SF 59 – Changes to the “Bottle Bill”
SF 290 – Goose hunting on private lands
SF 374 – Coyote hunting using infrared sighting
SF 385 – Maintenance requirements for septic systems using secondary filters
SSB 1120 – In-lieu fee program for wetland and stream mitigation projects
SSB 1221 – Revolving loan funds to acquire land, charitable conservation tax credit
COMMITTEE ACTION
SF 59 – Changes to the “Bottle Bill”
SF 59 would double the handling fee – from 1 cent to 2 cents – on returned containers under the bottle bill. This handling fee assists retailers and redemption centers in covering some of the costs of associated with collecting and sorting the beverage containers for the distributors. The handling fee is paid by distributors for each container returned to the retailer and given to the distributor. The bill will also allow retailers to “opt-in” to the bottle bill system for collecting returned containers from consumers. Currently, all retailers must collect returned containers unless they have designated an approved redemption center.
The committee adopted an amendment to the bill to change the “opt-in” provisions while still doubling the handling fee. The “participating dealer” framework in the amendment allows a dealer/retailer to refuse to accept returned containers from customers by sending notice to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It does not place any conditions on the ability of a dealer to refuse to accept containers. This means there is no requirement that another redemption facility be nearby or convenient to the consumer.
The amendment added a number of other provisions including:
- Requiring registration with DNR of the Universal Product Code (UPC) for beverage containers sold in Iowa. This will facilitate redemption systems where the container is not purchased from the dealer where the product is returned, similar to such systems as Droppett that are being proposed by recyclers. The system allows people to deposit containers at a remote location, regardless of where they purchased the container. Currently, dealers are only required to accept containers that are the same type/brands that they sell at that location.
- Establishing a civil penalty for violations of the bottle bill. The penalties are established by the Environmental Protection Commission and can be assessed by the DNR. DNR does not currently have authority to enforce the bottle bill. The enforcement of violations is left to the discretion of local count attorneys.
- Providing for the process of judicial review of enforcement orders issued by DNR for the bottle bill. The procedures are those governed under Iowa Code 17A, the administrative procedures act.
- Providing DNR authority to request the Attorney General’s office to proceed with legal action against those violating the bottle bill. This authority is similar to how DNR can pursue further legal action against a person for noncompliance with state laws on pollution.
- Establishes that any contracts entered into under the bottle bill for collecting or redeeming containers cannot reduce the refund value of a container to less than five cents. Under current law, a person could accept less than five cents for a returned container, but it must be agreed to by all parties. This change would help ensure a remote collection system, such as Droppett, would not have to accept a lower refund value in return for accepting containers they collected. This protects their business model and the economics of the bottle-bill system.
[3/5: 7-6 (No: Democrats, Shipley)]
SF 290 – Goose hunting on private lands
SF 290 would allow goose hunting on private lands located within Canadian goose management zones created by the DNR. These management zones are located around the state to provide a safe area for Canadian geese populations. Without safe areas, the geese are less likely to pass through the state while they migrate.
The zones typically include land managed by DNR as a wildlife refuge as well as adjacent private lands. The inclusion of private lands creates a buffer around the refuge to provide the geese additional protections while flying to and from the refuge.
The committee adopted an amendment to specify that the owner of the private land could not profit by providing access to their property adjacent to the public land in the refuge area.
[3/5: Party Line]
SF 374 – Coyote hunting using infrared sighting
SF 374 would allow the use of artificial light for hunting coyotes. Current state law prohibits artificial light while hunting in most situations. Artificial light is often used by poachers. Additionally, the use of the light at night does not provide for a full viewing of the target; safe hunting practices call for the hunter to only shoot if they can identify what is behind the target.
The committee adopted an amendment to restrict the use of artificial light to only infrared light sources. This would prevent the use of spotlights, which some poachers use to “freeze” the animal. The infrared light source would allow those hunting coyotes better visibility when hunting at night. Night is the preferable time to hunt coyotes because that is when they are the most active. Night hunting is allowed under current law, but the prohibition on artificial light means hunting only happens during full moonlight or with snow cover.
[3/5: Party Line]
SF 385 – Maintenance requirements for septic systems using secondary filters
SF 385 would prohibit DNR from adopting rules to require a person who owns a secondary bio-filter system to have a maintenance contract. The owner of such a system would instead be required to have the system inspected every five years.
Current administrative rules require the owner of such a system to have a maintenance agreement with a manufacturer certified technician. The service contracts can become prohibitively expensive, which has led the DNR to issue variances from the service contract requirement.
The committee adopted an amendment clarifying the three types of systems that would be exempt from the service contract requirement: peat moss biofilter, recirculating textile filter, and aerobic treatment units. The amendment also requires the systems be inspected every three years, instead of five under the original bill.
[3/5: Short Form]
SSB 1120 – In-lieu fee program for wetland and stream mitigation projects
SSB 1120 allows DNR to establish an in-lieu fee program for wetland and stream mitigation projects. This type of program is authorized by federal rules designed to provide protections for wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act. The bill authorizes DNR to establish this program and provides for the use of fees paid in-lieu of a developer being required to build their own mitigation projects. Fees collected through the “in-lieu” program would be deposited into a mitigation bank and be used to finance stream and wetland mitigation projects.
The bill provides that the mitigation program be conducted in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. Currently, the project developer must do a “build-it-yourself” mitigation project to meet Clean Water Act requirements to prevent stream and wetland impacts that would reduce water quality.
[3/5: Short Form]
SSB 1221 – Revolving loan funds to acquire land, charitable conservation tax credit
SSB 1221 would eliminate the charitable conservation contribution tax credit. This tax credit is equal to 50 percent of the fair market value of qualifying contributed property. Charitable conservation contributions are voluntary restrictions on the use of land negotiated by a landowner and a private charitable conservation organization or government agency chosen by the landowner to hold the contribution. The tax credit assists efforts to establish the land use agreement and ensure the land meets the conservation standards outlined in the agreement.
The bill also prohibits the use of non-point source water pollution control projects that receive funding through the state’s revolving loan fund to be used to acquire property for future donation or sale to the state, a political subdivision or the federal government. It also prohibits the state or political subdivisions from acquiring land that was purchased using assistance from the state’s revolving loan fund. Non-point source water quality projects can include:
- Restoration of wildlife habitat
- Stream bank stabilization
- Wetland flood prevention areas
- Detention basins
- Grassed waterways
- Ponds or wetland systems
- Soil quality restoration
- Other practices that are shown to improve or protect water quality
The second portion placing restrictions on projects that use state revolving loan fund assistance is meant to address concerns that these types of purchases make it more expensive or more difficult for famers to acquire farmland. Farmers wishing to buy the land get loans through a financial institution at rates higher than those offered under the state’s revolving loan fund.
The belief is that private entities use government-subsidized loans to purchase the land. Farm interests say this raises their costs of operation. However, the private entities that use the revolving loan fund generally work with willing landowners to acquire the property and put restrictions in place on the future development of the land.
This bill does not include the much more wide-ranging prohibitions on the acquisition of land by the state or its political subdivisions that was included in HF 542, which did not advance out of subcommittee in the House.
The Senate committee adopted two amendments to the bill. The first amendment removes the portion of the bill eliminating the charitable conservation contribution tax. The second amendment allows the non-point source loan program to be used for projects that involve land purchased before July 1, 2019. This prevents the proposal from impacting projects that were already underway.
[3/5: Party Line]