Jane,

Can you help me out:  I'd like to be able to call my Senator and
Representative and say exactly what I want done.  Should I say just, "Please
do not make ANY further funding cuts in EFF and REAP funding?"  How can I
phrase that in terms of what my Rep and Senator have in front of them and
how I want them to do it?  Should I ask that they offer amendments to these
measures that excludes these two programs from the budget cuts, or are there
other legislative protocols that I can suggest?

Also, given the pain that schools and everybody else are feeling over budget
cuts, I'd like to be able to say, "There are other areas that can better
afford to give up the $3 million, or $500,000 or $2.8 million so that these
programs can remain intact.  Those areas are:..."  Any suggestions?  For
example, are there elements of the Dept. of Ag budget that include subsidies
to factory farms that could be cut to make up for restoring these amounts to
EFF and REAP?

Thanks,
Patrick Bosold


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Iowa's environmental resources need your help now.


> ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING NEEDS YOUR PROTECTION NOW
>
> CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR VIA PHONE OR E-MAIL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
>
> *To find legislator phone numbers or e-mail addresses, visit the Iowa
> General Assembly website at <http://www.legis.state.ia.us>.  Or call the
> House switchboard at  (515)281.3221, and the Senate switchboard at
> (515)281.3371 and they will connect you with your legislator.
>
> Iowa's environmental resources need your help now.
>
> The Iowa House of Representatives begins debate today on funding two key
> environmental initiatives in Iowa.
>
> Yesterday, the Senate passed SF 2304.  The proposed budget cuts to the
> Environment First Fund and the Resource Enhancement And Protection (REAP)
> fund are too steep.
>
> The Senate budget cuts nearly $3 million from the Environment First Fund.
> Such a cut could cripple key efforts in Iowa-including flood control
> projects, soil and water conservation projects, brownfield redevelopment,
> and the Loess Hills Alliance.
>
> Of particular concern is the proposed $500,000 cut to Water Monitoring.
The
> program suffered a 20% cut in last year's funding, and the 25% cut
proposed
> by the Senate threatens the viability of the program.  Without monitoring,
> Iowa becomes blind to water quality problems and solutions
>
> The proposed $2.8 million cut to the REAP fund represents a nearly 30%
> shortfall in the mandated funding level for that program.  The visionary
> REAP fund produces significant environmental, cultural, and economic
> benefits.
>
> In these times of economic stress, state spending needs to be evaluated
> closely.  However, disproportionately large cuts should not be made in
> environmental funds that leverage federal dollars.  These programs that
have
> a successful record improving Iowa's long-term environmental, cultural,
and
> economic development resources/
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
> to [log in to unmask]
>

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