Land-locked states, by their nature, miss out on the fun an ocean might offer. What’s missed in salty spray and golden sand is replaced by lakes and rivers. These natural resources belong to the public and deserve proper attention.
Yet Iowa’s waterways are among the most polluted in the United States. Runoff from agriculture fills the lakes and rivers of the state with pesticides, nitrates, and other chemical agents. The state is also the largest contributor to the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico, a dead, toxic area in the sea roughly the size of New Jersey.
Large-scale agriculture is the problem, and poisonous waters are a symptom. There are treatments, but they’ve been underused. Systemic under-spending on agriculture and water-system development has been a staple of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s budget. Iowa spends less than 1 percent on natural-resource development, a rate among the lowest in the nation.
Branstad has consistently vetoed and slashed proposals to invest in water quality and development. The issue found some salience in 2014 after the EPA reported on the contamination of Iowa water. The League of Women Voters of Iowa made water safety its priority that year, and a coalition of supporters pushed a significant bill to the table. The bill, REAP, was slashed to a third of its size by Branstad, a move that ensured no lasting or meaningful development could occur.
Two years after the veto frenzy, Branstad is putting water-quality development on his new year’s to-do list. And in Branstad fashion, the plan is controversial. The proposal would pull in billions for developing Iowa’s waterways through 2049 via an extension on a 1 cent state sale tax. The controversy exists because the tax already in place is used to fund Iowa schools.
The governor has a lackluster record in educational funding, and Iowa public schools have had their budgets consistently under-adjusted for inflation. This year, a 3 to 4 percent increase would help Iowa public schools keep up with growing class sizes and market inflation. The current proposal is a 2.45 percent increase, which is a better start than this year’s abysmal 1.25 percent increase. Iowa City schools have estimated a 6 percent is necessary, and they warn that class sizes will be larger because of the lack of resources.
Spending on natural-resource development needs to be a priority. We need to keep Iowa’s water clean for drinking and for enjoying during our hot summer days. It’s imperative that we protect the environment. But we shouldn’t sacrifice investment in education, and we don’t have to. Public education is an investment in the natural resource of the citizen. Strong public schools will keep Iowa competitive, attracting new families and strengthening those here.
The Daily Iowan Editorial Board is happy to see the Branstad administration finally addressing Iowa’s water-quality problem. The current proposal is unacceptable, however, and revenue for public schools should be increased, not undermined.