The Candidate Who Wants More Pollution in Iowa

Photo
Joni Ernst at a rally on Oct. 13 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Credit David Greedy/Getty Images

Iowa voted for Barack Obama in the last two presidential elections, but now it is seriously considering electing a United States Senate candidate with a hard-right proposal that is truly radical: abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency. That candidate, Joni Ernst, now a Republican state senator, is ahead in the polls by a few points, despite taking a position that would severely degrade the quality of life in Iowa and every other agribusiness state.

At a debate in Davenport on Saturday, Ms. Ernst came under fire from her Democratic opponent, Representative Bruce Braley, for her plan to eliminate the nation’s environmental guardian. “You’re saying you don’t want anyone making sure the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is pure,” he said.

Ms. Ernst first made this proposal during the state’s Republican primary, when she pandered for Tea Party support by also promising to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Education. But now she is stuck with it, and made a feeble attempt to justify the plan at the debate by saying the E.P.A. has overreached.

“I do believe our states know best how to protect their natural resources,” Ms. Ernst said. “I believe this can be done at the state level, rather than at a national level with the federal E.P.A.”

Turning any number of big things over to the states, of course, has become a familiar Republican substitute for actually thinking about policy. For one thing, it’s cost-free: none of these agencies or big programs are really going to be eliminated, so you can sound like you’re swinging a big wrecking ball without ever having to be responsible for the damage. But if environmental enforcement really were turned over to the states, it would be a huge gift for the business interests (like the Kochs) who are backing Ms. Ernst and other likeminded candidates, allowing them to determine air and water policy.

Iowa’s regulators, for example, have done a terrible job of keeping the state’s rivers clean, allowing so much agricultural runoff (fertilizer and livestock waste) that utilities have had to apologize to their customers for all the disinfectant poured into public water supplies. The power of the state’s agribusiness lobby is enormous, and it generally gets more of what it wants out of Des Moines than of Washington. Ms. Ernst’s plan would give that lobby far more influence.

Earlier this year, when the E.P.A. proposed to beef up the Clean Water Act by extending it to more streams and wetlands that flow into big rivers, Ms. Ernst saw an opportunity and attacked Mr. Braley for supporting a huge intrusion into the lives of farmers. (Mr. Braley generally agrees with the E.P.A., but has proposed far too many exemptions for agriculture.) She even claimed farmers would need permission from the federal government to plant a tree under the plan, which the E.P.A. said is flat wrong.

But the details don’t really matter to Ms. Ernst. She wants Iowans to fear the federal government more than they fear what’s coming out of their faucet, and she’s getting her wish.