--- begin forwarded text
Yepsen article which appeared in Monday's Des Moines Register.


Yepsen: Pros and cons of Johnson quitting


By DAVID YEPSEN
Register Staff Writer
05/08/2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Johnson quit last week as head of the Department of Natural Resources.
He said he wasn't getting all the money he needed to do his job. His
departure is bad news because he is a nice man who meant well. It's good he
left because it will help trigger a debate over the environment in Iowa and
whether we really do have problems.
At one level, it's hard to blame Johnson. Here's a guy who doesn't need the
job, and if he isn't given the tools he wants to do it, well, then to heck
with it. He's going back to the farm. And at 58, he wants to watch his
health, Vilsackers say.
But at another level, Johnson is a quitter. He says he cares for the
environment, yet was unwilling to expend the bureaucratic and political
energy needed to make progress. Progress isn't made by sitting around
stargazing.
It's made by long hours in meetings, writing memos, coaxing policy-makers
and giving speeches. The hard political reality for Johnson is he didn't
convince enough Iowans that there are big environmental problems in Iowa.
That showed up come appropriations time and is likely to continue.
*
Polls show Iowans rank environmental issues pretty low compared to other
issues. For example, last year the Iowa Poll asked likely caucus-goers "What
one issue matters to you most in thinking about the future of the nation?"
Only 2 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers said it was the
environment; 1 percent of the Republicans cited it.
Environmental issues are a little like motherhood, apple pie and the flag.
If you ask someone whether the environment is important, they'll say,
"Sure." But that tells you nothing about the importance of the issue
relative to other issues. In the caucus survey, the poll found education as
the leading issue with 29 percent of the Democrats mentioning it and 17
percent of the Republicans. Economics, health care and Social Security
follow.
A similar pattern was found in June 1998 when Iowa's likely voters were
asked by the poll to name "the most important issue for the next governor of
Iowa to address." The environment was mentioned by only 1 percent. Compare
that to the front-running issue, education, which was mentioned as most
important by 33 percent of likely Iowa voters. That was followed by taxes,
crime, jobs and the economy.
In fact, the latest Iowa Poll of four-year college students says 89 percent
of them think the cleanliness of the state's environment is "good" or
"excellent."
*
Democrat Johnson said he wasn't getting all the money he needed from the
Republican Legislature. Well, few agencies are. Republicans are taking that
as a partisan shot. One former GOP legislator, Del Stromer, noted how
Johnson decided to leave the Legislature and later quit his federal job as
head of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
"It looks like he tends to pick up his marbles and go home when things don't
go his way," he said.
You don't survive very long in politics if you have to get everything you
want all the time.
In fact, Johnson's budget fared relatively well, say the GOPers. According
to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the department got $16,865,735 in 1999,
$18,251,786 this year and is slated to get $18,394,631 next year. Hardly a
"cut."
Johnson was miffed the Resource Enhancement and Protection program (REAP)
didn't get more. But Republicans say state spending on the environment has
increased. Iowa lawmakers created a $35 million Environment First fund and a
new $11.19 million water-quality initiative this year. When matched with
federal money, that will amount to $95 million for cleaner water, they
contend. Spending on environmental projects out of the infrastructure fund
increased 28 percent.
*
One problem Johnson has is measuring "progress" on solving a problem in
terms of dollars spent on it. In public policy, progress should be measured
in results, not the amount of a spending increase. Johnson's department
contributes to this mentality.
Department officials are fond of citing a 1998 study that showed Iowa ranks
lowest among all 50 states in the number of environmental agency employees
per citizen. Environmentalists pounce on that and say that makes the state a
tail-ender on environmental issues.
It proves no such thing. Department officials say, for example, the study
doesn't take into account land area. Larger Western states with smaller
populations have to spend more just because they"re bigger in size. Also,
some state employees working on environmental problems don't get counted in
the comparison because they don't work for the DNR, according to state DNR
officials. There are 18 Iowa employees working on hazardous environmental
issues who aren't included in the comparison, say DNR officials.
Finally, states with larger pollution problems will naturally have more
bureaucrats working on environmental issues. One should expect New Jersey to
have more environmental bureaucrats than Iowa. That state has more problems.
This is true in other areas of public spending. For example, Iowa has some
of the lowest levels of state spending on corrections of any state in the
country. Why? Because we have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.
*
Public dollars tend to follow public needs and demands. More Iowans are
telling lawmakers they want something done about schools than about the
environment. So, dollars follow votes.
That's not likely to change next year. Republicans and Democrats say raising
teacher pay will be the big issue next session. Coming up with those
additional dollars without raising taxes will mean fewer dollars to hire
environmental officials, or any other type of state worker for that matter.
*
So what's to be done? First, it would appear Iowans have to be convinced
there are some serious environmental problems around. We have a hunch there
are, but too often the "proof" comes from some group with an ax to grind.
Second, Vilsack has to find the right person for this job. That's tough.
Already, key lawmakers have passed the word that former state Representative
David Osterberg can't be confirmed by the Iowa Senate because he's seen as
too extreme on environmental issues. (Vilsack's passed word back that he
won't be appointed, aides say.)
The task is made more difficult by the conflicting missions of the DNR.
Sometimes the mission of promoting the use of the environment will conflict
with the mission of protecting it. Nominate a snowmobiler and the greens
will go nuts. Nominate a flaming tree-hugger and the farmers will be upset.
It raises the question of whether this is a good time to break this agency
in two to make things more manageable.
Finally, the environmental community needs to keep Johnson's common-sense
approach and style. We can't turn Iowa back to natural prairie. And Iowans
don't quickly buy into the logic that says we have to reroute highways at
great expense to protect some toad or bug.


--- end forwarded text


--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rex L. Bavousett
Photographer
University of Iowa
Our old name:  University Relations - Publications
Our new name:  University Communications & Outreach - Publications
100 OPL, Iowa City, IA 52242

http://www.uiowa.edu/~urpubs/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
voice: 319 384-0053
fax: 319 384-0055
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]