Editor’s Note: Rep. Chuck Isenhart represents House District 72 in the Iowa legislature. This article is from his constituent newsletter. For more information about Rep. Isenhart, click here. To subscribe directly to his newsletter, click here.

More than 75 people came to the E.B. Lyons Nature Center in June to hear “retired” University of Iowa research engineer Chris Jones and author of “The Swine Republic” talk about the dirty waters flowing off of Iowa’s farmlands and animal feeding operations.   (“Retired” because his premature departure from the job of measuring the water quality in Iowa’s rivers and streams was the result of political pressure from Republican state senators.)   Here is a link to the visual aids Jones used to describe Iowa’s world of hurt. Note in particular the slide depicting the volume of hog manure in watersheds compared with the number of people in other states and cities that produce an equivalent amount of human waste. Jones is one of a growing number of scientists who are translating their work into stories that people can understand, reaching out to the public to tell those stories, and making clear what policymakers need to do to actually make a difference. Jones’ author tour coincided with weekly reports of beach warnings and closures that warn visitors about the unhealthy state of Iowa’s parks and river trails. The attention he is getting from average citizens coincides with the 10th anniversary of the state’s so-called “Nutrient Reduction Strategy,” a menu of practices that could change Iowa’s status as the biggest polluter of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers IF the state were to require landowners to use them, which we do not.

Since so many people are now paying attention, and anniversaries are used to “take stock” of ourselves and our relationships, I believe it is time for Iowa’s elected officials to stop, take off the rose-colored glasses, and make a clear-eyed assessment of whether or not taxpayers are getting what they are paying for.

Along with State Rep. Monica Kurth, ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, on World Water Day (March 22) I approached State Auditor Rob Sand to seek a review of state spending related to Iowa’s water resources.

On World Water Day, we requested that his office audit the performance of the state’s water quality programs, with special attention to the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and initiatives implemented with state appropriations in the last 10 years.

The Nutrient Reduction Strategy was created pursuant to a directive from the federal Environmental Protection Agency following the adoption of the 2008 Action Plan of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Task Force. In a 2011 memo, the EPA reaffirmed its commitment to “accelerating the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loadings of our nation’s waters,” in collaboration with the states. t

Iowa’s response was developed through a process directed by the Secretary of Agriculture, with the support of Iowa State University. It was adopted by the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, as well as the Department of Natural Resources. Over time, the document has been incorporated into Iowa statutes.

Programs funded based on the nutrient reduction strategy include the “Water Quality Initiative.”

Appropriations bills called for the development of “demonstration” projects, but — except for language mentioning an option to focus on “priority” watersheds — provided little direction and few requirements or accountability provisions related to goals, timelines, and in-stream monitoring, with public reporting of quality measures of Iowa surface waters and waters leaving the state.

Other funding being leveraged through IDALS and DNR to support the nutrient reduction strategy and initiatives related to surface water and groundwater include the soil and water conservation cost-share program; the conservation reserve and enhancement programs; watershed, water and water quality protection programs; the lake restoration program, the groundwater protection program, the Resource

Enhancement and Protection Program, as well as the groundwater and water quality monitoring programs.

Additional public expenditures in support of the strategy are made through the Iowa Nutrient Research Center, the Iowa Flood Center and the Iowa Nutrient Research and Education Council.

Multiple sources of non-state funding also have been accessed through USDA, EPA, HUD, Homeland Security and the Iowa Finance Authority, including the EPA Section 319 program, the state revolving loan fund and special grant programs such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program.

Public resources being dedicated to soil conservation, water quality and watershed protection efforts expanded following the 2018 adoption of SF 512, which established water quality infrastructure and water quality financial assistance programs.

At the time, Governor Reynolds also recommended no less than $124.8 million in annual funding through the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust that she proposed covering with an increase in the sales tax. How current funds are being spent should inform how such additional funds be used, if a sales tax increase is approved by the Legislature in the future.

With the state’s growing list of impaired surface waters, Iowa’s water quality has been described as a multi-billion, multi-decade challenge if we are to achieve the 45 percent reductions in pollution called for by the EPA.

In our letter to Auditor Sand, Rep. Kurth and I wrote:

“Public resources are being used to remedy problems stemming in great part from the practices of private individuals, exacerbated by climate-related weather disruptions. As we double and triple down on these outlays, citizens want to know if current tax dollars are being spent effectively. For example: What landowner participation rates are we seeing? At what scale are changes in land use and practices being adopted? How do these measures compare with rates preceding adoption of the nutrient reduction strategy? Are we getting the clean water our investments are made to produce? How do we compare with other states? Is Iowa doing its part to limit and reverse our contributions to downstream pollution?

Therefore, we request that your office assess the use of funds for water quality improvement, including the nutrient reduction strategy, and evaluate the performance and efficiency of its associated programs to identify adjustments that can be made to optimize efficiency and performance, enhance results commensurate with the scale of the problems, achieve the best return on investment, and provide for ongoing accountability and oversight, ensuring that tax dollars are spent judiciously.”

Rep. Kurth and I understand that any inquiry the state auditor may conduct will be performed according to his statutory authority and customary protocols, which are focused on documenting how taxpayer dollars are spent and whether that spending complies with the law. As part of his “PIE” program – Public Innovations and Efficiencies – Sand could solicit public and agency input into how Iowa’s water quality initiatives can be improved to produce certified results.

Recently, the governor signed a controversial bill that restricts the auditor’s access to information he needs to do his job. An investigation into water quality spending could expose how that law hurts taxpayers and the public, making government less accountable and vulnerable to corruption.

While we have yet to get a response from Auditor Sand, when we do readers of this newsletter will be among the first to know. In the meantime, we all need to rise to the challenge posed by Chris Jones and start telling legislators and the governor that we expect more for our money.