Bill Stowe: Water quality hero

Bill Stowe’s courageous fight for clean water lives on.

160915-Stowe-130333crop
Bill Stowe speaks at IPP’s 15th anniversary event in September 2016. (Photo: Lance Coles)

Bill Stowe, dead at 60. The average American male born in 1959 should live about another 10 years. But there was nothing average about Bill Stowe.

The average male does not get three advanced degrees from three different institutions. The average American, male or female, does not take on the strongest and most powerful to change public debate, and force accountability where it was lacking.

Bill ran the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW), the largest supplier of clean drinking water in Iowa. It was a surface water system. That means it had to deal with the serious pollution that unrestrained agricultural practices put into Iowa waters — a costly and unsustainable proposition.

Realizing he could not continue to pass on the costs of treating that water to his customers alone, he took action — courageous action in an agricultural state — to either get the polluters to stop, or at least to pay for the problems they are causing.

The case of the Des Moines Water Works vs. three Iowa counties with drainage districts that were some of the main polluters of the Raccoon River went to federal court. It scared agricultural organizations like the various state Farm Bureau federations.

As Stowe and DMWW fought “dark money”-funded interests in court, he gained both foes who favor the status quo and allies who shared either the lawsuit’s goals or the desire to help Iowans see what big industry was up to. Others joined the fight, including one small-town journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize, and activists who keep his fight alive today.

Bill lost his case in court, but pushed water quality more squarely into Iowa’s political and policy spotlight, forcing politicians including Terry Branstad to concede a need to do something — even though their actions have fallen short.

Bill Stowe was generous with his time and talked to groups about treating water to make it safe. He taught a class of mine.

160314-Stowe-DO classThe picture above was from three years ago when we visited the treatment works he served. He spoke often to groups about his passion for clean water all around the state — including as the featured speaker for the 15th anniversary of our organization in 2016.

When IPP considers what papers to investigate we often ask knowledgeable people around the state for thoughts on what would be helpful to better inform public debate. Bill had suggestions for our latest series of reports on water quality.

When IPP researcher Natalie Veldhouse and I met with him and his DMWW colleague Laura Sarcone in November, they had good suggestions that helped us in the development of our latest paper. When I sent a copy of that paper to Laura for her thoughts, I did not know that Bill was already in hospice.

Bill died too soon. His fight for clean water remains important for all Iowans.

2016-osterberg_5464David Osterberg is co-founder, former executive director and lead environment and energy researcher for the Iowa Policy Project. dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Monopolies strangling solar, small business

Monopolies would destroy small business who make their money at the local level by insulating homes or installing solar panels.

In times like these, it is helpful to recall what our nation learned from the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, who went after trusts and monopolies because he knew they used their huge size to strangle other businesses.

Iowa could use that kind of leadership. Our Iowa monopoly electric companies are strangling small businesses again. As monopolies they are guaranteed profits, only because of efficiencies seen as a public benefit in the production and distribution of power. And to make sure they do not abuse that power, they are regulated by a fairly powerful state regulatory agency, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB).

Solar energy gives citizens control over part of their lives. Small customers who could not operate a coal plant can put up solar panels. MidAmerican Energy (MidAm) sees that and feels threatened. Even though only 750 of their 770,000 customers have solar panels on their property, MidAm wants this market to itself.

So now, MidAm is trying to bypass its IUB regulators by going to the Iowa Legislature to get what they want. MidAm’s approach is a job-killer for solar contractors and a few manufacturers in the state. Legislation the company is pushing would strip those small competitors of most of their market, reducing or even removing the benefits to people who chose to install solar panels.

In short, MidAm wants to put a tax on the sun.

Its proposed changes greatly reduce the incentive to generate one’s own electricity. As it works now, customers with solar panels sometimes produce more electricity than they use. This is often during the middle of a sunny day in the summer when electric prices are at their highest.

Currently, these customers are compensated for the excess energy they provide back to the grid at the same price they pay the electric monopoly. HSB185 would allow MidAm or any investor-owned utility to charge extra fees, or cut compensation, to homeowners and businesses that have clean energy systems. This would discourage solar projects by making them cost-prohibitive.

MidAm — like all utilities — charges a fixed, mandatory fee each month to all customers, which proves false MidAm’s principal argument that the clean-energy customers aren’t paying their share for lines, transformers and billing expenses of the company. Already, they pay.

But MidAm at least is consistent in its attempts to undermine smart-energy choices and the role of small users and businesses in providing it. We saw it last year as well, when MidAm and Alliant Energy successfully bypassed the IUB by dismantling Iowa’s requirement that they help their customers be more efficient. Previously, electric monopolies rewarded a customer who bought a more efficient refrigerator, or efficient light bulbs, or put in more insulation. No more.

Now MidAm is using the same game plan. Go to the Legislature and convince the members to allow monopolies to destroy small business who make their money at the local level by insulating homes or installing solar panels.

What would Teddy Roosevelt have done? He would stand up to stop utilities’ bullying of fair competition and the freedom of citizens to generate their own electricity. Small businesses, conservationists and citizens who just want more control of their lives are looking for that kind of champion.

David Osterberg is lead environment/energy researcher, founder and former executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City.

dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Ag Gag: Never a good idea

Restoring Iowans’ rights with the strikedown of Iowa’s “ag-gag” law is an important step forward. Next, someone needs to test the Iowa law reducing neighbors’ rights to sue big hog facilities.

pigs-matrixThe Iowa Legislature and our former governor just got a spanking by the courts. The “ag-gag” law they created in 2012 is unconstitutional because it violates free speech.

As Trish Mehaffey reported last week in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, the law “threatened up to a year in jail for those individuals who use undercover means or provide false identities to document or report on activities in the agricultural animal facilities.” In other words, the law — now overturned — had criminalized actions by a whistle blower.

Another law passed and signed in 2017 needs similar testing by the courts. This one restricted nuisance suits by neighbors against large animal production facilities, as IPP reported in March 2017.

The source of both laws was the ag industry, which has successfully lobbied legislators to avoid better approaches to livestock production, with scare tactics about the survival of the industry. Their claims are nonsense.

For evidence, look to Denmark — like Iowa, a big and thriving producer of hogs, but with many more restrictions. Rather than making it a crime to report on abuse of animals, Denmark requires that:

“All Danish pigs are produced within independently monitored assurance schemes, which also require a monthly visit by the local veterinarian. In addition, the Danish authorities run an annual programme of ‘unannounced’ visits to ensure that all welfare legislation is being complied with.” [1]

In other words, whistleblowing would be encouraged.

Denmark has other rules in its promotion of a strong industry that considers animal welfare and protection of human health:

  • Required “showering systems for all pigs over 20kg weight to enable them to regulate their body temperature in hot weather.
  • A 2015 ban on the use of fully slatted flooring systems allows pigs a more comfortable lying area. [2]
  • Reducing antibiotic use in all animals by 49 percent from 1994 through 2016, while production of food animals actually increased by 15 percent. [3] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has only a voluntary program to reduce antibiotic use in animal agriculture and this effort has yet to show decreases in total amount of antimicrobials. [4]

In Iowa, ways have been shown to raise hogs other than in confinements that are outside the public eye or contrary to neighbors’ concerns. Hoop houses offer one such alternative. Among environmental advantages, hoop houses remove one problem because manure produced is mixed with straw or other materials. That manure can be applied to land with much less danger of running off into streams, a problem with liquid manure from confinements.

Restoring Iowans’ rights with the strikedown of Iowa’s “ag-gag” law is an important step forward. Next, someone needs to test the Iowa law reducing neighbors’ rights to sue big hog facilities.

[1] Agriculture and Food.co.uk. Providing Information on the Danish Pig industry. Overview https://agricultureandfood.co.uk/welfare/overview

[2] Ibid.

[3] Statens Serum Institut, National Veterinary Institute, National Food Institute. “DANMAP 2016.”

[4] United States, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine. “Guidance for Industry #213.” December 2013, https://tinyurl.com/ybkn2uk5.

2016-osterberg_5464 David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project in 2001 and a state legislator from the 1983 through 1994 sessions of the General Assembly, is the lead environmental researcher for the Iowa Policy Project. Contact: dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Listen to Osterberg’s interview on this topic with Michael Devine of KVFD, 1400AM in Fort Dodge.

New evidence on old water problem: It’s grown, and is getting worse

Vegetative buffers can address the main causes of the worsening algal bloom problem: climate change and nutrient runoff.

The Iowa Policy Project released a new report that brings attention to the harmful algal bloom problem that is not being addressed adequately in the state.

There have been numerous reports and articles that discuss the problem, including an IPP report that was released nearly 10 years ago, but what is different about this new report is that it highlights new science and evidence that indicates that the problem is growing worse.

The 2014 water crisis in Toledo, Ohio, where toxic blue-green algae shut down the water system, was a wake-up call for those responsible for ensuring our drinking water is safe. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources are therefore aware of the looming threat posed by blue-green algae.

Recent studies have shown that the harmful algal bloom problem is more prolific and this is tied to changes in weather and landscapes due to climate change and due to increased nutrient runoff.

Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy is a framework that was created to address the runoff issue in Iowa but new evidence suggests that the NRS is not enough to tackle the problem.

One approach endorsed by IPP’s new report may be effective in protecting Iowans from harmful algal blooms: the implementation of mandatory vegetative buffers throughout the state. Minnesota and Vermont already have promulgated such laws for regulations and buffers along waterways —a conservation practice proven to dramatically reduce nutrient runoff.

Buffers also have an added benefit in that they can act as a carbon sink or as carbon storage, thereby helping to curb climate change. In other words, vegetative buffers can address the main causes of the worsening algal bloom problem: climate change and nutrient runoff.

Carolyn Buckingham, an attorney with a background in environmental law and policy, is lead author of a new report for IPP on issues caused by cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, in Iowa water.

Find the report here.

Too far for a tax-cutter

Home to roost: An advocate for lower taxes in the state Senate, Larry McKibben as a Regent sees an “attack” on higher education funding that will drive tuition increases.

Editor’s Note: This piece ran in the Wednesday, June 13, 2018, Cedar Rapids Gazette as a guest opinion from IPP’s David Osterberg.

The attack on higher education funding by the governor and legislative leadership has gone too far for at least one longtime tax-cutter.

Former state Sen. Larry McKibben, a member of the Iowa Board of Regents, expressed his concern about state support of universities. The regents voted Thursday to raise university tuition rates at Iowa, Iowa State and Northern Iowa universities, following $40 million in state funding cuts.

McKibben was forthright in blaming the legislative session for an increase in tuition at the three state universities and the loss of professors to better positions after years of low salary increases. From The Gazette’s story on the regents’ meeting:

“We have lost great folks, and now we are going to have to raise tuition,” McKibben said, noting that will persist “as long as we continue what I believe is, in my time on the board, the worst state government attack on our three public universities that I can ever remember.”

In fairness, the groundwork has been laid for this latest attack over many years. An Iowa Fiscal Partnership report in 2012 showed how spending on the UI, ISU and UNI dropped from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2012.

An Iowa Policy Project analysis by Brandon Borkovec showed that adjusting for inflation, state funding for Iowa public universities has declined since fiscal year 2001 by 40 percent at UI, 42 percent at ISU, and 28 percent at UNI.

As a percentage of university budgets, the state share dropped by almost half from fiscal years 2001 to 2016.

Some of this happened on McKibben’s watch as one of the Legislature’s most powerful lawmakers on tax policy — one who often looked for ways to cut taxes, as he did in 2003 with a proposed flat tax that would have cost more than $500 million.

He did not intervene to rein in the Research Activities Credit, which sends more than $40 million a year to profitable corporations that pay no income taxes to the state.

He turned the other way as corporations raided Iowa’s treasury through tax loopholes at a cost of $60 million to $100 million a year.

As Regent McKibben, his new concern is understandable and his advocacy for college students laudable. He wants Iowa voters to pay attention and ask what candidates will do about severe underfunding that he says will assure more tuition increases. From the story in The Gazette: “I look forward to hearing the candidates say that,” McKibben said. “What are you going to do about higher education and our three great universities?” And what are you going to do to bring them back to level?”

These same trends were happening when McKibben was a legislator. Now, it seems, the governor and state legislative leaders have gone too far, even for him.

David Osterberg is founder and former executive director of Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. Comments: dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Monopoly power without regulation

With few watching, backroom efforts produce unforeseen blows to public utility oversight

Editor’s Note: This post updates a previous post by David Osterberg, “New blows to public accountability,” about features of a proposal to weaken regulation of Iowa electric utilities.

A version of this piece appeared as a guest opinion in The Gazette, Cedar Rapids

170118_capitol_170603-4x4A bill scheduled for debate the week of February 26th in the Iowa Senate would remove the public’s principal check on monopoly power of the state’s regulated electric utilities.

Utilities are permitted monopoly status for economic efficiency. It would be difficult, and expensive, to set up two or more competing electric or gas utilities to serve one community, with separate lines connecting homes and businesses. In exchange for a monopoly presence in a given area, privately owned utilities are subject to community scrutiny and state regulation of their rates and services.

Senate File 2311 would remove a significant share of oversight from electric utilities. Presently the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) oversees MidAmerican Energy and Alliant Energy. This protects customers, who have no choice as to which company brings them electricity.

It is ironic that legislators would threaten a structure that works and promotes economic development. Iowa has some of the lowest energy rates in the nation (third- or fourth- lowest depending on the year). At the same time, this state has been developing one of the strongest clean energy economies. These features make Iowa a big draw for certain industries — a far more attractive reason to locate here than the tax breaks offered by so many states.

Under the proposed bill, many policies that have led to Iowa’s cost-effective clean energy leadership would disappear, especially energy efficiency programs mandated almost 30 years ago by the Iowa Legislature, which require utilities to file energy efficiency plans every five years.

Without regulation, monopolies could profit by producing more power, rather than helping customers save energy. They could unfairly treat customer-generated solar and wind energy and discriminate in favor of their own energy generation.

Left to their own preferences, monopolies might charge the smallest users more. Alliant proved this in its last rate increase filing. The Alliant plan would have increased the cost of residential electricity by about 10 percent while increasing the mandatory fixed charge just to hook up by 30 percent. The plan was designed to put more costs on those who use less, including those with low-income, essentially penalizing customers who have used the utility rebates to buy efficient appliances or those who generate solar energy.

But because Alliant needed permission from the IUB to raise rates, this rate scheme was reviewed and ultimately not allowed. Instead, the energy charge and the mandatory fixed charge were allowed to increase by roughly the same percentage.

SF2311 would reduce this longstanding oversight on all utilities, shifting costs and risks to their customers. Alliant could discriminate against solar customers by putting them in a separate rate category so they could be assessed a higher fixed charge. This could shut down solar firms and cost many of the state’s 700 solar jobs. The changes threatening the energy efficiency industry endangers even more jobs — more than 20,000.

The forces behind this bill lessen public oversight and public accountability. They would change Iowa law in ways never promoted publicly in the last legislative campaigns.

160915-59170_dox35x45David Osterberg, a former state representative (1983-95), is professor emeritus of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa, and co-founder of the non-partisan Iowa Policy Project.

dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

What happened to infrastructure plans?

Already, federal help to improve drinking water and wastewater systems has been on the decline. How much appetite will there be for necessary construction when taxes to pay for it are being cut?

At the beginning of this year there was talk of possible bipartisan legislation to repair America’s crumbling infrastructure.

Both candidates for president had promised a new emphasis on repairing the nation’s roads, rails, sewage treatment plants and airports. The number kicked around during the campaign was often $500 billion. After President Trump won, he pushed up the rhetoric and spoke of a $1 trillion plan.

If Congress passes the tax bill now being considered, there will be little room in the budget to pay for present services, as we have emphasized here at IPP. How can this nation also invest in the things that will certainly produce jobs and make the nation more competitive?

The chances for implementing an ambitious infrastructure spending plan seem remote, as Congress is on course to add $1.4 trillion or even more in deficit spending over the next 10 years.

Already, federal help to improve drinking water and wastewater systems has been on the decline. How much appetite will there be spend more on what most agree is necessary construction when taxes to pay for those expenditures decrease so drastically?

When there is no appetite for spending, state governments sometimes resort to tax credits. That seems unwieldy in this case and, in the next few weeks, tax credits will lose much of their value anyway. When taxes are lower, there is less to gain by giving credits.

The new tax cut will give a benefit just for being a corporation or for being wealthy. Why invest in something productive when you are given a reward simply for “being?”

David Osterberg co-founded the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project and remains its lead environment and energy researcher. dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org