Protect Iowa’s Air Quality and Taxpayers’ Dollars.
By Leigh Adcock, IFU
This handout was composed by our lobbyist Judie Hoffman and her college intern Dan Thele, and handed to all legislators last week. Please make contact with YOUR legislators about this bill and tell them you oppose it!
It Is Time For Action, Not Another Study The “Livestock Odor Research and Air Modeling Study” included in HF
2862 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation because it delays
progress in improving Iowa’s air quality. Now is the time when we
should be acting on current scientific findings in order to protect
agricultural workers and those who live in rural Iowa.
Action on Air Quality Needed Now
Research has already been done on cost effective ways to mitigate
odor. Included are better siting methods, and the use of biofilters
and covers on lagoons. Iowa’s taxpayers should not be required to fund
another round of studies on proven technologies when the legislature
has not shown any willingness to act on the information already
gathered from previous studies. Instead we should require producers to
implement what we already know.
Minnesota
has enacted ambient air quality standards that limit hydrogen sulfide
to 0.05 parts per million and is working on limiting ammonia
emissions. Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado regulate sulfur emissions
and emissions of other types.
Health Effects of Gases and Particulates
Emitted From Livestock Operations
Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, two odor causing gases emitted from confined
feedlot operations, are known to cause serious respiratory problems.
The bacteria found within particulates
emitted from livestock operations create lung inflammation that leads to
non-allergic asthma. Twenty-five percent of those who work in confined
feedlot operations have some form of respiratory disease, 10% higher than the United States working
population as a whole.
Conclusion Before Iowa funds another odor study, Iowa Farmers Union
urges you to act on scientific information that has already been
gathered. Regulations should be put on ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
emissions and the health effects of emissions from livestock operations
should be investigated. If this is not done, the proposed study will
amount to little more than a means to further delay action on this
important issue.
Promoting Smart Biofuels Policy at the State Level
By the Progressive States Network
In the search for alternatives to oil, biofuels have emerged as a
promising answer to wean us off our oil addiction. By some estimates,
biofuels could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year, be cost
competitive with gasoline and provide a major source of revenue for
farmers.
However, not all biofuels
are created equal and the rapid rush to develop biofuels is beginning
to show some dangerous trends. Biofuel material is being grown
on protected lands, fuel production is competing with food production,
and recent data seems to indicate that almost all biofuels used today
in the United States cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels when the full emissions costs of producing the biofuel is taken into account.
This Dispatch
looks at some of the problems with biofuel production and how states
can implement smart policy to ensure sustainable biofuel development.
Biofuels
are a type of fuel made from plants and other forms of biomass. The
two main forms of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is made
from a variety of materials, including sugar cane, corn, trees, grass
and even municipal solid waste. Cellulose, which makes up a majority
of a plant's structure, can be broken down into sugars, which can then
be converted into ethanol.
Most of the ethanol produced in the United States is from corn. According to the National Corn Grower's Association, 1.8 billion bushels of corn were used to produce 4.9 billion gallons of renewable fuel. Ethanol production consumes
20% of the corn crop in the U.S. and the new federal energy
legislation, which mandates a doubling of ethanol made from corn, is
predicted to increase that amount to one third of the total corn crop.
Yet, environmentalists are seriously concerned with the heavy dependence on corn-based ethanol.
The
myopic focus on only developing corn-based ethanol is leading our
alternative fuels into a bad direction. Corn-based ethanol is among the
least efficient, most polluting, and overall least sustainable biofuel
feedstock. In contrast, Brazil has been very successful in developing an efficient ethanol source from sugarcane, which, unlike corn in the U.S., has a higher energy return.
The Dependence on Corn: For
starters, growing corn relies on fertilizers and pesticides that are
derived from fossil fuels. Beyond the energy needed to cultivate corn,
ethanol has a tendency to absorb water
so it must be transported by trucks or trains, instead of in the
pipeline system used for oil and gasoline. When all the energy needs
are taken into consideration, each gallon of ethanol takes the
energetic equivalent of about three-quarters of a gallon of ethanol to
produce.
Negative Environmental Consequences: Beyond
the inefficient production process, the potential negative
environmental impacts of corn-ethanol production have begun to be
raised. An alternative fuel policy is certainly desirable, but not if
the environmental consequences begin to outweigh the benefits. An Environmental Defense study
drew attention to the increased water demands from new ethanol plants,
particularly with the construction of new plants in areas with existing
water stress, like the Ogallala Aquifer region, which supports the
majority of agriculture in the southern Great Plains.
Recently, the ability of corn-based ethanol to decrease greenhouse gas emissions has been called into question. A studyScience
looked at the overall effect ethanol production has on greenhouse gas
emissions. The study found that once all the land use implications are
taken into effect, corn-based ethanol actually doubles greenhouse
emissions over 30 years, instead of producing a 20% savings. The study
argues that previous greenhouse emissions savings were calculated
without taking into consideration the emissions from land-use changes.
For exmaple, with more demand for biofuels, farmers will plow up more
forest or grassland, which had previously acted as carbon sinks, releasing the stored carbon into the atmosphere. published in
In addition, another study analyzed
the effect of nitrogen leaching from fertilized corn fields. The
results show that the increase in corn cultivation needed to meet the
renewable fuels goal of the federal energy policy would increase the
amount of dissolved nitrogen in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers
substantially. Excess nitrogen in rivers can be toxic to humans and cause water quality problems.
The problem with a hastily developed ethanol policy is best seen in Iowa, a state known for its active ethanol production. Iowa's increased ethanol production has led to 394 instances in the past few years in which ethanol plants violated regulations meant to protect the health of citizens and their environment. As one of the state's environmental inspectors said, "It's very significant. We anticipated some issues, but were disappointed there were so many issues."
Food versus Fuel: Beyond
the environmental impacts, there is the uncomfortable competition
between growing corn for food and growing corn for fuel. In the rush
to develop the biofuel market, mass subsidies were given to the corn
industry. In 2006, corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7 billion
for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That works out to a subsidy of
$1.45 per gallon of ethanol. In the long term, such a high level of
subsidy makes ethanol use unaffordable. Additionally, it shifts the
incentive for farmers to begin growing corn for fuel instead of for
food.
The problem gets worse. Besides farmers
choosing to grow corn for fuel instead of food, rising demand for corn
increases its costs for consumers. If oil is at $50 a barrel, then
converting corn into ethanol is profitable as long as a bushel of corn
is less than $4. But currently a barrel of oil is twice
that price, which translates into corn ethanol still being profitable
if it trades at almost $8 per bushel. When the price of corn rises, food prices rise and not just in products that directly use corn, but also in indirect products like meat, eggs and milk.
Not all is lost, however. As stated earlier, not all biofuels are
created equal. The key is ensuring that a smart, healthy biofuel
policy is developed and implemented.
Even the studies that harshly criticize corn-based ethanol recognize the need for and potential of other biofuel sources. Some research also argues that the food versus fuel threat is overstated
and the tension can be avoided with smart, sustainable policy that
ensures the health of the soil and water resources and ensures fair
prices for farmers. And, despite all the controversy, it does appear
that there is a net greenhouse gas reduction
from using ethanol last year. States are taking the lead in biofuel
production and development and a few examples are listed below.
Diversifying Ethanol Production: Diversifying
biofuel production is the first step. Cellulosic ethanol, for
instance, is more efficient than corn-based ethanol and cellulose is
more abundant. Cellulose
is the fibrous material that makes up most of plant matter in wheat,
switch grass, corn stalks, rice straw, and even wood chips. Cellulosic
ethanol provides 540% of the energy used to produce it, compared with just 25% more energy returned by corn-based ethanol. The study in Science magazine points to ethanol production from waste products as a way to bypass the problems of ethanol production from food stocks. Waste products can include
sawdust, peanut hulls, sewage sludge, cotton ginning waste, and chicken
litter. Producing ethanol from these sources not only ends the food
versus fuel competition, but also finds a productive way to deal with
waste. This technology has not yet reached commercialization but would
benefit from state support.
Minnesota currently has two bills looking to develop other forms of ethanol. HB 589/SB 480 and HF 2200/SB 2074, among other things, support projects that develop cellulosic ethanol and improve the efficiency of hydrogen.
Virginia's SB 689,
which was signed by the Governor, establishes a grant program for the
development of biofuels and ethanol fuels and expands qualifying
ethanol products to potatoes, cereal grains, whey, sugar beets, forest
products, residue and waste.
North Carolina SB 1451
creates a biodiesel incentive fund that prioritizes grants based on the
amount of North Carolina waste products used in the production of
biodiesel.
FloridaSB 2870 expands the definition of renewable energy resources to include waste products from livestock or poultry operations.
Strengthening Ethanol Delivery Infrastructure: Once
ethanol has been produced, the delivery infrastructure must be in place
to ensure that people can actually use and have access to ethanol.
Iowa has two bills that look to increase renewable fuel distribution and use. HF 2247 provides for motor fuel pumps which dispense renewable fuel. HF 2632 provides for, among other things, infrastructure associated with storing, blending, and dispensing renewable fuel.
Arizona is also looking to establish a Biofuels Conversion Program within the state's Department of Energy to convert existing and future equipment at motor fuel dispensing sites so that they will be able to dispense biofuels.
Hawaii's HB 3179
expands the definition of "renewable energy producer" to include
growers and producers of organic materials used primarily for the
production of biofuels or other fuels, so that they will be eligible
for direct leases of public land. This not only encourages production
of biofuels, but also removes any potential bias against biofuel
development by allowing access to leases of public land.
Illinois has introduced HB 5855,
the Renewable Energy Sources Act, to provide for the interconnection of
eligible electric generators with the distribution systems of electric
utilities. Electric generators include renewable energy sources, like
hydroelectric power, landfill gas or sewage treatment gas, biomass or
biogas, geothermal energy plants, wind-powered plants and solar powered
plants. This will make it easier for renewable energy electricity to
be distributed throughout the state.
Providing Incentives to Encourage Ethanol Use: There are several levels at which states can provide incentives for ethanol use.
Some can be as simple as New York's AB 9051, which provides a tax credit for the purchase of an alternative fuel or hybrid car.
Others are more involved, such as Connecticut's SB 261, which provides tax credits for households that install alternative energy-based heating and cooling systems in their homes.
Finding money to support production development is not always easy. Virginia did it through SB 444,
which increased the state motor fuels tax rate by $0.02 per gallon with
half of the revenue deposited into the Biofuels Production Fund to give grants for biofuels production. States can also practice what they preach and mandate biofuel use for their own uses.
KentuckyHB 529
requires state-owned vehicles capable of using ethanol, biodiesel or
other biofuels to refuel with such biofuels whenever available.
Wisconsin's AB 936 would have also required state-owner or leased trucks to use biofuels, but the measure failed to pass the Senate.
Biofuels policies are complex. The urgency and excitement surrounding
renewable energy can result in oversight of negative environmental
consequences if policy is not designed to encourage the most
energy-efficient versions of biofuels. Ensuring that biofuels are
developed in a sustainable manner will lead to long-term gains and
finally help wean us off our oil addiction.
Rally for Conservation! By Lynn Laws, Communications Director, Iowa Environmental Council
Join others at the Statehouse on April 9!
Please join other Iowans for a rally at the statehouse, in Des Moines, on April 9, to advocate in support of SJR-2002, the bill to establish a constitutionally-protected trust fund for natural resouces and outdoor recreation in Iowa.
For many years, Iowa has failed to commit the funds necessary to protect and enhance Iowa's natural resources and outdoor recreation opportunities. There are serious unmet needs before Iowa will have healthy water, land and wildlife.
This bill, SJR 2002 (formerly SSB 3250), is an important initial step helping us reverse this trend. It begins the process of establishing a trust fund to protect our natural resources and invest in outdoor recreation by amending Iowa's constitution to guarantee that revenue generated by the next 3/8 of one cent increase in Iowa's sales tax must be dedicated to protect and enhance water quality, natural areas, including parks and trails, fish and wildlife habitat, and soil conservation.
The fund would be constitutionally protected in the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, audited annually and cannot be spent for any other purpose.
SJR 2002 is the result of two years of research and study led by bi-partisan members of the Iowa legislature along with many of the state's leading conservation, environmental, sportsmen, and agriculture advocates.
It is important to understand what this legislation does and what it doesn't do...
What it does • It ensures that IF the legislature raises the sales tax, 3/8 of a cent must be dedicated to enhancing our state's natural resources
What it doesn't do • This bill does not raise taxes, nor does it give voters the ability to raise the sales tax-only the legislature can do that. • Even if this constitutional amendment is adopted, only the legislature can approve the sales tax increase that would be needed to provide funding
This constitutional amendment is a promise to Iowans of healthier water quality and wildlife and a top-notch system of parks and trails. It's our promise that Iowa's natural resources will be here for future generations. I hope you can join us at the rally.
Rally participants must first meet in the auditorium of the State Historical Bldg., at 9:30 a.m., April 9, to receive information and to talk about how to discuss this bill with Legislators. After that, we'll go up the Hill to the Capitol so that folks can speak face to face with their Representatives. It would be great to have folks from all 100 House districts. We are hoping to involve a minimum of 200 Iowans----the more the better.
If you are unable to get to Des Moines for the morning, please consider calling your Representative that day to encourage him or her to support this legislation.
URGENT -- Your call or email needed TODAY: Funding for Natural Resources Facing Stiff Opposition in Iowa HouseBy Leigh Adcock
Take Action!
Please Call or Email Your Representative Today!
SJR 2002, a bill which establishes a trust fund to protect our natural resources and invest in outdoor recreation, passed the House Natural Resources Committee on March 24, and will be up for a vote in the House as early as Wednesday, March 26. Your calls, emails and letters to your Representatives are needed NOW.
For many years, Iowa has failed to commit the funds necessary to protect and enhance Iowa's natural resources and outdoor recreation opportunities. There are serious unmet needs before Iowa will have healthy water, land and wildlife.
This bill, SJR 2002, is an important initial step helping us reverse this trend. It establishes a trust fund to protect our natural resources and invest in outdoor recreation by amending Iowa's constitution to guarantee that revenue generated by the next 3/8 of one cent increase in Iowa's sales tax must be dedicated to protect and enhance water quality, natural areas including parks and trails, fish and wildlife habitat, and soil conservation.
The fund would be constitutionally protected in the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, audited annually and cannot be spent for any other purpose.
SJR 2002 is the result of two years of research and study led by bi-partisan members of the Iowa legislature along with many of the state's leading conservation, environmental, sportsmen, and agriculture advocates.
It is important to understand what this legislation does and what it doesn't do... What it does * It ensures that IF the legislature raises the sales tax, 3/8 of a cent must be dedicated to enhancing our state's natural resources What it doesn't do * This bill does not raise taxes, nor does it give voters the ability to raise the sales tax-only the legislature can do that. * Even if this constitutional amendment is adopted, only the legislature can approve the sales tax increase that would be needed to provide funding
This bill was has already passed the Senate, but is facing stiff opposition in the House. Please call or email your representative today and tell him or her that this constitutional amendment is a promise to Iowans of healthier water quality and wildlife and a top-notch system of parks and trails. It's our promise that Iowa's natural resources will be here for future generations.
Let’s Be Number One: Improving Iowa’s Utility-Run Energy Efficiency ProgramsBy Andrew Johnson and Teresa Galluzzo, The Iowa Policy Project
Electricity is such an integral part of our lives that we may rarely give a thought to the number of things we plug in and turn on each day. Now, however, thinking about our electricity use is vital. Our spiraling consumption of energy from fossil fuel sources is seriously affecting our climate and our pocketbooks.
This report describes Iowa’s electrical consumption and production and focuses on the role energy efficiency (EE) can and must play in Iowa’s future. It describes Iowa’s laudable efforts to invest in EE through utility-run programs and make suggestions for how to effectively carry these efforts further.
Iowa’s Electricity Consumption Iowa’s electricity sales per capita are higher than the nation’s, our neighboring states, and states that are leaders in EE. Without aggressive action, this will likely remain the case, because our consumption has also been growing faster than each of these other groups of states. From 2000 to 2006, Iowa’s retail sales of electricity increased by an average of 1.5 percent. The nation’s average growth was 0.2 percent, Iowa’s neighboring states averaged 1.2 percent, and leading EE states averaged 0.3 percent.
Iowa’s Electricity Production Coal is Iowa’s primary source of electricity generation. In 2006, more than 75 percent of Iowa’s electricity was generated from burning coal. Iowa is considerably more dependent on coal than the rest of the nation; the national average was 49 percent. In recent years Iowa has diversified its power sources. Although still a small portion of our electricity production, renewable sources have been a major growth spot in our generation mix. The Role of Energy Efficiency at the State Level
Iowa’s electricity demand is forecasted to continue increasing. But the realities of fossil fuel costs and climate change mean Iowa needs to reduce its electricity use from fossil fuel sources. Expanding our EE investments can have large, nearly immediate and economically beneficial impacts.
Iowa was an early leader in EE. In 1990 Iowa passed a landmark law requiring the state’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to offer EE programs for all types of customers: residential, commercial and industrial. The law also requires Iowa’s municipal electric utilities (Munis) and rural electric cooperatives (RECs) to offer EE programs to their customers, but these programs do not have to be reviewed or approved. In 2006, the IOUs’ programs yielded a 0.8 percent retail energy savings, the Munis saved 0.15 percent and the RECs saved 0.6 percent.
Electric Utilities Energy Efficiency Efforts (2006) Iowa’s long tradition of EE is a significant and proud accomplishment. However, Iowa is not meeting some of its stated efficiency goals. The 2001 Energy Policy Task Force convened by then-Governor Tom Vilsack, had the goal of meeting all of Iowa’s future energy demand by increasing EE rather than increasing supply. More recently Governor Culver signed the Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform, calling for meeting at least 2 percent of annual retail sales of natural gas and electricity through EE improvements by 2015 and an additional 2 percent annual savings thereafter. Similarly, the legislatively appointed 2007 Energy Efficiency Study Committee suggested increasing annual energy savings to 1.5 percent of retail sales by 2012.
Due to recent lack of federal action on EE, states across the nation are increasing their EE efforts. Overall, states are spending about three times as much as the federal government on efficiency programs. Some of Iowa’s neighboring states in particular have become leaders, outpacing our efforts. Minnesota, which has an electrical system similar to Iowa’s, not only spends more than Iowa on efficiency efforts per capita, but in 2006 Governor Tim Pawlenty called for 1.5 percent per year savings of electric sales, 1 percent of which must come from EE.
Given Iowa’s yet unmet efficiency goals and the fact that states are increasing their efforts and providing us with examples of big EE accomplishments, Iowa needs to seize this opportunity to become an even more energy efficient state. To do this, we must first address shortcomings in our existing programs.
Shortcomings in Iowa’s Utility-Based EE Efforts • Programs are Confusing, Inconsistent and Not Universally Available Each of Iowa’s 183 electric utilities runs its own EE programs with a separate set of offerings. As a result, Iowa’s EE effort is sorely lacking in comprehensiveness. Many of the EE measures with the greatest potential for savings are unavailable to many Iowans. If available, utilities’ energy audits are not comprehensive or standard. Financial assistance and advice is generally available only for efficiency upgrades that pertain to the type of energy provided by the utility. For example, gas utilities do not provide compact fluorescent light bulbs. • Utilities’ Duplication of Program Administration Costs Money Each of Iowa’s utilities is charged with developing, promoting, administering and evaluating its own EE programs. There is significant duplication of effort, and therefore a great deal of potential cost savings. Iowa’s two electric IOUs spent an average of 27 percent of their total efficiency spending on costs other than EE incentives. More than 50 percent of Munis’ and RECs’ spending was not for incentives. • Utilities Do Not Have Incentive to Push EE There is an inherent conflict of interest when a utility is required to encourage its customers to buy less electricity (and hence reduce revenue), and yet is also expected to lead in developing innovative and increasingly effective ways to maximize those lost sales. This fundamental conflict has caused many states to take different approaches to the administration of state-level EE programs such as third-party private or public administration or a regional administration. Others have rewarded utilities for meeting higher EE goals. • Utilities and State Policy Fail to Prioritize EE Traditionally, growing electricity demand has been met through increasing supply. Recently, some states have turned to demand-side management to offset demand growth. These states have begun to think of EE as a resource and planned for acquiring efficiency rather than generation. Iowa’s utilities do not treat EE as a resource on par with supply resources. Iowa does not have a statewide EE resource standard nor a requirement that utilities take advantage of cost-effective EE potential. And there is no requirement that Iowa utilities first acquire efficiency potential before pursuing supply-side resources to meet future power demands. • Misplaced Emphasis on Peak Load Management Load management is designed to reduce peak load use during the few times when energy demand is high and delivery system reliability is in jeopardy. In 2006, Iowa IOUs spent over $35 million on electric load management, significantly more than any of the other 20 states that implement load management. Load management is an important component of utility planning efforts, and effective programs save both utility and ratepayer dollars. However, load management likely fails to reduce overall energy use or greenhouse gas emissions, and can actually increase both. It also seriously bloats our efficiency spending per capita, ballooning the overall size/cost of the program and making it difficult to place reasonable expectations on improvement and growth in the true efficiency programs. Whereas load response provides economic savings but little, if any, energy savings, EE can provide both quite effectively.
The deficiencies in these programs are reflected in the smaller amount of EE savings Iowa has achieved compared to leading states. In 2000 and 2001 top EE states were achieving electrical EE savings of 0.7 percent to 2 percent of retail sales. During the same period Iowa achieved 0.4 percent annual savings. In recent years, increased spending has brought Iowa’s IOUs savings up substantially to 0.8 percent. However, other states are now aggressively moving toward 1.5 percent to 2 percent annual savings.
Recommendations Iowa has the potential to move beyond these shortcomings, and more efficiently invest in its EE programs so that our state realizes its true efficiency potential. Other states across the country, including our neighbors are making big strides and Iowa should too. Other states’ experiences demonstrate that greatest progress in statewide efficiency programs come with some form of third-party administration. We recommend the current rate surcharge be replaced by a uniform public benefits charge on all ratepayers, and the bulk of the resulting public benefits fund be used to establish a third-party, comprehensive, statewide energy efficiency program.
We recommend directing a percentage (starting at 10 percent and rising over time) of the public benefits fund towards a coordinated, guided matching grant program for local (countywide) EE initiatives to harness the power of local creativity, community pride, economic self-interest and personal responsibility.
In addition, we recommend Iowa’s leaders think boldly and establish policies that meet the following principles: • Align EE, renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals with utility financial interests through legislative and administrative actions. • Provide universal and comprehensive EE and renewable energy programs and services to all Iowa residents through a public benefits fund created from sales on all energy sources. • Treat EE as a resource in an integrated resource planning process, establish aggressive EE and renewable energy standards, and require all cost-effective EE and renewable energy be acquired prior to new fossil fuel generation. • Set aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals, and incorporate them into all energy-related planning and programs, including peak load management programs and the prioritization and cost-benefit analyses for statewide EE. • Ensure just and fair policy effects and implementation across the economic spectrum.
For the full report, see www.iowapolicyproject.org The Iowa Policy Project was founded in 2001 to promote public policy that fosters economic opportunity while safeguarding the health and well-being of Iowa’s people and the environment. By providing a foundation of fact-based, objective research and engaging the public in an informed discussion of policy alternatives, IPP advances accountable, effective and fair government.
The Iowa Policy Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. Contributions are tax-deductible. For more information, see our website or call (319) 338-0773.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Dedicate Funding for Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources By The Iowa Environmental Council
For many years, Iowa has failed to commit the funds necessary to truly protect and enhance Iowa’s natural resources and outdoor recreation opportunities. Serious needs must be met before Iowa will have healthy water, land and wildlife.
For two years, we’ve been involved in research and study led by bi-partisan members of the Iowa legislature along with many of the state’s leading conservation, environmental, sportsmen, and agriculture advocates. IFU board member Marvin Shirley of Minburn has attended these meetings and given input from the viewpoint of family farmers.
Senate Joint Resolution 2002 reflects this committee’s unanimous recommendation for providing essential, stable state funding for natural resources.
This bill begins the process to amend Iowa’s constitution to guarantee that revenue generated by the next 3/8 of one cent increase in Iowa’s sales tax must be dedicated to protect and enhance:
o Water quality,
o Natural areas including parks and trails,
o Fish and wildlife habitat, and
o Conserving agricultural soils.
This funding would be constitutionally protected in the “Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund.” The Fund must be audited annually and cannot be spent for any other purpose.
The trust fund would provide funds for the work of many state and local conservation agencies as well as non-profits.
It is important to understand what this legislation does and what it doesn’t do:
o This bill DOES start the process to ensure that IF the legislature raises the sales tax, the first 3/8 of a cent must be dedicated to enhancing our state’s natural resources
o This bill DOES NOT raise taxes, nor does it give voters the ability to raise the sales tax—only the legislature can do that. Even if this constitutional amendment is adopted, only the legislature can approve the sales tax increase that would be needed to provide funding
If you’d like to support this measure, here’s what’s needed:
SJR 2002 passed the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee unanimously last week. It will soon be eligible for debate by the full Senate.
You can contact your state Senator now and ask for their vote. A sample note is below.
Please REPLY to this email to let us know if you contact your Senator and what response you receive. The coalition promoting this measure is trying to track results. After passage by the Senate, the bill will be considered by the House Natural Resources Committee. The committee members are listed at http://www3.legis.state.ia.us/ga/committee.do?id=28 . You can contact them to express your support.
These are just first steps in a long process. If the measure passes the Iowa Legislature this year, it must also pass again next year and then approved by voters statewide before it becomes part of the Iowa constitution.
To remain active in this process, please go to the Iowa Environmental Council website at www.iaenvironment.org:
- Choose the “I-CALL” icon on the left navigation bar (blue), then “Join Our Action Network” to sign up for action alerts as the legislation progresses plus alerts on other conservation funding measures.
- The I-CALL page also has a handy tool to help you identify and contact your Iowa senator and representative from your district.
Continuing, fresh news on the progress of this legislation can be found at http://www.iaenvironment.org/conservationspending.php.
To see the text of SJR 2002, use the search function found at http://www.legis.state.ia.us under “Track Legislation.”
The link may take you directly to the bill’s text:
Sample note to your legislators:
Dear Senator/Representative,
Please support SJR 2002 to dedicate funding for Iowa’s natural resources. The bill was approved unanimously by the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee and soon will be eligible for debate in the Iowa Senate.
SJR 2002 creates a constitutionally protected Natural Resource and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund.
It is critical that Iowa improve its water quality, provide natural areas including parks and trails, protect fish and wildlife habitat and conserve precious soils.
For two years, a bipartisan committee created by the legislature that includes Iowa’s leading agriculture, outdoor, wildlife, and natural resources advocates studied needs and options. They unanimously recommend dedication of 3/8 cent of the next sales tax increase for Iowa’s natural resources.
This constitutional amendment is our promise to Iowans of healthier water quality and wildlife and a top-notch system of parks and trails.
Your support of this measure this year is critical. This is so important to Iowa and our future — and so important to me as an Iowan.
After
a short hiatus, Iowa Global Warming is back to work and starting our
2008 campaign. After a successful 2007, in which most of the
presidential candidates took increasingly strong positions on global
warming, we are expanding our work to include state and local policies
as well. Our goals are:
- To get people involved as effectively and easily as possible, even if you only have a minute to give.
- To create a 'buzz' for global warming solutions through public events, word of mouth and media attention.
- To provide opportunities to get together, meet new people and have fun.
- And most importantly to make sure that our elected officials make global warming solutions a priority!
In that spirit, you are invited to Iowa Global Warmings official campaign kickoff on St. Patrick's Day - 'You don't have to be Irish to go Green'. Free admission to see 'Leonardo DiCaprios The 11th Hour'. For more info on the film go to the website: www.11thHourFilm.com
Details: The 11th
Hour global warming documentary produced and narrated by Leonardo
DiCaprio. Monday, March 17 from 6:30 9:00 pm @ Billy Joes Picture
Show, 1701 25th St., West Des Moines. Free Admission, Free Appetizers, Free Popcorn and Beverages. Food and Drink Specials.
Iowa
Global Warming is here to help; so if you have a question or want to
get involved, please give us a call or send us an email. We will always
try to get back to you as soon as possible. And of course, you can
visit our website: www.iowaglobalwarming.org
Thank you for your support of our campaign. We're looking forward to a great year of making Global Warming Solutions a priority!
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
