Letter to the Editor: Won't be supporting Joni Ernst

(Jodi Enos-Berlage of Ridgeway has submitted this Letter to the Editor):

As a fellow hog-castrating, farm-raised Iowa female, I can identify with and appreciate Joni Ernst's background.  But I'm not going to be voting for her, and here's why: 

Ernst's opposition to the Clean Water Act, goal to eliminate the national agency charged with environmental protection, failure to acknowledge or take action against the causes of climate change, and profoundly narrow approach to complex issues will be damaging for the future of our state. 

For those Iowans that support Bruce Braley, I urge you to vote.  For those that plan to vote for Joni Ernst, I urge you to reconsider.

Ernst referred to the Clean Water Act as one of the most damaging laws to business. This Act, approved in 1972 with broad bipartisan support, is considered by many to be one of the most effective pieces of environmental legislation ever passed.  No doubt that the Act is bad for businesses whose profitability depends on pollution of waterways; however, Iowans must also consider the benefits of clean water for business.  Humans (and all life) are attracted to living, working, and playing in a place that has high quality water.   Because of reporting required by the Clean Water Act, we now know that over 75 percent of the assessed waterways in Iowa are impaired for at least one of their designated uses, and efforts are underway to improve these waterways.  Because of pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, our state developed and recently launched the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy.  This major initiative, widely supported by agricultural organizations, is designed to reduce Iowa's disproportionate share of nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants that are causing the 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico.  Ernst's proposal to shift environmental protection to states is simply incompatible with states' economic conflicts of interest and the fact that water and air are not confined to state boundaries.

In my four years of water quality research on a 20,000 acre watershed in Northeast Iowa, I have observed first-hand the damage that climate extremes can have on Iowa's natural resources, upon which much of the state's economy depends.   Ernst's choice to ignore the 97 percent of climate scientists who have been convinced (by data) that climate change is human-induced will only work against addressing this challenge.  Further, while Braley has been appropriately criticized for his off-the-cuff comment about farmers, Ernst's more calculated climate change position is equally disrespectful to the expertise of climate scientists and the scientific community as a whole, and provides little indication that she will use scientific information appropriately in her future decision-making.
 
As a registered independent voter who is fatigued with the current dysfunctional state of Congress, I am looking for a senator who can appreciate different perspectives, compromise, build consensus, and place a high priority on passing useful legislation.  Ernst's extreme positions and Palinesque approach on many issues will be non-starters in this regard, e.g., eliminating the department of education, environmental protection agency, internal revenue service, the federal minimum wage, the Affordable Care Act, the federal student loan program, tax flexibility (she signed the Norquist pledge), and any control whatsoever on the buying or carrying of guns.

As a mother, farmer, scientist, and educator, I can say with confidence that Ernst does not represent my Iowa values.  My upbringing on a 300 acre livestock farm was not a lesson in how to 'cut pork'.  Rather, this childhood instilled an interest in and respect for the natural world, and our place in it.  For the sake of our environment and a functional Congress, I urge you to vote for Bruce Braley, whose record indicates strong support of these objectives.