Clueless in Sioux County

One of the issues in the just past election that concerned me most was the Iowa Water and Land Legacy Amendment, an amendment that would allocate three-eights of one percent of sales tax to the conservation and maintaining of Iowa's grasslands, wetlands, waterways and forests as well as the conserving of its agricultural soils. To me it seemed like a no-brainer(and apparently to the Iowa Senate also which approved it by a 49-1 vote) since Iowa ranks 47th out of 50 states in conservation spending, has extremely polluted water ways, and is likely to lose more than 230,000 acres of habitat by 2012.

Thankfully, the amendment passed, but the majority in my county opposed the amendment. And I can only think of two possible reasons, neither of them very persuasive. Perhaps some voters were opposed to any possible increase in taxes, even 3/8ths of one per cent of sales tax, and even if the money is used for the common good--things like hiking, fishing, hunting, health, and flood protection.

Or, they listened to what the Farm Bureau said in opposition to the amendment. The Farm Bureau was the only organization opposed to it, and it launched a massive telephone campaign to fight it (including a caricatured Iowa farm wife talking in fake homespun Iowa twang). This fits the profile of the Farm Bureau, at least in my experience. Anytime there is a campaign for environmental legislation or protection for small farmers, the Farm Bureau opposes it. It will claim to be for these things in general statements, but when it comes to specfics, it always comes down in favor of large agribusiness and exploitation of the environment.

My father-in-law, a lifelong "small" farmer, called the Farm Bureau an organization to keep farmers unorganized and fought their policies his whole life. I am beginning to see why.