Clean-water goals need clear answers for Iowa farmers
I recently attended the National Family Farm Coalition convention in St. Louis as a delegate for Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. The member organizations fight for farmers’ rights, fair prices, and clean water — values I see reflected in Chris Jones’ campaign for Iowa secretary of agriculture.
Jones advocates setbacks along waterways: 50 feet along streams and 10 to 20 times that distance along rivers to allow re-meandering. These measures could improve water quality and reduce flooding, goals I support as both a farmer and an Iowan.
But I need more information before I can fully support this platform. I make my living from my land. If acreage is removed from crop production, will I receive compensation? Will I still owe property taxes on land I can no longer farm? These aren’t minor details. They determine whether a policy helps family farmers or pushes us further to the margins.
I’m hopeful that Jones, with his deep expertise in water quality, can provide those answers. Iowa’s family farmers want clean water, too. We just need to know we won’t bear the cost alone.
John Clayton, Iowa City
Sarah Trone Garriott follows through on her words
I have sat in the pews while Democratic congressional candidate Sarah Trone Garriott preached about helping your neighbor, and I have watched her put those words into practice.
As a parish pastor, she took her church directory and knocked on every door in her congregation to ask how she could serve them. At the Des Moines Area Religious Council food pantry network she helped lead, she brought people of many different faiths together to feed hungry families. As a state senator, she worked across party lines to cut taxes, lower prescription drug costs, and make childcare more affordable.
Zach Nunn told Iowans it was a “myth” that his Medicaid cuts would close health care clinics. Since then, four clinics in our district have shut their doors. He promised to lower costs, and life keeps getting more expensive for Iowa families. And in nearly four years in Congress, he has never held an announced town hall open to the public.
Instead of explaining any of his votes to the people he represents, he is attacking our faith and allowing his allies to spread lies about Sarah. These attacks are disgraceful, and they tell us the type of politician Zach Nunn has become. Iowans deserve a representative who has spent her life helping her neighbors.
Elizabeth Skinner, Urbandale
Vote no on constitutional amendment on income tax increases
As Iowans prepare to vote this November, they will be asked to consider a proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both legislative chambers to approve any increase in the corporate or personal income tax. While this proposal may sound like a reasonable safeguard at first glance, it raises serious concerns about governance, accountability, and the long-term fiscal health of our state.
The League of Women Voters of Iowa has long supported measures that promote transparent, responsive, and effective government. This proposed amendment does not meet those standards. Instead, it would embed rigidity into our state’s foundational document, making it significantly more difficult for future legislators, regardless of political affiliation, to respond to changing economic conditions or unforeseen challenges.
Constitutions are designed to provide a stable framework for government, not to prescribe specific policy thresholds that limit legislative flexibility. By requiring a two-thirds supermajority to raise income taxes, this amendment would set an unusually high bar that few states impose in their constitutions. It would shift power away from majority rule and toward a small minority of legislators, effectively granting veto power to a fraction of elected representatives.
This matters because the ability to adjust revenue is essential to responsible governance. Economic downturns, natural disasters, public health emergencies, and evolving priorities — such as education, infrastructure, and public safety — can all require thoughtful adjustments to state funding. Under this amendment, even broadly supported, carefully considered revenue measures could be blocked despite majority agreement among elected officials.
Importantly, this proposal does not apply equally to all fiscal decisions. While it would make it harder to increase income taxes, it places no similar constitutional constraints on reducing taxes or altering other sources of revenue. This imbalance risks limiting the state’s ability to maintain stable funding for essential services over time.
The League of Women Voters does not take positions based on partisanship, but on principles of good governance. We believe laws should be enacted through a process that allows for deliberation, accountability, and responsiveness to voters. The current legislative process already includes checks and balances, including public input, debate, and electoral accountability. Adding a supermajority requirement in the constitution is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences for Iowa’s future.
Iowans deserve a government that can adapt thoughtfully and responsibly to changing circumstances. Locking in restrictive fiscal rules at the constitutional level reduces that capacity and limits the voice of voters as expressed through their elected representatives.
For these reasons, the League of Women Voters of Iowa urges a no vote on this proposed constitutional amendment.
Linda Hagedorn, Ames, co-president of League of Women Voters of Iowa
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Clean-water goals need clear answers for Iowa farmers | Letters
Reporting by The Register’s readers, Des Moines Register / Des Moines Register
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By The Register's readers, Des Moines Register | USA TODAY Network
