Conservation Cuts:
Consequences and Choices

---

By Duane Sand

Iowa's conservation programs took a disproportionate hit in recent state budget cuts. What were those cuts and what might they mean for our state?

The Big Picture
In addition to the 4.7% across-the-board cuts imposed on many other state agencies, Iowa's conservation programs lost an additional $22 million in recent budget cuts, more than one third of their state funding. If you consider money diverted from "dedicated" environmental funds to balance the general budget (see sidebar), Iowa's conservation losses exceed $100 million in recent years. Ironically, when water quality ranks as Iowans' top environmental concern, water protection programs took the biggest hit.

Iowa's commitment of 1.2% of state budget to its land, water and wildlife was already well below the national average. These latest cuts put Iowa's conservation spending at 0.9%. In other words, Iowa now devotes less than one penny of every state dollar to water quality, soil conservation, environmental education, natural areas, wildlife habitat and trails. To responsibly address its conservation goals, Iowa should put 2% of its discretionary funds into conservation.

Cuts and consequences
Several conservation programs took large cuts while others were "zeroed out." Though the cuts brought a short-term savings, their consequences will be costly indeed.

• Groundwater protection: Iowa had budgeted $1.5 million per year to close 160 agricultural drainage wells, which deliver bacteria, nitrates and herbicides directly into ground water. Now zero funding.
• Brownfields redevelopment: This program, managed by Iowa's Department of Economic Development, supported clean-up and redevelopment of chemical spill sites. Zero funding, while several hundred sites still need help.
• Soil conservation: The Division of Soil Conservation offered cost-share programs with landowners to implement soil, water and wildlife protection. Cut by half; thus, 18,000 acres lose assistance for soil and groundwater protection.
• Sustainable agriculture research: The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture lost all its funding for new grants, so 20 fewer projects support environmentally-friendly farming systems.
• Trails: The Department of Transportation lost 1-2 years of trail development funds, so seven or eight trails per year will not get aid.

REAP Cuts
Meanwhile, Iowa's Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) funding was cut from $10 million to $2 million. Consequently, the following REAP programs were eliminated:

• Watershed protection programs protected Iowa's drinking water, beaches and fisheries. Ten lakes and streams must wait for pollution control projects.
• Environmental Education grants funded 99% of the professionally accredited conservation education courses for Iowa's teachers. Now zero.
• County conservation boards received $2 million in REAP funding and grants for environmental education, equipment and park operations. Grants help fund 4-8 county parks per year. Gone. Meanwhile, cities won't get funding for 17-20 parks.
• Historical resource programs lost funding to protect and conserve 46 projects, such as stabilization and restoration of the country schoolhouse attended by Iowa native and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Norm Borlaug.

A Matter of Priorities
Iowans are told these cuts reflect a poor economy. Yes, state revenues were down by 2% last year. However, Iowa's revenues would have realized an 18% gain--if not for the effects of multiple tax cuts passed since 1996. These cuts and credits reduce Iowa's revenues by $800 million per year. Iowans need to ask ourselves--and our candidates--about priorities.

Conservation depends primarily on responsible decisions by individuals. But when the state neglects its share of the responsibility for natural resources, it encourages individuals and other institutions to neglect their responsibilities as well. A responsible state budget would give conservation its two cents worth--2% of the tax dollar.
The bottom line: If we want people to choose Iowa as a place to live, work and play, conservation must have higher priority in future budgets.

Duane Sand is an independent policy consultant who works for the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation and other conservation groups.

Sidebar: Broken Programs, Broken Promises

Over $100 million of environmental taxes and fees have been diverted from their intended purposes in order to balance the state budget. Thus, promises were broken for groundwater protection funds, for solid waste recycling, for snowmobile/all terrain vehicle programs and for cleaning up pollution from underground storage tanks (UST Fund).

Here's how it works. Lawmakers balance the general budget with "surplus" funds from environmental programs. But that surplus often represents a broken program-created by a recipe for failure.

• Step 1: Don't hire enough staff because of state personnel ceilings.
• Step 2: Delay programs but continue collecting revenues from special fees or taxes.
• Step 3: Divert the "surplus" funds to the state general fund for other purposes.
• Step 4: Repeat process by not hiring enough staff. (NOTE: The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has cut 15% of its staff in the last two years.)

The UST Fund demonstrates this cycle. About $30 million were diverted this fiscal year, part of $64 million diverted over the previous six years. Yet about 2,300 polluted sites await clean-up and monitoring. Neighborhoods remain blighted and groundwater unprotected. Meanwhile, consumers pay $19 million per year in motor fuel taxes for this understaffed, under-performing program.

Back to main article

The Summer 2002 issue of the Iowa Natural Heritage's magazine contains a related article by Mark Ackelson, INHF president.


For more information or a free copy of this magazine issue (ask for Summer 2002 edition), e-mail Cathy Engstrom, Director of Communications, or call (515) 288-1846.  If you're interested in INHF membership, visit our membership page.