A last shot for conservation
2015 is the critical year for a victory almost a decade in the making
THIS YEAR, I’m putting my money where my mouth is on the future of my state by making a year-end gift to a conservation organization. My gift makes parks, trails and open areas more enjoyable. It ensures safe drinking water for tens of thousands. It protects our globally significant topsoil from destruction. It will help us be resilient in the face of a changing climate, and that isn’t all it will do.
This is real. The (digital) check to the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation is in the mail. But don’t be too proud of me—the amount is surprisingly small, and I anticipate giving even less in future years. To be precise, the gift is just a bit over 0.375% of my income, far less than a dollar for each day of the year.
If you can, figure out that sum for your situation and hold it in your mind. Let’s talk about why it matters.
THE AMOUNT you’re thinking of symbolizes your maximum potential contribution to Iowa’s Natural Resource and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, if you spent all your annual earnings on things subject to Iowa’s sales tax, which you do not do. (For example, food is not subject to sales tax, and you probably do not spend all of your money each year.)
Hopefully, you’re familiar with this fund. Fully 63% of Iowans voted to create the trust fund in 2010, but that was the first step. Now, the legislature must pass a 3/8 cent sales tax increase to “fund the fund” with well over $120 million each year. When they do, the Iowa constitution guarantees the funds will be used “for the purposes of protecting and enhancing water quality and natural areas in this state including parks, trails, and fish and wildlife habitat, and conserving agricultural soils in this state.”
Under state law, each year state agencies who would administer the fund bring forward a long list of things the money could accomplish which they update each year. Tantalizingly, funds will repair long-neglected park facilities and develop needed trails and recreational infrastructure, enhancing our enjoyment of the outdoors.
As someone who utilizes Iowa’s parks and trails frequently, for me, improved infrastructure would be great. But my interest in conservation is also bound up in a larger purpose: Like so many who live here, my own family’s history—and the opportunities and prosperity we enjoy today—grew from the phenominal productive capacity of Iowa’s land.
All these benefits bring with them a stewardship responsiblity for this landscape. My voluntary contribution to the the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation this year and (hopefully) tax contributions in future years pale in comparison to the benefits we have all received from this land.
“Funding the fund” is a common sense way to protect places we care about.
BUT SUPPORTING THE TRUST FUND THIS YEAR is more than a matter of the heart. Lately, state leaders have proven their skill at proposing new initiatives for conservation progress, some of which are backed by improvements in conservation science. But without funding for implementation, these new efforts to protect soil and water cannot succeed. By fiscal, political, and practical measures, the trust fund is Iowa’s best immediate hope to spur conservation efforts on millions of acres needed to address the state’s chronic water pollution problems.
Iowa requires, by some estimates, more than a billion dollars in annual investment in conservation to achieve existing clean water goals. If the legislature raises the sales tax as proposed, their action would put the public on the hook for about 10¢ on the dollar of that gap; responsibility for the rest of that investment would remain with private landowners. Because many Iowa conservation programs require that private dollars match public dollars, the trust fund will have the ability to leverage some of those additional private dollars.
It is true that even then, a gap will remain, and there are other weaknesses of the trust fund’s approach. But none of the policy options available for conservation are perfect.
Many have called for additional direct regulation of agriculture, including mandatory conservation practices. With so much at stake, it seems clear that at some level, conservation action is not an option, but a requirement. Yet regulatory options have proven politically untenable and are difficult to design and enforce. And choosing enhanced regulatory options would not free us from the challenges and costs of implementation.
Others decry the need for any action by government, saying improving technologies in the seed or the tractor’s cab will raise the efficiency of agriculture to the point where natural resource problems will fade. Here too, some truth exists, but advances in technology have brought their own waves of controversy, and natural processes are highly resistent to control.
Iowans believe in compromise, and in pragmatism, and we know problem solving is a process. No one solution—money, a stronger rule book, or technological change—will ever perfect conservation on every acre. But critically, the fact that these choices are complicated must not dissuade us from taking action. Erosion continues. Drinking water safety is balanced on a knife’s edge. More extreme weather is upending what predictability we thought we had.
When the next legislature leaves Des Moines in 2016, the effort to create and fund Iowa’s trust fund will have stretched to a decade. If we ignore what is possible now in favor of perfect answers to the conservation question, too much momentum will be lost; we will lose our chance.
THE PREVIOUS LEGISLATURE made progress on this issue, discussing ways to raise sales tax while reducing other taxes, a “revenue neutral” option. They actually passed record funding for conservation, but it fell to the Governor’s veto pen. These steps encourage hope, but they also try our patience.
For those interested in this debate, remaining committed to the cause has been an incredible endurance test, yet each passing year heightens the urgency of this moment. Becoming involved with conservation organizations active on this issue and speaking out about it publicly are two small ways to rise to this occasion, but these actions matter.
Just the same way my own contribution through the sales tax is small compared to what the trust fund can achieve, I hope using my voice in this debate can join with others to encourage larger action. This is because I know that funding the fund is our generation’s chance — and responsibility — to do something meaningful on this vital issue. Acting together, it is finally time for us to secure this victory and the progress it represents for protecting this state, our home. I hope we will.
