Earlier in the month, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley had some questions for the Obama administration about just how it happened that a top AIG lawyer was given millions of dollars in severance after she quit the bailed-out company in lieu of accepting a pay cut.

Monday Grassley asked Kenneth Feinberg — executive pay czar for the Troubled Asset Relief Program — for details of yet another enormous AIG severance deal, this one to Suzanne Folsom, the company’s former chief compliance and regulatory officer. AIG announced last month that Folsom left “to pursue other opportunities.” She was reportedly given more than $1 million in the process.

Grassley wants the details surrounding Folsom’s windfall, including “copies of all severance plans or arrangements signed by Ms. Folsom.”

You can already hear the complaints from Wall Street: Who cares about $1 million in this universe of billion-dollar payouts and trillion-dollar leverage arrangements? But that, of course, is precisely the sentiment that led to the historic bank collapse.

Below is the letter Grassley sent to Feinberg:

January 25, 2010

Kenneth R. Feinberg

Special Master for Compensation

Troubled Asset Relief Program

U.S. Department of Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20220

Dear Mr. Feinberg:

On January 15, 2010, I wrote you to express my concern and frustration with the reported payment by AIG of a multi-million dollar severance award to Anastasia D. Kelly, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Senior Regulatory and Compliance Officer, following her resignation effective December, 30, 2009.  It is my understanding that a million dollar severance payment was made to another former executive of AIG.  Also, it has been reported that Ms. Kelly was either directly or indirectly related to an investigation at AIG in 2009, prior to AIG’s decision to proceed with her multi-million dollar severance award.  Consequently, my concerns about the apparent lack of scrutiny given to executive severance payments at AIG are increasing. Indeed, it seems as if the Obama Administration is more concerned with paying out taxpayer money to highly compensated AIG employees rather than safeguarding every taxpayer dollar. Let me elaborate.

Section 111(b)(2) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), as amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall require TARP recipients like AIG to meet appropriate standards for executive compensation and corporate governance.  Despite this broad authority given to the Obama Administration by Congress to protect taxpayers, it appears that the Administration has dropped the ball when it comes to rich severance pay plans that are enjoyed by AIG executives, but out of the reach of ordinary American workers.

Regarding the media reports about Ms. Kelly, it is my understanding that a law firm was retained to conduct an investigation into, among other things, whether she was properly performing her duties as General Counsel.  It was further reported that the law firm made recommendations to AIG in this matter.  Consequently, in addition to the information and documentation I requested in my January 15 letter, please provide a complete description of the investigation/law firm inquiry, including all documents or other materials prepared by AIG internally, by the law firm, or by any other government office or third party.  Please include all information regarding the basis for the decision made by AIG or any government official to pay or allow to be paid between $2.8 million and $3.8 million in severance or other payments to Ms. Kelly.  In the case of any verbal reports, please describe such reports and any statements made or actions taken by AIG or any government official in response.

Furthermore, reports have surfaced about a severance payment made to another former executive of AIG.  It has been reported that Suzanne Folsom, Chief Compliance and Regulatory Officer, also resigned at the end of 2009, and supposedly received a $1 million severance payment.  This enormous payment raises the same sort of concerns I detailed in my earlier letter in regard to the multi-million payment to Ms. Kelly.  As a result, I request that you provide my staff with the same detailed information regarding Ms. Folsom that I requested for Ms. Kelly in my January 15 letter.  Accordingly, please provide my office with the following information:

1)      The date Ms. Folsom joined AIG and her salary on that date.

2)      A complete promotion and salary history for Ms. Folsom through the date of her departure from AIG, including titles, salary amounts and relevant dates.

3)      The salary that that Ms. Folsom was scheduled to be paid at the time of her resignation and whether she was a member of  Most Highly Compensated Group at AIG or the member of another group of highly compensated employees.

4)      The amount of Ms. Folsom’s severance, the formula under which it was determined, the salary on which her severance was based and, if different, her salary on the date of her resignation.

5)      A copy of the AIG severance plan, agreement or program that governs Ms. Folsom’s severance and all previous versions of the plan, agreement or program back to the date Ms. Folsom joined AIG.  Include copies of all severance plans or arrangements signed by Ms. Folsom.

6)      The amounts and dates of all severance payments already paid to Ms. Folsom and all severance payments, if any, scheduled for the future, including relevant dates.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, please explain in detail all actions your office took to modify, amend and/or terminate the AIG severance plan or program that covered Ms. Folsom as it existed when you assumed your duties as Special Master.  Also, if you know, please describe in detail all actions taken by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Department of the Treasury to modify, amend or terminate the AIG severance plan or program that covered Ms. Folsom as it existed on or after September 16, 2008.

In cooperating with the Committee’s review, no documents, records, data or information related to these matters shall be destroyed, modified, removed or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.  Please provide the requested information by February 8, 2010.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

United States Senator

Jeffrey L. Larson, who graduated from the University of South Dakota and the University of Iowa School of Law, was appointed to the bench in 2003. Prior to becoming a judge, he served as the Shelby County attorney and worked in private practice.

Jeffrey Larson, who was sworn in as a district court judge in 2003, will now serve as the chief judge for Iowa's 4th Judicial District.

“Judge Larson will make a fine chief judge,” said Marsha Ternus, chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. “He has experience on the bench, he respects the views of others and the court is confident that he will be a strong leader in the 4th Judicial District through the state’s current financial crisis.”

Larson said being selected is an honor and that he looks forward to the opportunities his new position will present.

“I recognize the unique challenges we face today, but I am confident that we can meet them,” he said in a prepared statement.

As chief judge, Larson will supervise all judicial officers and court employees in the district, supervise the performance of administrative and judicial business in the district, set times and places of holding court, designate presiding judges and serve on the judicial council, which advises the state supreme court on administrative matters. In addition, he will continue to preside over cases.

Larson succeeds Judge Charles L. Smith, who retired earlier this month. The 4th Judicial District is located in southwest Iowa and encompasses Audubon, Cass, Fremont, Harrison, Mills, Montgomery, Page, Pottawattamie and Shelby counties. It has eight district judges, four district associate judges, 16 part-time magistrates and 90 employees. The operating budget for the current fiscal year is approximately $10 million, and a total of 77,602 cases were filed in the district last year.

As tough as the upper-chamber debate promises to be, many of the thorniest conflicts will likely be re-contested when Democratic leaders in both chambers meet, probably in January, to iron out the differences between their bills. The legislative disparities revolve around such high-profile topics as the public option and coverage of abortion, but also include lesser-noticed issues, like whether to honor a White House deal with the pharmaceutical industry and how to approach the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Senate Republicans are also eyeing many of these hot-button issues, with hopes of using them to divide the Democrats in order to kill the larger bill. But with the considerable House-versus-Senate discrepancies awaiting conference negotiators, fending off opposition from Senate Republicans in the meantime could prove to be the least of the Democrats’ troubles as they attempt to pass the most consequential health-care reforms in generations.

Who Pays?

Chief among the differences between the Democrats’ bills is how each chamber has proposed to pay the considerable cost of covering tens-of-millions of uninsured Americans. The House pays the freight largely with a 5.4 percent tax on the nation’s highest earners — individuals making more than $500,000 per year, and families pulling in more than $1 million.

The Senate, on the other hand, has proposed an excise tax on the highest-cost insurance plans — those exceeding $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for families. The Senate bill would also apply a 0.5 percent Medicare payroll tax to individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000.

Liberals and labor unions have supported the House approach, arguing that an unprecedented tax on insurance plans would erode decades of work to secure comprehensive, employer-sponsored health-care coverage for workers. Conservatives, meanwhile, are warning that higher taxes on the wealthy will only exacerbate the nation’s economic troubles in the middle of an employment crisis.

Coverage vs. Care

Both the House and Senate bills rely heavily on a Medicaid expansion to cover the country’s poorest uninsured residents. The House would extend eligibility to 150 percent of the federal poverty level (net income), while Senate eligibility would expand to 133 percent of poverty (gross income).

The more significant difference, though, revolves around Medicaid reimbursement, which is so low in some states that many doctors and dentists now refuse to see Medicaid patients. The House bill recognizes the problem, bumping up Medicaid payments for primary care services to 100 percent of Medicare rates by 2012. Despite an effort to get similar language into the Senate legislation, a controversial funding proposal kept the provision out of the final bill.

The reimbursement increase doesn’t come cheap. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the provision would cost $28.7 billion over the next five years and $57 billion over the next 10.

Abortion

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) lit a firestorm earlier in the month when he amended the House bill to prohibit abortion coverage under subsidized exchange plans. The Senate bill would also ban federal funding of abortions, but would allow women receiving exchange-plan subsidies to segregate their premiums and co-payments in order to access abortion services. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has already said that he’ll offer the Stupak provision on the floor, though supporters will have the difficult task of rallying 60 votes to pass the measure.

Indeed, the Stupak provision is poised to cause more havoc in the House than the Senate, with some House liberals vowing to oppose the larger bill if the language survives the conference negotiations, while Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats are hinging their support on the provision remaining intact. Satisfying both camps for the sake of the bill’s passage will likely require some delicate wording from Democratic leaders.

Illegal Immigrants

Both chambers propose to screen exchange-plan applicants to ensure that illegal immigrants don’t receive the federal subsidies available to those living below 400 percent of poverty. The Senate bill, however, goes a giant step further, proposing to exclude illegals from purchasing even unsubsidized insurance coverage on the exchange. That provision has riled a number of lawmakers and immigration advocates, who are wondering how allowing folks to buy insurance coverage from private companies with U.S. dollars could harm the country, fiscally or otherwise.

“It makes no sense for anybody,” said Jonathan Blazer, public policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “Nobody’s willing to defend it on policy grounds.”

If the Senate language emerges from the conference negotiations, it will likely lead to a showdown with House members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who early in the debate had threatened to vote against the House bill if it excluded illegal aliens from unsubsidized exchange coverage.

CHIP

Though largely unmentioned throughout the health reform debate, the House bill would terminate the Children’s Health Insurance Program at the end of 2013, shifting those kids into Medicaid or private plans on the exchange. House leaders — who had championed CHIP for the past 12 years — say their proposal will expand coverage by getting kids and parents under the same plan.

But some children’s health-care advocates have raised alarms over that strategy, arguing that the private plans will likely be more expensive, thereby discouraging low-income parents from getting their kids any coverage at all. And Sen. Jay Rockefeller agrees. The West Virginia Democrat — who successfully amended the Senate bill to reauthorize CHIP through 2019 — is vowing to fight to keep the program intact.

“Health care reform should improve the coverage children have,” he said, “not take their coverage away.”

Rockefeller, though, has been a lonely voice in support of preserving CHIP, leaving the ultimate fate of his amendment in question.

The Big Deal with Big Pharma

In June, Democratic leaders in the White House and Senate caused a stir when they announced a deal with the pharmaceutical lobby. Under that bargain, the drug companies promised $80 billion over the next decade to close Medicare’s drug-coverage gap (partially) if the lawmakers agreed to oppose efforts to empower states to negotiate drug prices for residents enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. The Senate bill keeps that agreement intact, with Finance Committee members shooting down an amendment allowing such price haggling for the sake of closing Medicare’s donut hole altogether.

House Democrats, on the other hand, have said all along that they weren’t a part of the discussions with the drug makers, and they don’t feel bound to any deal they never agreed to. As evidence, the House bill allows states to negotiate drug prices on behalf of their lowest-income seniors — a provision the CBO estimates would save more than $42 billion over the next decade.

The Public Option

At the heart of the debate over health-care reform this year has been the public option — a strategy, popular among liberals and consumer advocates, to create a public, non-profit insurance plan to compete with private companies. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) surprised many political observers last month when he proposed to create such state-based plans in the bill he weaved together from the different proposals passed by the Finance and health committees. Reid’s bill would empower the plans’ administrators to haggle directly with doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers over reimbursement rates, but it would also leave states the option not to participate.

The House bill is similar, but creates a national insurance option rather than numerous state-based plans. Additionally, the House bill doesn’t include the state opt-out language.

Unlike the other topics mentioned here, the toughest fight over the public option seems destined to occur on the Senate floor, rather than in conference. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has repeatedly vowed to filibuster any bill that includes a public plan, whether it’s opt-out, opt-in, trigger-based, or any other configuration. Meanwhile, some upper-chamber liberals — including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Roland Burris (D-Ill.) — are hinging their vote for the health reform package on the inclusion of a strong public option.

“This legislation cannot simply be a huge subsidy to private insurance companies that will get millions of new customers and be able to raise their rates as high as they want,” Sanders said in a statement last week. “I strongly suspect that there are number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option.”

All of this, of course, could change. Although the House passed its health-care reform bill earlier in the month, the Senate proposal is just hitting the chamber floor today. The upper-chamber is expected to debate the measure through most of December, with hundreds of amendments likely to be offered from both sides of the aisle.

Democratic leaders hope to pass the bill out of the Senate before the holiday recess, pushing the conference negotiations to sometime in January. That 2010 is an election year won’t make those discussions any smoother.

Mike Lillis covers congress for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.

The study focused on 49 individuals who believed that Saddam Hussein was in part to blame for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Even when presented with evidence that proved their belief to be false, and even when that evidence came directly from conservative sources like President George W. Bush, all but one created justifications for continuing the belief.

Researchers concluded that people form beliefs, and then seek out information which upholds those beliefs and disregard information to the contrary.

“I do think there’s something to be said about people like Sarah Palin, and even more so Chuck Grassley, supporting this idea of death panels in a national forum,” Steve Hoffman, one of the study’s authors, told reporter Emily Badger of Miller-McCune. “That kind of puts the idea out there, but what people then do with the idea… Our argument is that people aren’t just empty vessels. You don’t just sort of open up their brains and dump false information in and they regurgitate it. They’re actually active processing cognitive agents.”

That view is more nuanced than the one held by many health care reform proponents — that citizens are only ill-informed because Rush Limbaugh makes them so…

“I think we’d all like to believe that when people come across disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their opinions,” said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study.

That some people might not do that even in the face of accurate information, the authors suggest in their article, presents “a serious challenge to democratic theory and practice.”

One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa filed the complaint Monday alleging that NOM, a New Jersey-based group that opposes same-sex marriage, violated Iowa campaign finance law in their Iowa House District 90 campaign.

“NOM has complete disregard of Iowa law as they engage in express advocacy in our state, while refusing to release the identity of their donors, as is legally required in Iowa law,” the complaint said. “NOM has a history of funneling secret money throughout the country to engage in similar activity.”

On Aug. 20, NOM reported making an independent expenditure of $86,060 to benefit Stephen Burgmeier, a candidate in Tuesday’s Iowa House District 90 special election. The complaint alleges the expenditure violates Iowa election laws requiring disclosure of political contributors. Similar complaints have been filed against NOM in California and Maine.

The Iowa complaint comes less than a week after Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, wrote a letter to NOM Executive Director Brian Brown saying that if his organization continues to engage in express advocacy in Iowa, the group would have to form a PAC and disclose its donors.

“We request a thorough investigation into their activities, including detailed accounting of any and all contributions and their sources, as Iowans clearly deserve to know who is funding last minute advertising to try and influence tomorrow’s election,” the complaint said.

NOM has said it will target target Iowa in the hopes of passing a state constitutional amendment reversing the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in April that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The effort, called “The Reclaim Iowa Project,” leads many to believe the $90,000 spent on HD90 represents just a preview of the group’s future investment in Iowa politics.

In Maine, the state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices said in a letter to NOM that it will investigating their campaign practices at its Oct. 1 meeting. The group is trying to build support for a referendum to overturn a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage.

Fairness Fund PAC, which is associated with the state’s largest gay-rights advocacy group, One Iowa, is hoping a last-minute surge of money can help bring Democrat Curt Hanson to victory. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a New Jersey-based group that opposes same-sex marriage, spent nearly $90,000 on a television ad campaign for Republican candidate Steve Burgmeier.

“If Stephen Burgmeier wins this election, it will be spun as a victory for anti-gay marriage opponents in Iowa and across the country,” said Carolyn Jenison, executive director of One Iowa, in a post on the PAC’s blog. “We can’t let this happen.”

One Iowa has also started a petition drive hoping to force NOM to reveal its donors. Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, said in a letter to NOM Executive Director Brian Brown that if his organization continues to engage in express advocacy in Iowa, the group would have to form a PAC and disclose its donors.

NOM filed an independent expenditure Aug. 20 disclosing it was purchasing television advertising in support of Burgmeier. Smithson said in his letter that the independent expenditure process is “not a vehicle to shield political contributors.”

“It is a way for a group to disclose an expenditure it makes outside of a direct contribution to an Iowa committee,” he wrote. “However, if you are accepting more than $750 for political activities in Iowa, then you become a ‘permanent organization temporarily engaging in political activity’ and would be required to disclose donors to your Iowa activities under Iowa Code sections 68A.401(9) and 68A.102(18).”

The race to fill the southeastern Iowa district of Democrat John Whitaker has become the focus of the Republican Party of Iowa, the Iowa Democratic Party and activist groups of all political persuasions. Despite the fact that its outcome will have no bearing on control of the legislature, it is thought that the winning side will gain much needed momentum going into the 2010 elections.

Republican Steve Burgmeier raised $60,101. His campaign has spent more than $40,000 and has received in-kind donations, mostly direct mail pieces from the Republican Party of Iowa, totaling more than $77,000. His biggest contributors include $15,000 from the RPI, $10,000 from tax watchdog Iowans for Tax Relief and $10,000 from a political action committee associated with U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Democrat Curt Hanson has raised $42,881. His campaign has spent $27,651 and received nearly $129,000 of in-kind donations, mostly mailing paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party. His biggest donations came from numerous labor organizations.

Republicans were also assisted by the anti-gay marriage group National Organization for Marriage, which spent nearly $90,000 on a television advertising campaign. Gay-rights group One Iowa has also been highly involved in the race, although their financial commitment is not yet known.

Both candidates have said they support a vote on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Brian Brown, executive director of the conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage rights, has sent out notice of a new initiative: The Reclaim Iowa Project. The goal is to force Iowans to pass a state constitutional amendment reversing the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in April that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The force behind NOM’s interest in Iowa, according to Brown’s e-mail, is U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron).

Over the past several months, with the help of Congressman Steve King, NOM has laid the groundwork for its Reclaim Iowa Project, making over a million automated phone calls to Iowa families, and identifying 100,000 new supporters in Iowa.

As The Iowa Independent reported shortly after the court’s decision, King told Iowans at an anti-abortion rally in Cedar Rapids that “if we don’t save marriage, we can’t remain pro-life.” King also drew a direct line between homosexuality and incest. The Iowa Independent has also noted the automated phone calls into Iowa that feature King’s voice.

The e-mail from Brown makes a request of money to be used to target Iowa races. Specifically, NOM is seeking 100 new donors to join the organization as “Monthly Sustaining Partners.” No exact dollar amount is specified.

Iowans have become accustomed to special interest organizations like NOM entering the state every four years in hopes of spurring the national debate in conjunction  with the first-in-the-nation caucuses. It is unusual, however, for national special interest groups to target Iowans based on their own state politics.

Although NOM lists its executive offices in New Jersey, the disclosure related to the expenditures for the HD 90 race, filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, lists an address on H Street in Washington, D.C.  The same address has been used by The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, Capital City Partners, DeNukeIran.com, American Principles Project, Americans to Ban Cloning and American Principles in Action.

At the time when NOM opened its D.C. location, Brown completed a telephone interview with Lou Chibbaro Jr. of the Washington Blade. In that interview, Brown once again refused to release federal forms related to is finances, citing that the required Internal Revenue Service Form 990, filed in mid-August after an extension, was “processing.”

NOM, which spent millions to turn back a California decision for marriage equality, has come under fire from critics in that state who believe that much of the money spent in California stemmed directly from the Mormon Church.

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa PAC came in second, raising $187,851, and the Credit Union PAC came in third with $100,933.

As for cash on hand, the Service Employees International Union Political Education and Action Iowa Fund was out front with $252,511. However, the union hasn’t raised or spent any money in 2009.

Associated General Contractors of Iowa PAC was next up with $248,511 cash on hand, and the Free and Strong America PAC-Iowa, organized by potential 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has $203,380. The Iowa State Education Association PAC has $196,107.

For a full listing, go to the IECDB Web site.

Iowa State University's power plant in Ames, which creates nearly 30,000 tons of coal ash, a majority of which is disposed of in an unlined quarry in Waterloo (photo by Jason Hancock/Iowa Independent).

It is unclear whether the federal government will move quickly on its own rulemaking regarding coal ash, said Charlotte Hubbell, who has served on the EPC since 2007. So if the state has concerns with the way coal ash is being handled, the legislature should look into the matter.

“I think it would be in the public’s best interest to have the legislature set up a study committee,” Hubbell said. “For them to hold hearings during the next session with the purpose of drafting and voting on legislation that would deal with this waste disposal.”

Last year, the state Department of Natural Resources began drafting tougher rules on coal ash disposal, in particular, disposal at unlined former quarries and mines that received a waiver allowing them to use ash as fill. Environmental groups say this type of disposal method poses an enormous risk to public health. Without liners, toxins such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium could leach out of the site and into groundwater supplies, and without monitoring equipment, there is no way of knowing if contamination is already taking place.

The DNR’s efforts stalled, however, because of pressure from disposal-site owners and coal-burning businesses. The EPC vowed to continue investigating the need for tougher regulations, but in March the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would redraft federal regulations for coal ash disposal, effectively halting any action on coal ash at the state level.

Last month, Democratic state Sen. Dennis Black, who chairs the Senate Environment and Energy Independence Committee, said the EPC should conduct public hearings on Iowa’s coal ash rules, saying any federal rule-making process could get bogged down by lobbyists and end up producing regulations that do not “protect the public water supply.”

Hubbell said having the EPC hold hearings would not be practical.

“We don’t have separate staff or a separate budget,” she said. “We are a citizens, volunteer commission. That’s the legislature’s job, if you ask me.”

The EPC is authorized to call hold public hearings, “but practically speaking, in 22 years I don’t know that it has ever been done,” Hubbell said.

Another impediment, Hubbell said, is the fact that the DNR is facing staff reductions and budget cuts due to the state of the economy.

“It’s questionable whether the DNR will have the time and the people to draft rules regarding disposal of coal combustion waste,” she said.

Black agreed with Hubbell that a study committee set up by the legislature would do a better job of handling the issue than the EPC. He said he would ask Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs about the Legislative Council, a bipartisan group of Senate and House leaders that serves as a steering committee for the General Assembly when it is not in session, appointing a committee after the 2010 session.

But because the federal Environmental Protection Agency has indicated it will release its draft rules by the end of the year, Black said he would not direct his committee to study the issue any earlier.

“State government rules are often convoluted enough, without our forging ahead, making and implementing rules, only to perhaps back-off should EPA come back with something different,” he said.

In an interview last month with the Iowa Independent, the DNR’s lead staffer on coal ash issues, Chad Stobbe, said that if the EPA’s timeline is met and rules are ready for public comment by the end of the year it would likely still take two years before sites are mandated to be in compliance. Because of this, advocates for tougher regulation have begun calling for measures that can be implemented while federal rules are being worked out.

Specifically, environmentalists are calling on the state to mandate financial assurances at the four unlined, unmonitored disposal sites. Owners would have to post a bond to cover the costs of closure, post-closure care and if applicable, corrective action if there is contamination. Financial assurances are already mandated at sanitary landfills, but because the quarries and mines received waivers from the state, these mandates are not required.

If contamination is discovered before federal rules are in place, taxpayers could get stuck paying for cleanup, a cost that could run into the millions.

Carrie Le Seur, president and founder of environmental law center Plains Justice, said that while the state looks on, the idea of tougher regulations coming from the federal government is not guaranteed.

“There has been a lot of push back from industry about leaving voluntary guidelines in place, which we’ve had for more than 30 years and just hasn’t been sufficient to protect public health and the environment,” she said. “There’s a letter being circulated by senators from Kansas and North Dakota asking EPA to forgo its rulemaking in favor of voluntary guidelines. The fight is not over at the federal level.”