor, and would generate $7.5 million for water quality programs in the first year and $4.7 billion over the next 32 years.
The proposal was criticized by several Iowa democrats who objected to the diversion of funds earmarked for schools, and by William Stowe, CEO and general manager of DMWW. In a Jan. 9 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Stowe said the proposal “extends the myth that cleaning up Iowa’s polluted waters is the public’s obligation, not the polluter’s obligation. More ribbon cuttings for uncoordinated publicly funded projects without specific agricultural accountability for abating agricultural pollution of Iowa’s waters will not protect the public health and environment of Iowa.”
DMWW reported in early January that it operated its nitrate removal equipment for a record 177 days in 2015 to provide safe drinking water for Des Moines residents, at a cost of $1.5 million. The previous record was 106 days in 1999, DMWW said.
DMWW’s lawsuit against the boards of supervisors for Sac, Buena Vista, and Calhoun counties charges that the elevated nitrate levels are caused by the “extensive system of drainage infrastructure,” or field tiles, used on fertilized farmland in these districts, which “quickly transport nitrate by groundwater to the nearest waterway, bypassing natural absorption and de-nitrification processes that would otherwise protect the watersheds.”
The suit has been criticized by opponents as an attack on agriculture, and represents a pivotal test for the Clean Water Act’s provision that exempts agriculture as a non-point source polluter. Both state and national organizations have weighed in on the case (GM March 16, 2015), including the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, numerous state crop and livestock associations, and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI).
Federal Judge Mark Bennet on Jan. 12 filed an order sending key questions in the case to the Iowa Supreme Court, citing the “novelty” of the DMWW’s legal arguments. Bennet wrote that he feels “the interests of the parties and the public are best served” with rulings from the Iowa Supreme Court on whether the 10 drainage districts cited in the lawsuit are immune from damages and cannot be forced to pay DMWW’s costs to remove excess nitrates.