Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

SSB 1221 Another Public land Bill

Fishbonker said:
This bill was assigned to a sub committee yesterday, the meeting is Tuesday, April 2nd in the House Lounge.

If as many folks show up for this one as the original sub in the Senate it will make a difference.

Subcommittee members:

Representative Mike Sexton, House District 10, Pocahontas, Calhoun, Humboldt and parts of Webster Counties. Email: Mike.Sexton@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=1153

Representative Jarad Klein, House District 78, Keokuk and parts of Washington Counties. Email: jarad.klein@legis.iowa.gov Legislative web page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=9408

Representative RasTafari I. Smith, House District 62, Waterloo. Email: Ras.Smith@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=18048
Click to expand...
Just so I'm clear so I don't sound like a mule when I send out emails. This bill stops future gifts and purchases of public land correct? The main point in my emails is going to include how they just passed a bill through the house that was labeled as a hunter recruitment and ease of access bill so this one should be shot down as it makes both of those more difficult.
 
bigbuckhunter88 said:
Just so I'm clear so I don't sound like a mule when I send out emails. This bill stops future gifts and purchases of public land correct? The main point in my emails is going to include how they just passed a bill through the house that was labeled as a hunter recruitment and ease of access bill so this one should be shot down as it makes both of those more difficult.
Click to expand...

This bill has become very complicated. The gift tax break will not be effected. The big part about this bill that the lawmakers didn't like was the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation was using the state revolving fund to borrow money at a reduced rate to purchase land. The Farm Bureau felt the INHF was taking land away from agribusinessmen by getting loans at a reduced interest rate compared to what an agribusinessmen could get a loan from the bank. Reduced interest rates meant the INHF could afford a higher payment than the agribusinesmen. Here is where it gets a little murky, the FB complains because the INHF outbids them at auctions but the INFH says they only did that maybe 9 times in the history of the fund, the nonconservsation minded conservatives cried foul and had their own numbers. The nonconservasion minded conservatives also didn't like the thought that the state revolving fund is funded by tax dollars and the INHF was using tax money to purchase ground. In fact one of them complained about tax money being used for CRP.

So, this is a muddy murky mess with some disinformation on both sides. I know who I believe. If the INHF found a loop hole and exploited it, good for them, I'm for anything that would help get more ground in Iowa set aside for public use. If it is indeed not right to use the fund the way the INHF has then it should probably stop.

My hope is this dies in the House and with some clarity of purpose it might be resolved next year.

Anyway, that's my take on it.
 
After successfully making it very difficult or impossible for the DNR to buy public lands for itself the focus has now shifted to Conservation Boards and INHF.

The house bill that didn't progress was a nuclear bomb for future public land in Iowa. The outcry was massive and it was shelved (for now). The current senate bill is a much more focused attack on the INHF which is well known for working with both the DNR and local County Conservation Boards to find creative ways to acquire more public lands.

Farm Bureau and Senate Republicans are making the argument that INHF using the SRF low interest loan program is unfair to new farmers trying to buy land. I personally find if laughable to think that one of the main reasons new farmers can't afford to get into farming and/or buy ground is because of the INHF using this fund to buy a few pieces of land, but to each their own.

The INHF is using this money for non-point source water quality improvements (restoring wetlands and grasslands that protect the watershed for example). It just so happens these projects are also able to be used for public hunting or other types of natural resource areas. The IDNR and IFA set the rules and jointly administer the program. Projects must have a direct, unequivocal water quality benefit to be eligible for the loan. If a farmer or anyone else wants to use SRF loans to buy land and use it for an approved water quality improvement, they could apply for the low interest loans as well since non-point projects can be privately owned.

IMHO what it boils down to is that FB doesn't want any more public land. The direct frontal assault blew up in their faces so now they are on to more obscure low hanging fruit.
 
INHF Information about the STATE REVOLVING FUND:

The State Revolving Fund (SRF) is a low-interest loan program supported by federal
funding for water quality projects.

The State Revolving Fund is established in the Clean Water Act to provide low-interest
loans for water quality projects. The fund is primarily used for waste water treatment and
stormwater facilities, and has a set aside allocation for nonpoint source water quality
improvements. Funds are granted to the state from the EPA.

The state does not use general funds to support SRF loans.

States must provide a 20% match of federal funds to participate in the program. The Iowa
Finance Authority issues bonds to provide the match. These bonds are paid back by
incoming loan payments and interest.

IDNR and IFA set rules and jointly administer the program. Projects must have a direct,
unequivocal water quality benefit to be eligible for the loan.

SRF projects are transparent to the public and vetted by the EPC.
Projects using SRF are approved by the Environmental Protection Commission. Public
meetings provide opportunity to submit input and comments.

Local banks hold and manage the SRF loan.
Once a project is approved, a private bank holds and manages the note. Banks are proud
to support SRF projects as a public service to the community.

INHF repays 100% of the loan, plus costs and interest.

A moratorium on SRF has prevented water quality improvement projects.
During the 2018 legislative session, a last-minute provision was added to the Standings bill
that restricted the use of SRF until the Iowa DNR produced a land inventory report. There
was no opportunity for public comment on the moratorium, and the increased interest cost
has limited water quality improvement projects.

SRF loans should be restored for use on all eligible water quality projects.

The Iowa DNR has published a land inventory report, which can be found on their website.
The moratorium will lapse at the end of the fiscal year. INHF asks that the no further
legislative action be taken to strip the EPC of its discretion to approve SRF loans for land
acquisitions that improve water quality.
 
smallmunster said:
After successfully making it very difficult or impossible for the DNR to buy public lands for itself the focus has now shifted to Conservation Boards and INHF.

The house bill that didn't progress was a nuclear bomb for future public land in Iowa. The outcry was massive and it was shelved (for now). The current senate bill is a much more focused attack on the INHF which is well known for working with both the DNR and local County Conservation Boards to find creative ways to acquire more public lands.

Farm Bureau and Senate Republicans are making the argument that INHF using the SRF low interest loan program is unfair to new farmers trying to buy land. I personally find if laughable to think that one of the main reasons new farmers can't afford to get into farming and/or buy ground is because of the INHF using this fund to buy a few pieces of land, but to each their own.

The INHF is using this money for non-point source water quality improvements (restoring wetlands and grasslands that protect the watershed for example). It just so happens these projects are also able to be used for public hunting or other types of natural resource areas. The IDNR and IFA set the rules and jointly administer the program. Projects must have a direct, unequivocal water quality benefit to be eligible for the loan. If a farmer or anyone else wants to use SRF loans to buy land and use it for an approved water quality improvement, they could apply for the low interest loans as well since non-point projects can be privately owned.

IMHO what it boils down to is that FB doesn't want any more public land. The direct frontal assault blew up in their faces so now they are on to more obscure low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight. I also think its laughable they are blaming someone else for not allowing new farmers to purchase land. The only people to blame are the big time farmers and corporations that can make those prices work
 
SF548 passed the house agriculture sub on the 2nd passed full agriculture committee on 3rd.

I understand the subcommittee meeting was well attended with good points being made but it still went through. Full committee vote was 12-9 with two absent. It is eligible for House debate.
 
Hey guys- INHF - like what is happening or not.... FACT - they are buying large conservation tracts that have TIMBER. They like big old trees & vast forests if possible. I’ve spoken to them several times on goals, process, criteria, etc. I am going to say- there’s rarely a case where a “local farmer” is even wanting to buy that!!! I know of 3 Tracts they have bought- their targets are NOT what ag farmers are buying. Once again, FB is simply incorrect.

Personal thoughts...
I won’t make blanket statements BUT - I’m to the point of accepting that anything common sense for quality of deer herd/wildlife, conservation, environment & protecting Iowa’s habitat & quality hunting - FB will almost always be against it. I’m a “right winger” but the things FB stands for & does, appalls me. My friends on the right should be ashamed to accept the $ from them & FB is always chomping at the bits to “buy” politicians and influence.
 
Passed the House today. An amendment was offered and the amendment passed 94-0. The amendment is here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=88&ba=H-1242 then they voted on the bill as amended and the bill passed 52-44.

I have read the amendment and, quite frankly , I don't understand it but it must have been a good amendment if it passed unanimously.

This bill will now go through this process:


Second Passage: Amendments adopted by the chamber of origin are incorporated into the bill before it is sent to the other chamber. As the bill follows its path through the Legislature, the procedure in both chambers is basically the same. A bill introduced in the Senate will retain its original Senate number as it travels through the House, and a bill introduced in the House will retain its original House number as it travels through the Senate. If the bill is further amended by the other chamber, the amended bill is sent back to the chamber of origin for approval. The chamber of origin can also amend the amendment. If the chamber of origin concurs or agrees with the amendment(s), the bill has passed both chambers in identical form and will be sent to the Governor for review. If the chamber of origin refuses to concur with the other chamber’s amendment(s), the bill is returned to the other chamber, which may recede from or insist upon its amended version of the bill. If it recedes, the bill is sent to the Governor; however, if the chamber insists upon its amendment(s), a conference committee is appointed to work out the differences.

Conference Committee: Conference committees are composed of Senate and House members representing both the majority and minority parties and both sides of the issue in dispute. The 10 members of a conference committee are appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader and the Speaker of the House and Minority Leader of the House to study the points of disagreement between the chambers in an attempt to reach a compromise. If an agreement is reached, it is presented to both chambers in a report that contains the compromise version of the bill. The report cannot be amended by either chamber. If the report is rejected by either chamber, a second conference committee may be appointed. If no agreement is reached, the bill fails. If the conference committee report is adopted, the chambers again vote on the bill. If the bill is approved it will be enrolled and sent to the Governor for review.

So it isn't a done deal yet.

It's a head scratcher for sure why the amendment passed unanimously but the vote on the bill followed party lines. If somebody understands the jargon used in the amendment could explain it I think we would all appreciate it.
 
The House amendment to this bill was accepted by voice vote (non recorded) by the Senate and passed on party lines. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom