New Iowa Minimum Wage Takes Effect: Workers Receive Pay Increase Sunday; Other Policy Options Also Could Help
By the Iowa Policy Project
On Sunday, Iowa becomes the 29th state with a state minimum wage higher than the federal level.
“This
increase is long overdue for low-income families in Iowa,” said David
Osterberg, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.
“The wage has remained at $5.15 for almost 10 years — and remains there
at the federal level.
“Iowa lawmakers and the governor have
given low-wage workers a chance to make ends meet. As our research has
shown, Iowa’s new minimum wage will ultimately help 257,000 workers and
their families build better lives.”
The law passed this year in
the Legislature and signed by Gov. Chet Culver increases the wage by
$2.10 in two steps, to $6.20 on Sunday, and to $7.25 on Jan. 1, 2008.
“We
kept hearing that Iowa should wait for Congress to act,” Osterberg
said. “Well, we’re still waiting for Congress and we still don’t know
when the federal law will change.”
Iowa joins Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri among states with a minimum wage above the federal $5.15.
IPP Research Associate Elaine Ditsler noted other state policies “could help families cope with higher costs of living.”
“First among them is an expansion of the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit,” she said.
In
Iowa, 168,000 households benefit from the federal Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC), but almost half do not claim the state credit, which is
6.5 percent of the federal. The federal credit, unlike the state
credit, is refundable and provides the full benefit of the credit to
taxpayers who qualify. Filers receive a check for the balance if their
tax obligation is not as big as the federal credit, but not for the
state credit.
“Making the state credit refundable would reach
more families,” Ditsler said, noting there are proposals in the House
and Senate for an expanded and refundable state EITC.
The Iowa Policy Project (IPP) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and policy analysis organization based in Mount Vernon.
See the July 2006 IPP report, “A Pay Raise for Iowa? Falling Behind at the Minimum Wage.” Other IPP reports about the minimum wage and the EITC are available at the IPP website http://www.iowapolicyproject.org.
|
||||
|
Recent Articles
Search
Login Daily Archive Categories
Powered by BlogHarbor
 |
Saturday, March 31
New Iowa Minimum Wage Takes Effect: Workers Receive Pay Increase Sunday; Other Policy Options Also Could Help
by
Sam Garchik
on Sat 31 Mar 2007 06:08 PM CDT
Friday, March 30
DFA Training Works for Iowa
by
Sam Garchik
on Fri 30 Mar 2007 12:34 PM CDT
DFA Training Works for Iowa By Sam Garchik Last weekend, DFA Training Academy came to Eastern Iowa to teach us Iowans how to be good campaigners. I was surprised that, in a state where half the congressmen and senators are Democrats and we have a Democratic governor and state legislature, DFA could teach us so much. The most interesting thing I learned from the Vermonters was how to be a better campaign data manager. I thought I understood NCEC and how to analyze targeting data, but I learned a lot about how to manage and massage public information to get a more accurate idea where to find votes. Kendra Sue Derby and Arshad Hasan did a great job of explaining the persuasion index, and helped me figure out how to use this model on every campaign I work for in the future. The second training session I liked was on campaign finance and fundraising. Selene Hofer-Shall gave a great pitch on how to raise money without putting in any overhead of your own – you ask people to donate money for the building and for the food. Having worked on a campaign that made most of the mistakes she warned against, I knew what she was saying was true. Beyond the information, the Academy provided me with a good sense of who else in the state was interested in networking. Iowa is a pretty big place, occupying over 60,000 square miles. It’s nice to see progressive networks growing. For example, Marshalltown and the Selden Spencer campaign (IA – 4) sent a significant contingent to the training. In 2006, we sent two new Democratic Congressmen to Washington, DC, and we continue to look forward to helping Spencer go there in 2008. Missing from all of this was any notice of presidential campaigns. Most of us in the room seemed to agree that in-state party building was more important, at least at this stage. For example, two regional organizations – Progressive Action for the Common Good and the Progressive Coalition of Central Iowa, were both represented. These groups work on issues rather than on individuals, and are effective means of getting messages spread quickly in regions. In leaving the academy, I look forward to offering my skills to any campaign out there, and working with DFA activists around the nation to improve small campaigns abilities to take on significant challenges ahead.
Why should you care about the Fair Share debate in the Iowa Legislature?
by
Trish Nelson
on Fri 30 Mar 2007 12:09 PM CDT
The Prairie Progressive
You probably know that Iowa is an Open Shop (so-called "Right-to-Work") state in which individuals who are represented by a union have to pay at least their Fair Share of the costs the union incurs in administering the contract. But why is this issue one that all progressives should care about? Well, Politics 101 tells us that states where organized labor is strong tend to elect many more Democrats than states where organized labor is weak. The 22 Open Shop states consist of the Old Confederacy, Plains and Mountain West states. These states typically have the lowest rates of union membership in the country. All 22 voted for George W. Bush in 2004; only Iowa voted for Al Gore in 2000. So, stronger labor unions in Iowa translate into a stronger Iowa Democratic arty, but that is not the whole story. There is a direct correlation between the strength of organized labor and the rise of progressive politics. As Washington Post columnist David Broder said, in September, 2004: "When labor lobbied powerfully on Capitol Hill, it did not confine itself to bread-and-butter issues for its own members. It was at the forefront of battles for aid to education, civil rights, housing programs and a host of other social causes important to the whole community. And because it was muscular, it was heard and heeded." The battle for Fair Share in Iowa is the front line of not just the fight for better paying jobs, or for a stronger Democratic Party. It is the fight to rekindle a progressive brand of politics that has been missing for far too long. Unfortunately, not enough Democrats in the Legislature currently support organized labor and the Fair Share proposal. Of the 53 House Democrats (one is presently serving in Iraq), there are not 51 votes to pass Fair Share. Despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars organized labor contributed to House Democrats, and the hours that have been spent explaining Fair Share to candidates and legislators, and why it is the top priority of organized labor, a few House Democrats felt free to accept money from labor and withhold their support from Fair Share. Reflecting this political reality, the House leadership has watered down the Fair Share proposal so that it only covers public sector, not private sector, employees. According to a March 16th Des Moines Register article, after meeting in private for four hours, House Democrats could not muster 51 votes even for a public sector only version of Fair Share. According to the Register, Democrat Dawn Pettengill, "who has told Republicans she opposes the Fair Share proposal, had tears on her face when she left the room..." It causes one to wonder, were those tears caused by guilt for taking $6,500 from 16 different Iowa labor unions in her campaign and then responding by turning her back on labor over the most crucial labor-related issue in a generation? The Register said that Democrat McKinley Bailey "walked out in frustration, got in his car, and drove out of the Capitol parking lot....Bailey came back awhile later and said he'd left the meeting because it was 'pointless.'" One wonders, were the $7,750 of contributions from 11 Iowa labor unions that he accepted in his campaign also "pointless?" There are only two possible conclusions to draw: either labor unions gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Iowa House Truman fund and individual legislative campaigns without asking these then-candidates how they would vote on Fair Share, or, once in office, some of these House Democrats are perfectly willing to renege on promises they made during the campaign. Pettengill and Bailey are not alone in holding up Fair Share. Labor has identified 9 or 10 House Democrats who have expressed unwillingness to vote for Fair Share. Please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that any elected official should blindly do the bidding of their supporters. As Senator Vinick (Alan Alda) said, "If you can't drink their booze, take their money, and then vote against them, you don't belong in this business." In this instance, though, labor campaign contributions represent promises made to working Iowans, and, regrettably, the breaking of that promise by a few. There do not appear to be any easy solutions out of this situation. Even if the Legislature manages to pass a Fair Share bill for public sector employees, what happens to private sector unions? Do they continue to be taken for granted and support Democrats unwilling to support them? Or do they cut off campaign contributions and consider finding primary challengers for House Democrats who have adopted House Republican Leader Chris Rants' talking points on Fair Share? All of this will play itself out in the coming months. For the time being, there will continue to be a lot of anxiety, frustration, and anger shared by legislators and labor leaders. Nobody ever said that being in the majority would be easy. - Nate willems lives in Mt. Vernon From the Spring 2007 issue of the Prairie Progressive,
Thursday, March 29
Help Fight Public Help for Cable TV Companies
by
Sam Garchik
on Thu 29 Mar 2007 06:24 PM CDT
Help Fight Public Help for Cable TV Companies
As you may have read, the Iowa Senate recently passed SF 544 which would change how communities franchise cable TV providers. Under the proposed law new entrants, specifically Qwest, would be given an opportunity to by-pass the municipal franchising process and receive a franchise from the state under preferential terms. Many of the community benefits negotiated by municipalities on behalf of their citizens would likely be lost as the bill contains a provision that if a competitor gives notice they intend to seek a state franchise that the incumbent cable operator can cancel their existing franchise and receive a state-issued franchise. The House Commerce Committee will likely be taking up the bill the week of April 1. Now is the time to contact Commerce Committee members. Below are a few talking points and the email address of Committee members. Please take a few minutes to pick a couple of points and draft an email your own words and send it to Committee members. Phone calls can be placed to the House switch board number below. Overview of the State TV Franchising Legislation, SF 554 SF554 gives special treatment to Qwest and others who wish to get into the cable business. Qwest does not need special incentives to compete. A franchise with the same terms as those with Mediacom or other cable company could be negotiated as easily as crossing out one company name and inserting another. SF 554 allows Qwest and other new entrants to pick and choose which neighborhoods they serve. Some neighborhoods could receive the benefit of competition while others would not. SF 554 undercuts existing commitments to local community public, educational, and government channels by limiting financial support from Qwest and other new entrants. Capital and operational fees would be required only through the remaining term of the incumbent cable operator’s franchise and likely be totally eliminated if the incumbent cable operator opts for a state-issued franchise. SF 554 eliminates local input from the franchising process and substitutes a one-size fits all approach. Local community needs and interests would no longer be considered in granting the right to make us of the public’s right-of-way. SF 554 limits local government’s ability to provide any meaningful consumer protection. Consumer protection would be enforced through an “informal” and “non-binding” process. SF 554 proponents claim this bill will bring price competition and a reduction in rates. Evidence from around the country where telephone companies offer video service is mixed show their assertions is over-stated. Most communities see no rate reduction and only in rare circumstances do rate reductions exceed 10%. In fact, the CEO of ATT told Wall Street “I don’t think there’s going to be a price war. I think it’s going to be a war of value and of services.” House Switch Board Janet Petersen (D, District 64), Chair David Jacoby (D, District 30), Vice Chair Chuck Soderberg (R, District 3), Ranking Member McKinley Bailey (D, District 9) Deborah Berry (D, District 22) Dan Clute (R, District 59) Clarence Hoffman (R, District 55) Libby Jacobs (R, District 60) Doris Kelley (D, District 20) Bob Kressig (D, District 19) Steven Lukan (R, District 32) Jo Oldson (D, District 61) Kraig Paulsen (R, District 35) Dawn Pettengill (D, District 39) Brian Quirk (D, District 15) Nathan Reichert (D, District 80) Tom Sands (R, District 87) Paul Shomshor (D, District 100) Doug Struyk (R, District 99) Dick Taylor (D, District 33) Linda Upmeyer (R, District 12) Jamie Van Fossen (R, District 81) Philip L. Wise (D, District 92) Wednesday, March 28
Reposts of Fralick and Lindsey Columns..
by
Sam Garchik
on Wed 28 Mar 2007 08:32 AM CDT
Reposts of Fralick and Lindsey Columns
Eric Fralick and Tom Lindsey wrote great columns this past weekend. Fralick's was in the Register, Lindsey's on Political Fallout. Fralick first, then Lindsey What Bullying is All About: By Eric Fralick <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> When Ann Coulter, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference last week, called presidential candidate John Edwards a faggot, she raised predictable tuttings from establishment conservatives who, once again, had “no idea she’d go that far.”A few more newspapers canceled her column, and she got a tremendous amount of attention from practically every media outlet in the country, whatever their politics. Her word choice, which has since been taken up by several right-wing commentators, most notably James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal and, of course, Rush Limbaugh, might have seemed mysterious, considering Edwards’ well-known record of public service, his wife and children, and his lack of a Ted Haggard or even Newt Gingrich moment. It makes sense only if you know that George Bush and particularly Dick Cheney (yes, they are the president and vice president of our country) have been calling Edwards “the Breck Girl” since the summer of 2004, around the same time the Swiftboaters were brought around to sink the Democrats’ election chances.<!--[endif]--> So, for some, this is what politics has become: If you can’t win on the issues — and Edwards has been right on domestic issues and foreign policy about as often as anyone in the country — then you try to destroy them personally, by questioning their patriotism and, with increasing frequency, their sexuality. Here in Iowa, our new Legislature has taken heat from some local bloggers for passage of a schoolhouse anti-bullying bill that, along with banning racial and religious insults, specifically includes gay slurs. The idea is to inject some fairness into a teen culture where the most used put-down is “that’s so gay” and where the perception of being gay, true or not, can and often does lead to the adolescent version of gang violence. It’s not difficult to make the connection: Bullying is bullying, whether it happens in a high school locker room, on a Web site or on national television. It’s resorted to by those who can’t win a point any other way and so are insecure about themselves and worried about their lack of natural superiority. Like Cheney, Limbaugh and Taranto, self-appointed arbiters of American masculinity, none of whom look much like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or even Senator Edwards, bullies are pathetically dangerous creatures, blustering, self-righteous and so out of control that they might say or do anything to keep the world from seeing them as they are. The Iowa Legislature has had enough of this; so should we. Whether you agree with a person or not, some slurs should not be tolerated. They should be opposed, loudly, every time they are spoken. We’ve all been too polite about this. The next time John Edwards comes to Iowa, we should all turn out to welcome him. Give him a standing ovation for tolerating mud of a smell that no one should ever have to endure, with courage, grace and, yes, style. And then ask him where he stands on the issues. Because that’s what politics, and life, should be about. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> And, at least in Iowa schools, it’s now the law. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> ERIC FRALICK is a writer and producer who lives outside of Ames. Clean Election’s Price Tag for Restoring Democracy
By Tom Lindsey, Political Fallout With our VOICE (Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections bill: HF 805) on life support, struggling for it’s last gasp of clean air in a House Appropriations sub-committee, our newly elected Democratic Majority is making their priorities clear, and it appears “Clean Elections” may not be one of them. I hope Iowa’s 82nd General Assembly doesn’t intend to follow their predecessors’ mantra: “Now that we have the majority rule, let’s use our new powers to insure that we maintain it.” From what I’ve gathered, the only barrier impeding VOICE’s move forward is funding. The price tag for creating a Clean Elections startup fund is $10 million (approximately less than .01% of our state’s annual budget). Rep. Dave Jacoby, one of the three members of the House Appropriation sub-committee who will decide upon VOICE’s fate, contends there’s not enough funding for this bill. There are funding mechanisms written in the bill that will help replenish the fund each election cycle; some of these include an optional income tax check off, private donations to the fund, seed money and qualifying fees collected by candidates who volunteer to participate, and a funding stream collected from unclaimed or abandoned property. The latter funding mechanism brings in an estimated $12 - $15 billion and would cover the entire fund. Jacoby pointed out this funding mechanism is allocated from the state’s general fund, which means something else would have to be cut. So the big question is how much of a priority is the Democratic majority willing to make Clean Elections? This is the question all of us need to pursue with our representatives, the Democratic leaders, and the three members of the House Appropriations sub-committee. The bill hasn’t been scheduled on the docket as of yet, so there’s still time to contact all of the aforementioned people. We cannot afford for this bill to die in committee, so share your voice by urging VOICE forward. In the meantime, let’s take a brief commercial break, brought to you in part by Political Fallout, exposers of political absurdities and hypocrisies: Can Iowa Afford Clean Elections? (VOICE Over) Iowa Values Fund (Corporate Welfare): $10 million/year Iowa Football Coach Kirk Ferentz’s Yearly Salary: $1.2 million (+$400,000 longevity bonus) 2006 Iowa Governor’s Race: $13 million 2006 Iowa House & Senate Race Disbursements: $16,639 million Big Tobacco's Minority Leader Christopher Rants Big Tobacco Mo’: $60,000 Security Detail for Culver’s Children: $253,494 Clean Elections (VOICE): $10 million Cost of e-mailing representative: $Zero Restoring Faith in Democracy: $Priceless <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> Tuesday, March 27
Correction to VOICE List
by
Sam Garchik
on Tue 27 Mar 2007 01:09 PM CDT
Correction to VOICE List
The subcommittee considering VOICE included one wrong name. Instead of Republican Dwayne Alons, the Republican member of the subcommittee is Rod Roberts. He can be reached at: Rod.Roberts@legis.state.ia.us or by calling the House Switchboard at (515) 281-3221. Monday, March 26
Urgent Action Needed - Call on VOICE Monday, March 26th!
by
Caroline Vernon
on Mon 26 Mar 2007 12:33 AM CDT
Urgent Action Needed - Call on VOICE - Monday, March 26th!
From Progressive Action for the Common Good
As many of you may know, PACG has put out many calls to action on VOICE - Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections. The passage of VOICE - SF 553 , in the state of Iowa would have a HUGE impact
on every issue across the spectrum - the passage of this bill
would give the people of Iowa an unprecedented opportunity to take back
control of our legislature from the special interest groups that have
too often dominated the outcome of policy. There are MANY reasons to
pass VOICE - passage of this bill would free-up our legislators
from the all consuming cycle of fundraising so they can spend more
time working on the actual issues that affect their
constituents, and citizens would have more faith in the system and
the legislators that represent them. Legislators would no longer be
beholden to the special interests that help get them elected. In other
states where similar bills were passed, they are seeing a big increase
in people running for office than ever before and in Arizona
voter turnout has increased by as much as 20%. The passage of
VOICE is a win-win for everyone involved... that's why WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW.
The VOICE
bill, SF 553, is in an Appropriations sub-committee comprised of
Rep. Dave Jacoby (D-chair), Rep. Jo Oldson (D) and Rep. Dwayne Alons
(R). It will come up for a vote in that committee
either Tuesday (3/27) or Wednesday (3/28). If passed, it
then goes to the full committee and becomes "funnel-proof." That
means the likelihood for debate on the floor of the House
increases. However, we learned on Friday that the Appropriations
sub-committee plans to "kill" the bill, at the request of
leadership.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
PLEASE make a push to call the committee members and the leadership on MONDAY,
urging them to support SF 553. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is a firm
supporter of the bill so please call him, thank him for his
support and urge him to continue pushing for passage of the bill.
MOST IMPORTANTLY - contact Senator Mike Gronstal in the Senate and Speaker Pat Murphy in the House - urging them to support passage of the bill. We need to make a VERY BIG PUSH in order to make a difference.
VOICE has overwhelming support from citizens and community leaders - we need to remind leadership that people matter more, money matters less.
PLEASE call the Appropriations Sub-Committee members and House & Senate Leaders on MONDAY! - These
are only 6 telephone calls that will take up very little of your time
-- the small effort required on our part can make a BIG difference for
the future of our state! Please refer to the Word document (see
attachment) that outlines the general information and primary
benefits of the bill, SF 553.
Appropriations Sub-Committee Rep. Dave Jacoby (D) House District 30 -- Johnson County David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: 319-358-8538 House Switchboard: (515) 281-3221
Rep. Jo Oldson (D) House District 61 -- Polk County Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us
Home Telephone: 515-255-2805 House Switchboard: (515) 281-3221
Rod Roberts (R) Rod.Roberts@legis.state.ia.us House Switchboard: (515) 281-3221. Speaker of the HouseRep. Pat Murphy (D)
House District 28 – Dubuque County Pat.Murphy@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: (563) 582-5922 House Telephone: (515) 281-5566 House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D) House District 67 – Polk County Kevin.McCarthy@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: (515) 953-5221 House Telephone: (515) 281-7497 (PLEASE THANK HIM FOR HIS SUPPORT!) Senate Majority Leader Senator Mike Gronstal (D) Senate District 50 -- Pottawattamie michael.gronstal@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: (712) 328-2808 Business Telephone: (515) 281-3901 Take action! Call, your local legislator today! Find out where they stand on the bill, urge them to support it and ask them to urge leadership and committee members to do the same! It's not enough to simply ask them if they support the bill --- if they do, ask them what they are doing to ensure passage of this bill. House Switchboard to reach all State Representatives: (515) 281-3221
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!
PACG Staff
James Lee 563-650-3922
Caroline Vernon 563-676-7580
 1 Attachments
CAFO Bill HF873 on Life Support at Iowa Statehouse - Call TODAY!
by
Caroline Vernon
on Mon 26 Mar 2007 12:11 AM CDT
CAFO Bill HF873 on Life Support at Iowa Statehouse - Call TODAY!
From Molly Regan
mjregan@ mchsi.com
(excerpts from Lynn Heuss - I'm for Iowa)
Despite overwhelming support from citizens and community leaders, HF 873, a bill regulating CAFOs, has seen steady progress but now faces strong opposition.
It seems this bill too, has been sent to a sub-committee with instructions from leadership to "kill" it. Members of that committee are Mike Reasoner (D-chair), Delores Mertz (D), Helen Miller (D), Jack Drake (R) and Steve Olson (R). Three Democratic House members – Pam Jochum, Mark Kuhn and Marcie Frevert – have been working tirelessly to advocate for VOICE SF 553 and the CAFO HF 873 bills. We must join the fight. Lack of oversight and regulation of CAFOs will affect the state of Iowa for generations to come! For a detailed explanation on CAFOs, please refer to my statement below, following the contact information for our legislators.
We need to inundate the Statehouse with calls and e-mail the legislative leaders who control the fate of this bill. Please call or write. If your representative isn't on one of the sub-committees, you can still call or write Rep. Pat Murphy (House Speaker), Rep. Kevin McCarthy (House Majority Leader) or Senator Mike Gronstal (Senate Majority Leader). Everyone needs to contact those three leaders. In addition, contact your local reps and encourage them to urge the committee members to pass the CAFO bill (HF 873). CAFO Regulation – HF 873 Agriculture Sub-Committee: Rep. Mike Reasoner (D) House District 95 – Union County Mike.Reasoner@legis.state.ia.us
Home Telephone: 641-782-2693 Dolores Mertz (D) House District 8 – Kossuth County Dolores.Mertz@legis.state.ia.us
Home Telephone: 515-887-2952 Rep. Helen Miller (D) House District 49 - Webster County Helen.Miller@legis.state.ia.us
Rep. Jack Drake (R) House District 57 -- Pottawattamie Jack.Drake@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: 712-784-3538 Rep. Steve Olson (R) House District 83 – Clinton County Steven.Olson@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: 563-659-9096 Statehouse Leaders:
Speaker of the House Rep. Pat Murphy (D) House District 28 – Dubuque CountyPat.Murphy@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: (563) 582-5922 House Telephone: (515) 281-5566 House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D) House District 67 – Polk CountyKevin.McCarthy@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: (515) 953-5221 House Telephone: (515) 281-7497 Senate Majority Leader Senator Mike Gronstal (D) Senate District 50 -- Pottawattamiemichael.gronstal@legis.state.ia.us Home Telephone: (712) 328-2808 Business Telephone: (515) 281-3901 House Switchboard to reach all State Representatives: (515) 281-3221 Call your local reps and ask them to urge committee members and House leaders to pass this bill!
Please call TODAY!!
According to the IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (IDNR), an AFO is an ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION.
A CAFO is a CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION . The difference is that in a CAFO, the animals are subjected to close, sometimes unhealthy quarters and their waste stays within the confinement until such time it is removed. In the case of hogs, that may only be several times a year.
The IDNR also states on its web site: www.iowadnr.com : "Confinement feeding operations that plan to build, modify or expand must meet state requirements for the new construction. It is important to determine as early as possible, at least 120 days before you plan to begin construction, what size the proposed operation will be and the type of manure storage that will be used. Once size and type of storage are known, you can determine which state requirements must be met...." Also per their website:
"Master Matrix" The master matrix is a scoring system that can be used to evaluate the siting of permitted confinement feeding operations. Counties that have adopted a construction evaluation resolution can use the master matrix. Counties must re-adopt the construction evaluation resolution annually between January 1 and January 31, starting in 2004, to continue to use the master matrix. Producers in counties that have adopted the matrix must meet higher standards than other permitted facilities. Before they can be approved for construction, they must earn points on the master matrix for choosing sites and using practices that reduce adverse impacts on the environment and the community. Producers must have 50% (440 points minimum) of the total score and at least 25% of the available points in each of the three subcategories of air, water and community impacts to pass the master matrix...." Scott County happens to be one of the many counties that has chosen to partake in the permit process. ( Its Board of Supervisors has agreeded to this every year since 2004.) . Part of what that means is that if a farmer wants to build new or add to their existing operation, a permit may be needed depending on the total number pigs, cattle, etc said farmer is going to raise. There is a formula that says if you have over 1666 animal units (thats one bovine equals one unit, 2.5 hogs equals one unit....see IDNR site for other animals) they you need to fill out the Master Matrix. If your county does not partake in the permit process, it goes directly to the IDNR and bypasses any local public input time.
|
Blog for Iowa 
BFIA Writer's Guidelines We welcome Submissions Iowa Sites Child & Family Policy Center - Iowa Genetic Engineering Action Network Iowa Citizen Action Network - ICAN Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility Iowa Public Interest Research Group Midwest Environmental Justice Advocates Progressive Action for the Common Good Progressive Coalition of Central Iowa QCAD (Quad-Citians Affirming Diversity - GLBT) Iowa Blogs The Deprogrammer (Quad Cities) Iowa True Blue (Gordon Fischer's Blog) Iowa Voters for Open and Transparent Elections Political FalloutFight Iowa Rapid Response Network - Iowa
Iowans for Better Local TV
Air America
The Counterpoint
National FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Media Matters for America
|
||
|
||||
