Sierra Club says NO to Misguided I-Will Bill
UPDATE -- the legislature has adjourned and this bill is inactive for 2023.
Although voters have long awaited implementation of I-Will and increased funding it provides, an effort is currently underway to undercut some of the areas that I-Will was intended to fund. (Note, I-Will is also known as the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund.)
In 2010, 63 percent of Iowa voters gave overwhelming support to a constitutional amendment, referred to as I-Will, that would allow increased investment in Iowa’s parks, recreation, clean water, and agriculture soils through a three-eighth cent sales tax. All that is needed is to increase the sales tax.
Prior to the time voters agreed to the constitutional amendment, the legislature had passed a bill that indicated how the I-Will money was to be divided into various categories which would then support the new projects. The legislation was clear that this was to be new money for new projects and not shifting existing funding into the I-Will funding.
The legislature is now looking at a bill that would increase the sales tax which would trigger the funding of the I-Will projects, but it has several huge gotchas written into it. Tell your state senator to vote no on SF550 and its changes to I-Will in Division 8.
Troubling areas in the bill include:
- Currently the roads through the park are funded through the Iowa Department of Transportation. The bill would have I-Will fund the construction, maintenance, or expansion of roads.
- The bill changes the percentages allocated to the funds that were envisioned when I-Will was passed. Most significantly it reduces the money allocated to REAP which is a long-standing program in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
- Iowa Economic Development Authority would be involved in decisions where money is spent on recreation purposes. Furthermore, the scoring would require the money to further the economic development policy of the state. The DNR is fully capable of determining how its funds are allocated and does not require an economic development lens in making those decisions. Protecting wildlife habitat or endangered species is important and a lofty goal over economic development and is exactly what the voters intended.
- Decisions on expending funds will give a higher priority on nutrient reduction projects. At the same time there is nothing to ensure that the nutrient reduction projects will indeed reduce nutrients. Making matters worse, there is no requirement that the DNR set numerical standards for water bodies along with a reasonable date that the standards must be met. So far taxpayers have expended significant amounts of money with limited or no results in reducing nutrients in Iowa's waterbodies.
- Prioritizing nutrient reduction is a lofty goal for the Department of Agriculture. Requiring the Department of Natural Resources and Department of Transportation (for use in trails) to make reducing nutrients a top priority when they expend the I-Will funds is not appropriate.
- A higher priority is to be given to maintaining or preserving existing public lands over acquiring additional land. We do not support this, since Iowa is 47th in the nation in the percentage of the state held as public lands. Public lands are important in a state that has very little public land. The DNR lands are mostly highly erodible or floodplains which are not farmable and, thus, are not destroying opportunities for beginning farmers, as some legislators contend.
- The money allocated to the DNR for "establishment, restoration, and enhancement of state parks, state preserves, state forests, wildlife areas, wildlife habitats, native prairies, and wetlands" is being amended to include the management of those areas. The management would move the salaries and benefits of park rangers and other staff to the I-Will account. This will result in less money being available for the functions of "establishment, restoration, and enhancement" of those areas.
- The bill would terminate the increased sales tax on January 1, 2051. That clearly was not what the voters approved for the constitutional amendment, which did not include an end date for the sales tax.
These gotchas would leave less money for the things that have been designated to receive I-Will funding, including establishing, restoring, or enhancement of state parks; recreation; wildlife diversity; improvement of water trails, rivers, and streams; and education and outreach regarding natural history and the outdoors. It is a scheme to reduce the money available for those things voters expected when they voted for I-Will and its "new money", by redirecting expenditures for roads and staff to the I-Will funds. That is unacceptable. It goes against the purpose of I-Will which was to generate new money to fund new projects for the Department of Natural Resources. It goes against what the voters were led to believe when they voted on I-Will over a decade ago.
Tell your state senator to vote no on SF550 and its changes to I-Will in Division 8.
