You wouldn’t leave a wolf to guard your flock of sheep. However, moving the responsibility of monitoring Iowa’s water quality from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship would be doing just that.
Senate File 500 would transfer the control of watershed improvements and federal Clean Water Act programs out of the DNR as well in addition to water quality monitoring. The original bill, House File 643, that spurned this controversy died during the first funnel week in the Senate. It only adds to the need for discussion about Iowa’s waters and how they should be taken care of.
The move, if adopted, would create a devastating conflict of interest that could further harm water quality, wildlife and natural resources across the board. The DNR’s work in this area is also a crucial part of the recovery that has barely arrived after the 2008 floods.
Climate change in Iowa is being discussed all over the state, including special coverage by the Des Moines Register. The water quality debate is central to that issue, which needs to be considered by all parties involved in the state of Iowa’s water. The Farm Bureau’s approval of the bill does not mean that discussion should stop here.
Farmers need to be a part of the talks, but conservationists do as well. Moving control of the programs to the Department of Agriculture would harm the chances for progress and continue to polarize the debate. This state doesn’t need talking points and continuous inaction, it needs cooperation and progress.
Water quality in Iowa is already at an all-time low. In fact, earlier this month the DNR released a new water quality map, which showed that there is one or more impaired waterway in each county statewide. Iowa is also among the top contributors to the Gulf of Mexico’s “Dead Zone,” according to the U.S. Geological Survey. So we aren’t just harming our own watersheds, we’re harming the South’s as well.
While Iowa’s waterways are in dire need of assistance and improvement, the funding for conservation programs is on the chopping block and the program control could be handed over to one with opposite goals.
“Considering we have over 90 percent of Iowa’s acres in some form of farm production [and] that our economy is tied to soil and water and our land. Then I really think that’s a mistake in priorities as far as the state budget is concerned,” said Mark Langgin, of Iowa’s Water and Land Legacy, to KCCI.
This evidence shows a certain political disdain for environmental protection in a state that needs it more than many realize. Iowa is a recreational state that requires a healthy and livable outdoors. The DNR even provides online beach water quality tracking to ensure Iowans have easy access to information about recreational opportunities in their local water bodies.
This is what makes Senate File 500 so frustrating. The DNR is trying to do its job and the Department of Agriculture does not need any new responsibilities. The discussion of water quality in this state should continue to progress with all involved parties coming to the table for compromise.
We need to have this debate in a fair and logical manner that kicks politics to the curb. The quality of our land, air and especially water is not something that should be used as a campaign talking point. It is a crucial issue that all Iowans have a stake in. Before making any drastic changes, the legislature needs to start treating this issue like a discussion about a public good. Our environment is not a liberal darling, it’s something we all use and care about.
Brynne Schweigel 