Iowa Legislature Public Hearings

Molly Hanson [Iowa Rivers Revival]

CON

We are opposed to House File 316!Legislation to dismantle the Des Moines Water Works, West Des Moines and Urbandale water boards was approved last Tuesday by the Iowa House Ag Committee. Dane Schumann, a lobbyist for the Des Moines Water Works (as well as Iowa Rivers Revival), told lawmakers there are already provisions in Iowa law to permit the establishment of a regional water authority. "It is clear to most people in the room that this bill is about one thing. It is about eliminating the lawsuit," Schumann said.Linda Kinman of the Iowa Association of Water Agencies told lawmakers that regionalization of water facilities needs to be accomplished through partnership and cooperation, "not with a hammer coming down saying that you are forced into regionalization."Sen. Kevin Kinney, DOxford, has opposed the bill, saying lawmakers should create an interim committee to examine issues related to the proposal over the summer months.We believe this bill is bad for the metro rates will increase, economic development and safe drinking water will become politicized; additionally, this bill as written has NOTHING at all to do with a regional water utility (in fact, its not event mentioned).The bill was introduced by Representative Jarad Klein a hog farmer from Keota, Iowa (over 100 miles from Des Moines Water Works service area) who has no business dictating the utility services of central Iowans. This bill represents centralized power in the city of Des Moinesnot regionalization. Regionalization should be up to the region to decide not rushed and done behind closed doors by special interests. Rates are almost guaranteed to rise for consumersperhaps double. The people of central Iowa deserve to have their voices heard, but more importantly they deserve affordable and transparent access to clean, safe drinking water.PLEASE OPPOSE HOUSE FILE 316

Susan Heathcote []

CON

As a customer of the Des Moines Water Works and I am very concerned about the legislature trying to dictate the management of the drinking water system that serves Des Moines and surrounding communities. This is a decision that should be made by local leaders in the cities affected, not by the state legislature. I support the Des Moines Waterworks approach seeking solutions to pollution in the agricultural dominated watersheds that are the source water for their treatment plant. It is unfortunate that DMWW's efforts to ensure a safe source for drinking water for 500,000 people in Des Moines and surrounding communities has become so political.

Larry Anderson [West Des Moines Water Works (Retired)]

CON

Thank you for this opportunity

Marc Wallace [Des Moines Water Works]

CON

This bill violates every aspect of home rule and local governance. It is a taking of billions of dollars in value owned by the citizens of Des Moines and surrounding communities without compensation. It is a tranparent attack on the right of the people of Des Moines to protect their raw water quality.

Robert L. Bernard [Trout Unlimited]

CON

I believe this is a method to stop cleaning our water, by using legislative means to effectively eliminate plaintiff in our ongoing lawsuit. Changes in structure unnecessary.

Gary and Carol Ihnen []

CON

We are totally against this action it is a corporate grab by big ag to undermine and compromise the local governance and quality of our water!!! NO WAY!!!!!!!!!

Gayle Murray [Citizen]

CON

The Des Moines Water Works does a great job of keeping our water safe. This bill is nothing more than retaliation against them for the law suit they filed to hold big agriculture accountable for the pollution they cause to our waterways. Please do the right thing & stand with everyday citizens who have every right to demand clean water & responsible farming practices.

Anonymous [ICCI]

CON

Do not include the suburbs in the WW Board. Leave the board as is.

Kevin Stocker [None]

CON

I am against this bill for so many reasons, but one stands out. Why does a representative from outside the metro want the State of Iowa to solve a nonexistent issue by allowing people from 34+ hours away decide how water is treated and disseminated to central Iowa? This is not about control of rates, DMWW does its civic duty to raise rates at a fair an equitable schedule, but what people,e don't generally know is that DMWW is required by the SDWA amendments of 1996 to comply with the Viability standards. This means raising rates is a federal mandate and a matter of compliance in which they meet that standard. This is simply and completely a matter of way for Farm Bureau to try and dismantle DMWW and its board in the hope this delays or derails the lawsuit against three counties in NW Iowa that is still pending. How about a bill to eliminate the lobbyists altogether? That would make a difference, let the people vote in Des Moines and the suburbs, this is not a state issue and FB shouldn't be able to find a patsy from SE Iowa to be its puppet. This bill shouldn't have even made it our of committee.

John Cook []

CON

This bill is a backdoor way to stop the DM Waterworks suit requiring drainage districts to comply as point sources with Clean Water Act rules. This issue needs to be decided in court or with Congressional legislation. Inserting the Iowa legislature into this issue is inappropriate. The bill stinks like the CAFO operations that are lobbying for dissolution of the DM Waterworks.

Anonymous []

CON

Dismantling Iowa Water Works would be devastating to Iowans. This bill is the government folding to BigAg in order to stop the current lawsuit. The proponents for this bill are choosing to ignore citizens' rights to clean water and a healthy environment.

Emily Shay []

CON

HF 484 seems to me to be a cynical endrun around the Water Works' attempts to sue neighboring counties for illegally dumping nitrates in our water. Do not pass this bill. Support the Des Moines Water Works in its efforts to bring us clean water.

Farah Marklevits []

CON

Local control via a board of trustees best ensures that drinking water will be safe, healthy, and meet the needs of the residents who rely on those vital services, rather than serve the political interests of local officials. The Ag Committee's sponsorship of this bill suggests that this law places political or corporate interests over the interests of residents.

Alice Bodson []

CON

Why rush this through? Our drinking water is too important. This should be in a Public Health committee, not Agricultural I would think. Is it because of the lawsuit to prevent nitrate infiltration into our drinking water that this suit is raised? Des Moines Waterworks now belongs to us, the rate payers. Are people wanting to take ownership to sell property for exploitation by investors? Is this the first step to privatizing management by a firm like American Waterways from New Jersey if possible new management were to fall apart?

Mary Williams []

CON

The city of Des Moines has the right to manage and protect its own water supply. Local control makes sense.This bill looks like nothing more than retribution. Lawmakers should not waste their time on bills that do nothing to help citizens of this state.

Donnielle J. Wanatee [Meskwaki / Indigenous Iowa / Bold Iowa]

CON

I am for the protection of clean,safe water for my fellow Iowans. It will affect everyone in my State.The rivers and soil are important to Iowa and its citizens.I will stand up and speak for our rivers and streams as an indigenous person in Iowa,and on behalf of Iowans who just want to live with clean water.

Anonymous []

CON

Please do not dismantle the Des Moines Water Works as it is now very effective in protecting the water for central Iowa.

Jennifer Gero [U.S. Navy]

CON

We are adamantly against any bill that would dismantle the Des Moines water works. This bill is not in the best interest of the citizens of Des Moines and we are definitely opposed.

Douglas Oscarson []

CON

This bill is designed to stop the Water Works' nitrate lawsuit in Federal Court before the June trial date. This is why it's being rushed through. The City of Des Moines is favoring it because if passed, this bill will end up creating another revenue stream for the city basically, taxation without representation. The Water Works has been providing safe and abundant water to the community since 1871 and independent from the City since 1923. Why rush this through except to stop the lawsuit? The supporters of this bill are not fooling anyone.The Republican Party has historically been for smaller government and local control of local issues. Every Republican who favors this bill is a traitor to what the party stands for. Every Republican who favors this bill is obviously a puppet for big agriculture in Iowa. Every Republican who says, I am supporting this bill to help water customers is a liar believing his own lies. Shame on you. Stand up and do what your citizens want for a change vote NO.

Nancy Brown [Mrs.]

CON

Don't make Central Iowa the next "Flint Michigan"This is a bad bill and lessens local control of the water I drink, preventing local action to deal with obvious problems. Iowa's water is bad and getting worse. This bill is part of the problem, not the solution.

Anonymous [none]

CON

The Des Moines Water Works has been doing a good job providing safe drinking water for a large number of Iowans and trying to protect the water supply of even more. This bill is ill considered and does not benefit Iowans.

David Michael [N/A]

CON

As a Des Moines and Iowa resident I would like to see local control of utilities and keep the vote up to the community and not the legislature. Please do not support this legislation and harm our chance at better water quality.

Debora [Anderson]

CON

I am opposed to this power grab. Please keep our water utility board independent of our city council. The Des Moines Water Works is well managed and serves the community professionally and with integrity. This looks like legislation in search of a problem to solve, which doesn't exist.

Mary clover []

CON

I do not support this thinly veile effort to stop the Des Moines water woks law suit and efforts to protect our water

Anonymous [Resident of Des Moines Water]

CON

I am a resident of Des Moines and I would like a say in this decision. I would like this put to a vote so the people of Des Moines, West Des Moines and Urbandale can decide what's best for our drinking water. We as a voter are not getting our "Seat at the Table". This flies in the face of Democracy.

Brant Kassel []

CON

I oppose this unnecessary bill because it takes away my local control and does nothing to address water quality in the State of Iowa. We elected these folks to go to the Statehouse to solve problems, not tell people how to live their life or who can represent them! DMWW has a board that is accountable to it's ratepayers (not folks who live outside the Des Moines Metro). We have a process if we are unhappy with DMWW. We have a process for this and if folks who aren't in the area have a problem with that, that's too bad. Ratepayers and taxpayers are happy with the service provided. Lastly, I was hoping that the folks we elected would help tackle our water quality issues head on. This is a problem that isn't going away and will affect not just us, but our children and their children. All this bill does is strip local control from DM ratepayers and help out corporate ag interests. I urge our legislators to vote no on this bill.

Joe Fagan [Iowa CCI]

CON

Vote no on dismantling the Des Moines Water Works.

Peggy Ross []

CON

This is a baldfaced attempt to sidetrack efforts to clean up Iowa's rivers. We don't need another water scandal like the one in Flint, MI. Hands off!

Patsy Martinson []

CON

Water needs to stay in the public domain. It is a human right. If privatizers take charge of this, we are all in trouble. Just look to the countries in the world where this has happened. People suffer, especially the poor.

Sharon Johnson []

CON

Bill Stowe is courageously standing up for clean water and protecting our health downstream from the 3 counties in NW Iowa that are polluting our watersheds. If you dismantle the Des Moines WaterWorks, his lawsuit would disappear. Is this the goal of this legislation? If so, you should be ashamed of yourselves! It needs to go on to the Supreme Court to evaluate all the facts which show the nitrate levels increasing steadily for many years to reach alarmingly toxic numbers! The Strategic Nutrient Program that is purely voluntary has had several years to work, but has NOT WORKED. Corporate CEOs of the thousands of Iowa CAFOs will never take voluntary steps to UNpollute the waters, when their only concern is profits, not the protection of our health and environment! The EPC needs to enforce the Clean Water Act IN iowa, and until they do, Bill Stowe managing the DM waterworks is the best solution we have!

John Schmidt [None]

CON

I strongly oppose the bill for two reasons. First, the bill does not respect the owners and customers of the utilities described in the bill. They should be allowed to vote on any structural changes such as that mandated by the bill. Second, the bill takes effect upon enactment, giving no time for a transition. If the board of trustees of the utility is dissolved on the date of enactment, who will transfer title to the assets? Who will employ the employees? Will each city affected by the bill have to hire staff? How long will that take?In short, the authors of this legislation appear to be ignoring a host of problems, some of which may result in costly litigation for the parties affected. As a taxpayer, I am deeply disappointed that the legislature appears to be risking the health of all Iowans that are customers of the affected utilities. This proposal should be studied in depth before approval of such legislation.

Laurinda Young [Mrs.]

CON

The purity of our water needs protection. I believe the Des Moines water works has acted to bring this issue into heightened awareness as the state has side stepped this issue. Their right to fulfill their obligation of providing pure water must be protected!

Anonymous []

CON

NO NO NO NO NO DO NOT DISMANTLE THE DES MOINES WATER WORKS... IF YOU DO YOU ARE ENABLING THE FOR PROFIT CORPORATION TO DISMANTLE IT LATER... FOR PROFIT

Ann Gould []

CON

We don't need another Flint.

George Belken [1952]

CON

Sirs,Ive always had a set of beliefs, pay your own way, and if it works dont try to fix it, finally do no harm.This bill is contrary to all three. Despite not mentioning it, it appears this bill is focused directly on the Des Moines Water Board, to curtail its lawsuit against upstream polluters. As a resident of Des Moines I should not be forced to pay extra to remove pollutants that are indiscriminately applied upstream from my home.

Tony Reid [retired]

CON

This is a move by Corporate Farming to continue to make Iowa's drinking water toxic. It is also another move to limit local control.

Judith Griffith []

CON

I am against this bill. The Des Moines Water Works has done and continues to do an outstanding job of providing and managing water monitoring and control to the city. To destroy the administrative infrastructure seems a foolish and vengeful act.

Dr. Wendy White [Private citizen]

CON

There is no valid rationale to dismantle the Des Moines Water Works.

Anonymous [citizen]

CON

Oppose HF484 Why the rush on this bill? This is a complicated issue with far reaching future implications that could cost millions and could jeopardize the safety of our water. It requires research and oversight by the citizens of Des Moines to ensure it is in the best interest of those of us who rely on clean and healthy water for our families. It requires citizen review and approval. A bill "pushed through" does not allow this oversight.I am a Des Moines resident and I oppose this bill.

Bev Philpott []

CON

Yet another effort to interfere in LOCAL government issues. And another overreach for state legislators who are supposedly in favor of small government and self determination.

Jon Neiderbach []

CON

The Des Moines Water Works provides a quality product at a reasonable cost. The members of the Board at the Water Works do their jobs thoughtfully and well. There is no reason for the state to interfere with the Water Works operations. Please do not approve the proposed legislation.

Joseph Otto [Graduate Student, Iowa History]

CON

The Iowa Supreme Court has told us that the states laws protect drainage districts from being sued for damages related to the pollution of public waters. The basis of this immunity is a set of rights developed over one hundred years ago. In 1908 the General Assembly amended the takings clause of the state Constitution to empower County Boards with the authority to create drainage districts, and to take and tax land therein.Five years before that amendment, in 1903, the Supreme Court took a different view than the present court. It ruled that the states drainage laws were unconstitutional because the benefits were not truly public, but rather only benefitted a small few who wished to grow more crops. In response, Iowas farmers organized and lobbied for reforms that explicitly defined drainage as a public benefit, thus leading to the 1908 Amendment. By 1911 farmers in thirtyone counties in northcentral and northwestern Iowa had organized drainage districts that included approximately 3 million acres of land and invested in ditch and tile systems worth over $15 million dollars. These public projects provided farmers with outlets needed to drain surface water from their farms. At that years meeting of the Iowa State Drainage Association, a member of its Legislation Committee boasted that the value of drainage infrastructure, public and private, was destined to be twice as great as all the gold dug in Alaskathree times as great as the great ship canal across New York state, and very nearly as great as the Panama Canal. Without question, the General Assembly went to great lengths to protect farmers rights to drain.But the General Assembly did not support farmers rights in a vacuum. Rather they sought to balance them with the rights of other water users. The thirtyone counties doing heavy drainage are located on the Wisconsin Drift lands, which include the headwaters of all Iowas interior streams. Farmers down below had yet to drain, and some worried that a Panama Canalsized drainage system sitting just above them might alter the flow of water in ways injurious to their operations. The City of Des Moines worried about an increased threat from floods and even hired engineers from the USDA to investigate the possibility of building levees. Others wanted to build reservoirs to hold back floods and provide Iowas growing communities with hydroelectricity and weekend getaways. Still others demanded state oversight to prevent especially egregious projects from happening, such as draining natural lakes and straightening inland rivers, because such lands belonged to the public and should not be owned by anyone. Not surprisingly, the 1909 the General Assembly responded to the needs of Iowans. It created a State Commission to study the water management problem as a single issue. They ordered the Commission to report on the problem and make legislative suggestions that the next General Assembly could turn into law. The Commission worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, the USDA, the State Agricultural College, the State University, the state Fish and Game Warden, and numerous County Boards. They concluded that drainage was essential to Iowas prosperity, but that the quality of the work varied greatly from county to county and that state oversight was desperately needed. The USDA Drainage Engineer working in the Wisconsin Drift lands noted a great many bad features in the state and that it was necessary to say some sharp things about the current Iowa practice. At that time no laws governed who was qualified to survey a drainage project. Without a mandate to hire certified engineers, many drainage trustees hired common surveyors to plan their ditch and tile systems. They kept the costs down, to be sure, but their plans did not account for the size of the watershed, the amount of discharge from tributary streams, nor the impact it would have on lands downstream or across county lines. After two years of work, the Commission recommended that the state create and fund a permanent conservation agency to oversee drainage planning at the watershed level. Such an agency was needed for two reasons. First, because county governments could not serve the needs of major tax payers while also considering how their local drainage infrastructure might injure downstream neighbors. State oversight was the only way to manage a natural resource that did not stop at a fence row or the county line. Second, because the laws protecting Iowans drainage rights did not require that systems be planned by a certified engineer, or even an engineer at all. Only the State could standardize engineering practices and ensure drainage trustees adhered to them, and that they provided continued maintenance. The Agency was to be staffed by professional drainage engineers, who would assist counties with drainage planning. In addition to promoting agricultural interests, the Agency would design reservoirs for flood control, power, and recreational purposes, and work with the Fish and Game Warden to protect illegal draining of natural lakes, which served hunters and anglers as rare havens for wildlife.The Commissions report was ready just in time for the 1911 legislative session. The actions taken by that legislature bear strongly on the development of water management throughout the twentieth century. The General Assembly did not act on the Commission's report. In fact, they dismantled it completely. It was not until 1918 that the legislature created a State Board of Conservation, but by then water management was not a single issue. The 1911 General Assembly arguably made the most significant water management decision in Iowa's legislative history. Never again were environmental uses and problems considered for the effect one had on the other. And now the General Assembly is poised to dismantle the only entity to raise that issue in a century. The problem is real. It is not an evil conspiracy pitting rural against urban interests. The decisions made at the top of a watershed have great consequences for all people living downstream. I am 33 years old, and more than once I have seen my hometown of Colfax destroyed by a flood that should come once in a hundred years. The entire upper half of the Skunk River is channelized through Story, Jasper, Marion, and Mahaska Counties. There are no levees or storage reservoirs only drainage ditches, laterals, tile mains, patterns, drop inlets, silt basins, and cash grain. The headwaters are in Hamilton County there used to be a 1000 acre lake there called Cairo. It was drained in 1895, along with hundreds of other natural lakes too small to have names. All of this happened before the legislature decided to create a Conservation Board, or agreed that only certified engineers should design drainage infrastructure. Yet this system is still with us, and this General Assembly thinks it needs even more protection. Is a constitutional amendment not enough? The Des Moines Water Works renewed my faith that Iowans might recognize that this situation is intolerable, and that oversight of drainage is desperately needed. HF 484 is not only a disproportionate response, it is a tragedy. Please do not let history repeat itself.Joe Ottomember, Iowa Environmental Council member, Iowa Drainage District Association

Andrea Springmeier []

CON

Dismantling this public utility at this crucial legal junction is nothing more than a loosely veiled attempt to undermine the upcoming lawsuit that would serve to protect the drinking water and overall health of all Iowans and everyone else downstream in favor of increased profits for Iowa's biggest corporate polluters. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot by restructuring a utility that has worked to provide healthy drinking water and protect the quality of our water for well over a century.

krysten reid []

CON

This is terrible why on earth would we say cities cannot spend money on their water utilities unless it is an emergency. This is ridiculous. Iowans deserve dependable clean water, not whatever crazy partisan politics this bill is?

Nick Sarcone [Myself]

CON

This bill is a terrible idea. Retaliation is never a smart means of solving an issue. You vote for it, you support it, I'll work my tail off to see you don't will relection. You win relection I'll be back working my tail off to see you don't win the next time, etc. That includes every member of the DSM city council and the legislature.

Peggy Gingerich []

CON

I think we need water utility boards. Water quality is a huge issue in the state of Iowa. We need qualified people who know something about the issue to make decisions about it. The people also need some method of recourse when bad decisions are made. I think this is what is trying to be prevented by this bill. Please, give people a voice.

JackieJoens [Citizen]

CON

I think this bill should be killed now.

Mel Pins [Des Moines citizen]

PRO

I support creation of a regional water utility, wherein participating communities, citizens, rate payers, and their elected officials therein, can have an appropriate partnership and say in the operation and management of a regional utility.

Patricia Fuller [self]

CON

All Iowans deserve the right to clean drinking water. The Des Moines Water Works should not have to shoulder the undue financial burden of clearing the nitrates out of their drinking water. Their suit against the three Iowa counties is justified. This proposed bill appears to be a thinly cloaked attempt to get rid of the suit and to once again prioritize the rights of corporate agriculture over the health of Iowa's citizens

Richard Kerby [Urbandale citizen and Urbandale Water Utility employee]

CON

This bill must be killed. I do not want to see the Urbandale Water Board dismantled. The Urbandale water board was created by the people in 1936 and only by the vote of the people should it be dismantled. Please kill this bill! We do not need bigger government or the State legislature or the local government telling us how to run a public utility that was created for and by the citizens of Urbandale. It is well known that this bill was created to retaliate Dismantling the water utility Boards allows the lawsuit to be dropped. The Urbandale water utility has nothing to do with the lawsuit. This is bad legislation, let the water boards continue to manage their own assets and infrastructure. The Urbandale Water Utility board has been doing an exceptional job without intervention from the State of Iowa. Thank You, Sincerely Richard Kerby

Ann Bublitz []

CON

As an existing customer of the Des Moines Water Works and an Iowa taxpayer, I am strongly opposed to HF484. This bill makes no sense whatsoever and the legal costs of dividing up the property and reorganizing the management of the Des Moines Water Works would be huge with no benefit whatsoever for water customers or taxpayers. In addition, the control of water would go to several city councils, politicizing this important resource. It would potentially halt important development in the region. There is no coordination of those divided resources within the region. This bill has no positive justification whatsoever. The only remaining rationale for this bill is that it is purely punitive in nature. This bill must be stopped by the legislature immediately.

Anonymous []

CON

HF484: I am opposed to dismantling Des Moines Water Works. The water facility needs to remain as it is and should not be made a regional facility.

Joseph Jay Yarnell [Self]

CON

I am now retired, but was a Registered Professional (Chemical) Engineer during my working life. In my last job, I set electric, water and wastewater rates for the 8th largest Municipal utility in the nation. During my career I acted as Engineer of Record to several national corporations. I worked with many municipalities on multiple utility projects throuhout my career.I oppose this bill on many grounds. Des Moines Water Works provides excellent quality water at a reasonable price to consumers. If its not broke don't fix it. This bill appears to be precipitated by the introduction of excessive nitrates into our drinking water by agricultural interests. The public should not bear that cost of treatment. It is incumbent upon businesses to clean up their own mess.I have further remarks I would like to make at the hearing.

Sarah Gardner []

CON

This is very upsetting. You are trying to give away tens of millions of assets paid for by Des Moines residents. We are already paying millions of dollars to clean up the nitrates in the water and now we won't control the agency tasked with that endeavor. It is a horrible bill!

Anonymous []

CON

The regionalization of our critical water utility should not be legislated by State Government. This is a very important piece of our infrastructure and many of us remember the disastrous results when water service is disrupted. ANY change in the structure of the DSM water board should be managed by the city in cooperation with their suburb customers.

Eli Shepherd [Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund]

CON

Don't dismantle the Des Moines Water Works, dismantle corporate power's control over our government and economy. Stop this bill. Mni Wiconi, Water is Life. Make polluters not the public pay to clean up the mess they've made!

Peter Sand [Citizen]

PRO

Thank you for allowing me to speak in favor of the bill.

Patti McKee [Des Moines citizen]

CON

This bill is taking away local control of one of the necessities of life. As a Des Moines citizen, I am happy with the job the Des Moines Waterworks has done. This bill is an obvious attack on the Des Moines Waterworks due to their suit against the three drainage districts. The state government of Iowa has failed to put in place meaningful strategies to clean up Iowa's 754 impaired waterways. Thus, Des Moines Waterworks needed to act to protect the water of 500,000 central Iowans.I strongly oppose this bill and encourage you to do so as well.

Anonymous [private citizen]

CON

In civics class we learned about an old British Parliamentary trick called a bill of attainder: "A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature....the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property..." (Wikipedia)This proposal obviously is aimed at the Des Moines Water Works, as no other entity in the state provides water to a metropolitan area of more than 500,000 population. It would seize property and divide it among jurisdictions that are not in position to manage it as well as it can be managed in its entirety by the DMWW Board and its employees.This is meanspirited in its origin and if passed will have farreaching consequences for those who rely on the Des Moines Water Works for accessible, available, affordable waterand for those who work to provide this water.The timing of this 'public' hearing obviously is designed to suppress participation of those who would be affected by this legislation, as many people who have interest in this topic are at work at 10:00 on a Monday morning.This legislation provides no benefit for the citizens of Iowa and has the potential to cause great and longlasting harm to over 500,000 Iowans. Please oppose this legislation. Thank you.

Kirk Brill []

CON

Fish business in mid 1980's. High nitrates and T.C.E. in water killed fish and brine shrimp would not hatch. Stopped our fish business because of the water. Six babies died from Methemoglobinemia from high nitrates in the water in N.E. Iowa that same year. Won't drink the water, have reverse osmosis water system at our house. I supportWilliam Stowe!! I was in the DM Register May 8th, 1986 fullpage article fighting with LD McMullen!!!

Tara Tarnowski [Individual]

CON

This bill seems like a thinly veiled attempt to stop the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit against rural Iowa counties for water pollution from agricultural chemicals. This issue should be decided Des Moines and the surrounding communities that Water Works serves, in a well thought out and carefully considered way. What is the rush to dissolve our water utility, it has been working for us for 100 hundred years? I am disgusted that the Agriculture committees in the House and Senate took this bill up. What right do they have to try and force Des Moines to change the way our water utility is run? This bill is obvious government over reach.

R Riley Jr []

CON

Water boards, as constructed under Iowa code section 388, were established for a very good purpose. Boards and commissions allow interested citizens with a civic improvement intent, to focus on a single area of need, as opposed to elected officials who, by definition and time limitations, cannot. While electeds have various political agendas to pursue, for various groups of constituents, water boards have single purposes, and only one constituent group, all citizens. Because their terms of service are longer, they can devote time, energy, and develop expertise to serve their role. The time horizon for water boards stretches out 10 to 50 years, much longer than a typical elected official's horizon. HF 484 (the "Kill Bill" bill) neglects the wisdom of 100 years of established law, is short sighted, violates the tenets of "home rule", seeks to circumvent the law and due process, and is retaliatory, not constructive. Vote NO on HF484.

Anonymous []

CON

I am opposed to HF 484. The Des Moines Water Works is not broken. It is doing a fine job for our communities. The dismantling of DMWW will create mismanagement of our water resources. Those pursuing SF 484 are opposed to protecting our clean water and the water that flows from Iowa southward.

Anonymous [Concerned Citizens]

CON

My main concern about this bill is the quality of our water systems already. The rivers and streams in Iowa are already in dire need of help. This bill distracts from that need. Considering this bill is designed to put more control by government for city water systems. Why is this even a bill that needs to be addressed by government? I thought Republicans whom have control at this point want less government...doesn't this bill completely undermine those statements we hear time and again?

Anne Mayer [Concerned Des Moines resident]

CON

I oppose this bill because, unlike legislators supporting it, I drink the water here all year. State legislators representing people who do not drink Des Moines water and who purport to favor small government should not malke state laws regarding local matters. This legislation is clearly not about clean water. It is political payback that puts my city on a course to become the next Flint, MI by forbidding necessary upkeep of our city water processing facilities.

Ron Goodman []

CON

I have lived in the Des Moines area for the last 70 years. During that time the Des Moines Water Works has provided safe, clean and generally tasty water for Des Moines and several of its suburbs, and done so at reasonable rates. It is hard to understand why legislators who live nowhere near Des Moines are pushing to reorganize the water works. Something is fishy. The people of the Des Moines area are the best judges of our water. Vote NO on HF 484.

Elizabeth Buchmeier []

CON

Des Moines Water Works is essential to providing safe drinking water. For a rural legislator to try to highjack our utility in retribution for a lawsuit is beyond the pale. Stop allowing corporate ag to run roughshod over our water and our spineless, corporatesponsored Republican representation. Leave the water works alone!!!!

Lauren Whitehead []

CON

This bill is the punitive use of law to impose control over local, municipal waterworks to the benefit of outside, agricultural interests. Why is a waterworks bill going through the agricultural committees? It was not introduced by the residents or communities it claims to serve, nor have they expressed interest. When people talk about special interests and political corruption, this is what they talk about. I oppose this bill.

Jon Krieg []

CON

The Des Moines Water Works has a long history of providing safe, affordable drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people in Central Iowa. I applaud their efforts at keeping our water safe and oppose any attempts by the legislature to mandate how the DMWW should be organized and managed. This is far too valuable a public service to be subjected to the whims of partisan politics.

Anonymous [none]

CON

Am completely opposed to dismantling water works. There is NO good reason to do this other thana desire not to comply with clean water needs.

Anonymous [1990]

CON

This is nothing more than a partisan political crusade against the water utility board. We have real issues you can focus on in this state. Stop wasting my tax dollars on this nonsense.

Anonymous [self]

CON

I feel concerns that dismantling DSM watersorks will put us in the same place as Flint, Michigan. There is no sense in doing something like this.

Linda Quinn []

CON

Not wise to politicize our water.

Martha Schut []

CON

Clean water is one of our most important resources. Please support continuance of the water works.