Water Quality

• A $1 Billion Down Payment on the Nutrient Reduction Strategy – Use the surplus in Iowa’s treasury

• Although Fertilizer is Expensive, Farmers are Indeed Wasting It

• Update: Save Bloody Run

Voting

• Redistricting - Ask legislators to support Plan 2

• Why School Board races count

• Vote in Election for School Board, City Council, & Mayor

Updates about the Iowa Legislature

• Petition to Repeal Iowa's New Voter Laws

Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

• Update on CO2 pipeline projects

Events

• Join us for interesting and informative webinars and Lunch and Learns

Plus

• Contribute to the Iowa Chapter

• Volunteer for the Iowa Chapter

• Calendar of events

• To see the archive of previous Iowa Chapter newsletters

• To see the White Pine Needle newsletter

Redistricting - Ask legislators to support Plan 2

The Legislative Services Agency (LSA) is delivering a second set of maps, called Plan 2, on October 21.  The Iowa Senate and House will convene on October 28 to consider the maps.   The maps lay out the districts for each US Representative plus each Iowa House and Senate member.  The maps are based on the recent census data.  These maps will be used for the next ten years.

The Iowa legislature met on October 5 to consider the first set of redistricting maps, referred to as Plan 1.  The Senate rejected those maps on a party-line vote, with the complaint that the districts in those maps were not compact enough and did not create districts of identical populations.  That action is what led to Plan 2.

We encourage the Iowa legislators to approve the Plan 2 maps.

Step 1: Contact both of your legislators and ask that they approve the Plan 2 redistricting maps.

You can use our action alert

or send your own email message

Email, address, and phone number for Representatives

Email, addresses, and phone numbers for Senators

Find your legislator

Why School Board races count

A recent Associated Press article stated “Across the U.S. local school board races have emerged as an intense political battleground in the Nov 2 elections, with much at stake for students.  Parental protests over COVID-19-related mask mandates, gender-neutral bathrooms, and teachings about racial history, sexuality and social-emotional learning are being leveraged into full-fledged board take-over campaigns that will get their first widespread test in just a few weeks."

The article continued with, “Local school board elections typically have been relatively quiet affairs where incumbents sail to re-election, often unopposed.  This year, candidate training academies organized by national conservative groups and state-level recruitment efforts are encouraging challenges by right-leaning political newcomers.  The results could have consequences for public education and coronavirus safety measures across the country.”

Not only that, there could be efforts to censor reading material or restrict coursework in the sciences, including climate change and evolution.   See our flyer about Protecting K-12 Science Education.

At least two Iowa school districts have candidates that are part of the battlegrounds identified in the Associated Press article – Ankeny in Polk County and Linn-Mar in Linn County.

The Linn-Mar race has an extra set of concerns.  A resident of the school district formally challenged some of the signatures on Geralyn Jones' nomination forms, claiming that on several occasions that a person signed for themselves and another person.  The school board legally is required to establish an Election Objection Committee of three people (the school board chair, the school board secretary, and a third member) to review the challenge.  At the Election Objection Committee meeting, Jones admitted that she told the wives that it was OK to sign their husband’s name.  Without the signatures made by the wives, Jones would not have had enough signatures to compete in the school board race.  Even though Iowa code says that only an eligible voter can sign the nomination forms, the Election Objection Committee rejected the challenge.  So Jones is on the ballot for Linn-Mar school board.

However, it does not end there.  The Linn County Auditor requested the Linn County Sheriff to investigate the situation, based on statements made by Geralyn Jones admitting that she told the wives that they could sign their spouses' names and based on affidavits signed by the wives where they admitted they signed her spouse's names.  The wives all claim that they had permission to sign their spouses’ names.  The candidate and the voter who falsely or fraudulently signed the nomination papers can be charged with an aggravated misdemeanor.

Further, if the Linn County auditor failed to report Jones’ actions, the auditor could be facing a stiff sentence and fine.  Earlier this year, the Iowa legislature amended Iowa’s voter law, including a new section which established a $10,000 fine to be assessed to county auditors and election officials who violate the voter laws plus a potential suspension from office.

In Iowa, candidates for school board are considered non-partisan and candidates are not linked to a political party on the ballots.  In the Ankeny race, Governor Kim Reynolds endorsed one of the candidates.

References

Associated Press, “School boards now political battlegrounds”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, October 20, 2021

Amanda Rooker, “Ankeny School Board candidate receives endorsement from Gov. Reynolds”, KCCI, August 31, 2021

Iowa Code 277.4, 277.5, 39A.3

Geralyn Jones’ Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/geralyn.jones31

Linn-Mar School Board Special Session agenda, September 23, 2021

Gage Miskimen, “Linn County Sheriff’s Office opens investigation into Linn-Mar school board candidate’s nomination papers”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 27, 2021

Michele White, “Linn County Sheriff investigating signers of Linn-Mar School Board candidate petitions”, KWWL, September 30, 2021

Ethan Stein, “Linn County Auditor asks Sheriff to investigate signatures on school board candidate’s petition”, KCRG, September 24, 2021

Vote in Election for School Board, City Council, & Mayor

The election is November 2 for mayors and members of the city council and for school board members.  Mayors, city council members, and school board members can have a huge impact on the environment.  Get to know the candidates.  Ask them some environmental questions.  Most importantly, vote.

Petition to Repeal Iowa's New Voter Laws

Update on CO2 pipeline projects

Iowa is ground zero for a new greenwashing scheme to solve our climate crisis by extending the life of ethanol.  Seems backwards - right?  We agree.

Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator have proposed to capture CO2 emissions from ethanol and fertilizer plants and pipe it to North Dakota (Summit) and Illinois (Navigator) to be stored permanently underground.  This process is called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

We have major concerns about these proposals -

1. CO2 Pipelines are extremely dangerous if they rupture or leak.  CO2 is a toxicant and asphysiant, it is odorless and colorless.  It is heavier than air so it settles in low-lying areas.  If someone finds themselves in the CO2 cloud, they could be seriously injured or even die.  It may be difficult to escape a CO2 cloud because gas-powered vehicles require oxygen to run.  First responders may not be able to get to gassing victims if they do not have adequate equipment to enter the CO2 cloud area.  Our hospitals, especially rural hospitals, are not prepared for mass gassing victims.  Please watch our webinar on the CO2 pipeline explosion in Satartia, Mississippi to learn more about the dangers of CO2 pipelines.

2. These pipelines are not a climate solution.  Capturing CO2 emissions from ethanol plants ignores other harms from the ethanol industry.  These pipelines don’t address the release of CO2 from our farming practices to grow corn.  These pipelines don’t address other air emissions from the ethanol production process.  These pipelines don’t address transportation emissions throughout the ethanol process.  And, these pipelines don’t address the water quality, soil erosion, and subsidy issues associated with ethanol.  

3. These pipelines are setting Iowa farmers up for another farm crisis.  These pipelines are being pitched as a way to expand the ethanol market and keep the price of corn high.  But we know that we are quickly transitioning our vehicle fleet to all electric vehicles - which will make ethanol obsolete.  Once the demand for ethanol decreases, the price of corn will drop significantly.  That will be devastating for Iowa’s farmers and farm economy.  We should not be asking our farmers to put all their eggs in the ethanol basket. 

4. Eminent domain should not be used for private gain.  These pipeline projects required massive amounts of public money and private land.  The CO2 and the infrastructure; and the profits associated with the project go to Summit and Navigator.  There is no public benefit for this project and therefore, eminent domain should not be used.  Our public money can be better spent to combat climate change with wind, solar, and battery storage.  

5. We have major concerns that Summit Carbon Solutions will be using the CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).  Enhanced Oil Recovery is when CO2 is pumped into dwindling oil fields to pump out the remaining bit of oil.  Bruce Rastteter, CEO of Summit Carbon Solutions, was quoted as saying this project is not possible without EOR.  Also, a Summit representative was a panelist at an event called “Market and Scalability Opportunities for CCUS”.  Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) is different from CCS because the CO2 is used for other purposes rather than stored in the ground.

We need your help to stop these pipelines!  Please take action today and share these action steps with your friends and family:

1. Sign our petition for NO CO2 Pipelines in Iowa.  Tell our decision-makers to reject these projects!

2. Submit a comment to the Iowa Utility Board to request that the list of landowners who will be impacted by pipeline construction be made public.    Click this link.

• • Select “HLP-2021-0001 (Summit Carbon Solutions LLC, Petition for a Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Permit)”

  • Submit this comment or write your own:
    "I object to the list of affected landowners in this case being kept confidential. Keeping the names confidential prevents the landowners from contacting each other and organizing a unified response to the proposed pipeline. Despite the reasons claimed by Summit for keeping the names confidential, it is obvious that the real reason is to prevent the landowners from defending themselves. Summit has given no reason why disclosure of the names would give advantage to competitors. And disclosure would serve the public purpose of allowing the landowners to effectively present their interests to the Board."

We already know the solutions to our climate crisis - we must end our dependence on fossil fuels and invest in solar, wind, battery storage, conservation and efficiency, and electric vehicles!  Click here to see more information about the carbon dioxide pipelines.

Update: Save Bloody Run

On September 23, 2021, we filed an appeal of the Bloody Run decision in court in Clayton County.  Our case is simple.  We believe that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) failed to follow its own rules and procedures when reviewing and ultimately approving the Supreme Beef Nutrient Management Plan (NMP).

Bloody Run Creek is one of Iowa’s few Outstanding Iowa Waterbodies and DNR never should have approved Supreme Beef to build an 11,600-head beef confinement and spread its manure in the watershed and surrounding watersheds.

Among the many arguments raised in our lawsuit, the filing details obvious miscalculations. Inappropriate manure storage, improper calculation of the amount of manure nitrogen and phosphorus the 11,600 cattle will produce, and the risk of spreading manure on Highly Erodible Land pose a dangerous risk to nearby Bloody Run Creek and other streams in the area.

We will keep you updated as this court case proceeds.  See our webpage on Save Bloody Run

Photo of trout fishing in Bloody Run Creek, by Larry Stone.

A $1 Billion Down Payment on the Nutrient Reduction Strategy – Use the surplus in Iowa’s treasury

Iowa released its draft nutrient reduction strategy in 2012.  Since then, dealing with high levels of nutrients in Iowa’s waters has been an on-going issue, plagued by the lack of financial resources.  It has been estimated that the cost of implementing the Nutrient Reduction Strategy is 5 billion dollars.[1]  Finding a source for that amount of money has been challenging.

During a recent Iowa Press program, Speaker of the Iowa House Pat Grassley pondered how the $1 billion surplus in the state treasury could be spent.[2]

Here’s an idea – put the 1 billion dollars to work on the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Currently the $1 billion is parked in a fund called the taxpayer relief fund.  But with a simple bill before the Iowa Legislature that money could be transferred to support the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Contact your legislators and let them know that the money that is residing in the taxpayer relief fund should be transferred to support the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Contact both of your legislators and ask that they support using the $1 billion surplus on the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Email, address, and phone number for Representatives

Email, addresses, and phone numbers for Senators

Find your legislator

Each state in the Mississippi River watershed is responsible for reducing their share of nutrients being sent to the Gulf of Mexico; that is what led to Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy.  The national goal is a 45% reduction by 2035 with an interim goal of 20% reduction by 2025.  2025 will arrive soon; 2035 is not that far way.  In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do in reducing nutrients.  The longer we wait, the harder it will be the meet the goal.  But by investing $1 billion toward that effort in 2022, we will move a long way toward reaching both the interim and the long-term goal.

Using the taxpayer relief fund for the first billion dollars for the Nutrient Reduction Strategy is an easy solution.  What’s more, that first billion dollars was raised without any painful tax increases.

Some may say that the taxpayer relief fund should be used for taxpayer relief.  However, we, the taxpayers, are going to pay for the Nutrient Reduction Strategy one way or another.  This fund is already available and provides a nice down payment.

It is time to get serious in implementing Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy.  It makes sense to use the taxpayer relief fund for the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Sources

[1] Perry Beeman, “Experts: Fixing Iowa waterways will take legislation, legal action and $5B”, Iowa Capital Dispatch, June 18, 2021

[2] Iowa Press, Iowa PBS, September 24, 2021, www.iowapbs.org/iowapress/story/39214/rep-pat-grassley

Although Fertilizer is Expensive, Farmers are Indeed Wasting It

Members of the environmental community have been clamoring for improvements in Iowa’s water quality.  Swimmers have been greeted with warnings of bacteria and toxins on the beaches at Iowa’s state parks as well as green smelly water; the bacteria and toxins result from too many nutrients in the lake.  Surface water – rivers and streams – are carrying high loads of nutrients, as shown in water tests.  All the while, Iowa has made very little progress in implementing the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

One of the great concerns is the over-application of fertilizer being applied to farm fields.  All indications are that farmers are not adhering to the Iowa State University fertilization guidelines.  Members of the environmental community have not been and are not being quiet about this.

As things of this nature go, we would expect pushback from some members of the farming community.  And indeed, we did see the pushback.  It started out with simple comments such as “fertilizer is expensive, therefore farmers wouldn’t waste fertilizer” and “most farmers are doing things the right way”.  The language from leaders in the farming community, particularly Farm Bureau, is starting to change.  Now they are suggesting that the Iowa State fertilization guidelines need to be changed.  Before we dig into that, let’s get some background on this issue.

Background

In 2006, Dr. John Sawyer, a researcher at Iowa State, joined with researchers at the University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Purdue University, and Ohio State University, to develop tools to aid farmers in determining the ideal levels of fertilizer to apply to corn fields, called the Maximum Return to Nitrogen (MRTN).[1]  The result is a calculator which considers the region where the fields are located and soil characteristics, the price of corn, and the price of fertilizer.  The calculator takes into consideration the results of field trials run across the Corn Belt states.[2]  Using the calculator, the farmer can purchase the proper amount of fertilizer without wasting it.[3]  Wasted fertilizer washes off of farm fields and into our waterbodies, where it becomes a pollutant.

Although fertilizer is expensive, farmers are indeed wasting it

There is on-the-ground evidence that although fertilizer is expensive, farmers are indeed wasting it.  According to Iowa State Professor Antonio Mallarino, “many farmers don’t follow ISU’s fertilizer recommendations, with some using too little and others using too much.”[4]  Mallarino is a professor of nutrient management research and extension.

The Iowa Nutrient Research and Education Council surveyed farmers in 2017, 2018, and 2019 and found that they were applying fertilizer at rates more than 30 pounds greater than recommended by the MRTN calculator.  The Iowa Nutrient Research and Education Council is an industry group whose members are commodity groups, fertilizer companies, and crop advisors.[5]

Professor Carrie Loboski, University of Wisconsin-Madison stated, “. . . what we know from other research we’ve done, if there’s over-application of N (nitrogen) to the point you’re not making money off that application anymore, that’s detrimental to water resources and to the environment in general.”[6]

Research led by Dr. Chris Jones found that farmers in the Floyd River watershed were applying fertilizer at more than double the MRTN rates.  Farmers in the North Raccoon River were applying at rates of 140% the recommended rates.[7]  Both of these rivers are highly polluted with nutrients.

In other words, an over-application of nitrogen fertilizer results in polluted lakes, rivers, and streams.

Our opposition’s message is changing

As reported by Erin Jordan of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, on July 26, 2021, an Iowa Farm Bureau podcast introduced new framing for dealing with the over-application of fertilizer on Iowa’s farm fields.  Participants in the podcast were the moderator, Andrew Wheeler who is the public relations manager for Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, and Rick Robinson, the Conservation and Natural Resources Policy Advisor for the Iowa Farm Bureau.  Wheeler began discussing the Maximum Return to Nitrogen and posed the question “Why is that particular tool and that logic in general, why is that flawed and what’s a better, maybe more informed way of looking at this issue of nitrogen that in our soil, both naturally and what’s being applied?”[8]  Wheeler continued with “Many soil scientists say that the long-standing MRTN rate calculator, which estimates the economic return to nitrogen application rates with different nitrogen sources and corn prices, really doesn’t account for weather and soil variability or changes and improvements in genetics and management that we’ve seen over time.  That kind of information has not been updated in the MRTN.”[9]

Research does not indicate the calculator should be changed

When Erin Jordan of the Gazette asked Farm Bureau’s Andrew Wheeler for the names of the scientists who think the ISU recommendations need to be updated, she did not get a response.[10]

Contrary to the messaging by the Iowa Farm Bureau, the recommendations for fertilizer have been updated recently.[11]

Further, Iowa State Professor Antonio Mallarino stated that farmers can use other tools to adjust the rates that are recommended, such as using the data from soil samples taken on the farm in late spring or using remote sensing through a drone or satellite imaging.[12]

Professor Antonio Mallarino indicated that “he is open to other ideas for nitrogen fertilizer recommendations – once these ideas are proven through years of research, like the MRTN.”[13]  He stated “When they show something else works better, we will adopt it.  Until then, we will use this.”[14]

DNR needs to change its manure application rates to comply with science

The study lead by Dr. Chris Jones makes it clear that one of the big problems with nutrients in Iowa’s waterbodies results from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) allowing manure from confinements to be over-applied, by using an out-of-date yield-goal strategy.[15]

Large confinements must file manure management plans, which include the application fields and the application rates.  The DNR uses the computation of 1.2 pounds of nitrogen per bushel of expected corn production.

The problem comes into play when the manure management plans allow an application rate in excess what is recommended by the Maximum Return To Nitrogen calculator.  By allowing the excess amounts of manure and its component nitrogen to be applied to fields, the result will be that the excess will run off the fields and into Iowa’s lakes, rivers, and streams.

The yield-based strategy was introduced in the 1960’s and 1970’s based on work by George Stanford.[16]  Farmers would estimate the yield of corn, in bushels per acre, from a field and then apply nitrogen fertilizer at the rate, in pounds per acre, of 1.2 times the expected yield.[17]  The methodology was widely used until 2005. 

A study of the yield-goal strategy lead by Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez concluded “Beginning in the mid-1990’s, empirical research started to show the yield-based rules-of-thumb in general are not a useful guide to fertilizer management.”  Further, the authors indicate that “We show that Stanford’s derivation of his “1.2 Rule” was based on very little data, questionable data omissions, and negligible and faulty statistical analysis.”[18]  The researchers continued, “To a great extent, the use of the yield-based algorithms resulted neither from their scholarly origin nor their demonstrated scientific legitimacy, but rather simply from the need of agricultural scientists and extension personnel to provide something in the way of fertilizer management advice. [19]    They concluded, “Our conclusion is that yield-based N fertilizer management algorithms were rules of thumb, and may well have provided better N management advice than would have come from fertilizer producers in the absence of university research.  The issue lies with the certainty with which they were often presented to the public, and the lack of inquiry into their empirical origins.  It appears that for 50 yr there has been too much trust in and too little verification of Stanford’s work.”[20]

The Maximum Return To Nitrogen is the improved means of determining the amount of nitrogen to apply to farm fields.  With that in mind, the Department of Natural Resources needs to come into compliance with the science and needs to change the application rates used in manure management plans.

Conclusion: Claims that we need to change the calculator are gas-lighting

Obviously the pressure the environmental community is placing on the regulators to reduce the amount of nutrients in Iowa’s waterbodies is hitting a nerve in the opposition.  So their response is to deflect the criticism and to falsely blame the MRTN calculator for being out-of-date.

We don’t need to change the calculator; farmers just need to follow what the calculator determines as the Maximum Return to Nitrogen.  We also want the Department of Natural Resources to modify their formulas to reduce the amount of manure from confinements that is applied to crop fields so that it is not over-applied.

We want real solutions to reducing nutrients and we do not want solutions that will increase the amount of fertilizer that is recommended to be placed on crop fields.

Footnotes

[1] John Sawyer, Emerson Nafziger, Gyles Randall, Larry Bundy, George Rehm, Brad Joern, “Concepts and Rational for Regional Nitrogen Rates Guidelines for Corn”, Iowa State University Extension, April 2006

[2] The calculator has been updated since it was first released, according to Professor Antonio Mallarino.  See Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[3] The calculator can be found at http://cnrc.agron.iastate.edu/

[4] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[5] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[6] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[7] Chris Jones, Philip W. Gassman, Keith E. Schilling, “The Urgent Need to Address Nutrient Imbalance Problems in Iowa’s High-Density Livestock Regions”, Agricultural Policy Review, Iowa State University, Fall, 2019, page 6

[8] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[9] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[10] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[11] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[12] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[13] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[14] Erin Jordan, “Farm Bureau: Fertilizer guidance ‘flawed’”, Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 19, 2021

[15] Chris Jones, Philip W. Gassman, Keith E. Schilling, “The Urgent Need to Address Nutrient Imbalance Problems in Iowa’s High-Density Livestock Regions”, Agricultural Policy Review, Iowa State University, Fall, 2019, page 9

[16] Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez, David S. Bullock, Maria A. Boerngen, “The Origins, Implications, and Consequences of Yield-Based Nitrogen Fertilizer Management”, Agronomy Journal, Volume III, Issue 2, page 725

[17] Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez, David S. Bullock, Maria A. Boerngen, “The Origins, Implications, and Consequences of Yield-Based Nitrogen Fertilizer Management”, Agronomy Journal, Volume III, Issue 2, page 725

[18] Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez, David S. Bullock, Maria A. Boerngen, “The Origins, Implications, and Consequences of Yield-Based Nitrogen Fertilizer Management”, Agronomy Journal, Volume III, Issue 2, page 725

[19] Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez, David S. Bullock, Maria A. Boerngen, “The Origins, Implications, and Consequences of Yield-Based Nitrogen Fertilizer Management”, Agronomy Journal, Volume III, Issue 2, page 733

[20] Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez, David S. Bullock, Maria A. Boerngen, “The Origins, Implications, and Consequences of Yield-Based Nitrogen Fertilizer Management”, Agronomy Journal, Volume III, Issue 2, page 734

Webinar "Beyond Glasgow - Our Climate Future"

The World’s attention will soon be turned to Glasgow for COP26. Join us on a webinar on Tuesday, November 16 at 7:00-8:30pm Central Time to hear from national, state and local climate leaders discussing takeaways from Glasgow and the road going forward on climate from many perspectives.

Our Panelists:

US Congressman Ro Khanna, California's 17th District
Tamara Marcus, Sustainability Program Manager for Linn County Supervisors
Kamyar Enshayan, Center for Energy and Environmental Education (CEEE) Director, University of Northern Iowa

Sign up for the webinar "Beyond Glasgow - Our Climate Future" on Tuesday, Nov 16, 2021, 7:00 pm  to 8:30 pm

Lunch and Learns

Every Friday at noon, we do a Lunch and Learn livestream.  See us on Facebook at "Sierra Club Iowa Chapter".  These will be recorded so you can watch them anytime.  Topics will be selected based on what is happening during the week and will be announced the day before the livestream.  During the legislative session, we cover issues coming before the Iowa legislature.

In case you missed our past webinars and lunch and learn sessions, you can still see them.

We hope you can join us.

Volunteer for the Iowa Chapter

Almost everything we do is done by volunteers like you.  If you would like to volunteer for the Iowa Chapter, please let us know by sending an E-mail to Iowa.chapter@sierraclub.org.  Or sign up by using the online form.  There are many opportunities for you to make a difference:

• making phone calls

• developing graphics for banners and flyers

• working on legislative issues

• working on elections

• fundraising

• organizing events

• joining an issue committee

If you would like to join a committee on the Peoples Budget, sign up here please fill out our People's Budget Volunteer Form so we can build our organizing team for this project.  A large number of Sierra Club issues require some involvement with Iowa's state budget. Budgets reflect theories of government. Iowa’s political conversation rarely moves beyond the notion that government’s primary responsibility is to grow the economy. Hence we give corporations tax breaks, but slash funding for health care, environmental protections and public interest research at our three state universities.  We hold a different view of government and that is government is the trustee of all the things we share - public roads and bridges, water, wildlife, air, public universities, state parks, education and public health.  Therefore, protecting, enhancing and restoring our shared public wealth is the central responsibility of government. We must tie the budget to our priorities. 

If you would like to join our legislative action team, sign up here.  Keep on top of what is happening at the Iowa legislature.  Be alerted when you should contact your legislators about pending legislation.

If you would like to join the team on a public interest research agenda, send an e-mail to iowa.chapter@sierraclub.org.  The Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club is forming a team to design a public interest research agenda, determine needed policies, and develop a strategy to implement the public research agenda.  This project will be a year-long study and design group. We are especially looking for scientists who are working in climate, public health, sustainable agriculture, and related fields.

Sierra Club - the best bet for achieving bold solutions to Iowa’s environmental problems

Sierra Club is Iowa’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization.  Not only that, we are the best bet in the state for achieving bold solutions to Iowa’s environmental problems.

We work in the courts, before Iowa’s public agencies, and in the halls of the legislature.  The Iowa Chapter's effort to protect the environment takes financial support.  The Chapter receives very little financial support from the national Sierra Club.  Can we count on you for a donation to ensure even more victories?  Your contribution will be put to work here in Iowa on issues that affect every day Iowans – water quality, clean air, protection of Iowa's soil, parks and natural areas, and a strong democracy.  The Iowa Chapter is relentless in fighting back bad legislation that affects every one of us. 

Your non-deductible contributions make it possible for us to fight bad legislation and to promote good legislation.  We appreciate your past and on-going support of these efforts.  You can make a non-deductible donation with a credit card.   A non-deductible donation supports the Chapter's effective, citizen-based advocacy and lobbying programs.  If you prefer, a non-deductible check can be written to the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter and mailed to:

Treasurer
Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter
PO Box 1058
Marion, IA 52302

You can also make a tax-deductible donation with a credit card.  Tax-deductible activities are limited to public interest education, research and legal actions.  A deductible check can be written to the Sierra Club Foundation with “Iowa Chapter” written in the memo line.

Easier yet, become a monthly donor.

Thank you for your support.

Donate your used vehicle

As the Sierra Club Foundation's Iowa Chapter continues to raise charitable funds to support its work in Iowa, won’t you consider participating in our vehicle donation program?  Our partners over at CARS have made the process of donating your unused or unneeded car, truck, motorcycle, boat or RV easy, efficient and secure.  They’ll take care of everything from picking up your vehicle to sending you a tax receipt for your generous gift.  To learn more about The Sierra Club Foundation's Iowa Chapter vehicle donation program, please call 844-674-3772.  Or visit our webpage to get started today!

Sierra Club Foundation promotes climate solutions, conservation, and movement building through a powerful combination of strategic philanthropy and grassroots advocacy. The Foundation is the fiscal sponsor of Sierra Club’s charitable environmental programs.

For more information 

Planned giving . . . naming the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter in your will 

Thank you for supporting our work!