How bad was nitrate in 2025?

by Dan Haug | Jan 6, 2026

When the ball dropped on New Year’s Eve, nitrate in the Raccoon River was once again above the drinking water standard, closing out a bad year for water quality in Iowa. Below, I’ve compared this year’s nitrate levels to long-term averages at sites in Iowa DNR’s Ambient Stream Network with at least 20 years of data to get a sense for where and when nitrate was highest and what was unusual about 2025.

To understand these patterns, it’s important to remember that 2025 was not a uniformly wet year. Heavy rains in July broke or came near to breaking some records and caused flash flooding in many communities. These rains also raised the water table enough to keep drainage tiles flowing into into the fall. However, most of the state received less than average rainfall from January through May and from August through December. In a band from Ames to Charles City, that works out to a much wetter year than normal. In other parts of the state, like Dubuque, Ottumwa, and Red Oak, that works out to a much drier year than normal.

Nitrate was much higher than normal in the Boone River, Skunk River, and many others in northern and central Iowa, especially in July and August. Nitrate was within 1 mg/L of the long-term average for the Nishnabotna and other rivers in southern Iowa and for the Rock and Floyd Rivers in northwest Iowa. In the table below, red indicates nitrate was higher than average, blue is lower than average, and white is close to the long-term average.

There are some unusually high readings (25 mg/L in the South Skunk River in January) and unusually low readings (3.3 mg/L at Beaver Creek In July) that may have been collected during a storm or other event that is not representative. This is a limitation of monthly grab samples and one reason why maintaining Iowa’s network of real-time nitrate sensors is important. The Ioway Creek sensor was removed at the end of 2024, but the pattern I documented here here (a quick flush of low nitrate surface runoff followed by a gradual release of high nitrate drainage water) happened over and over, in many places in 2025. These kinds of leaks can be avoided with changes in cropping systems and land use, reduced with better nutrient management and cover crops, or intercepted and treated with saturated buffers and wetlands, but we’ll need a lot more of them to prevent another bad year like 2025.

A Year Later, Where Does the Monarch Butterfly Stand with its Listing Under the Endangered Species Act?

by Katelyn Rinicker | Jan 5, 2026

In December of 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed adding the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) to the threatened species list under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). You can read their press release here. As part of the proposal, the agency also introduced a proposed 4(d) rule and a critical habitat designation focused on key overwintering sites in California. Typically, the U.S. Department of the Interior finalizes ESA listing decisions within one year of a proposal. However, a year later, no final ruling has been issued. Instead, we have less than that, we have a promise that maybe someday they will decide on it, keeping this incredibly important species in regulatory limbo, along with many other species awaiting listing or delisting decisions under the ESA.

This delay is only the latest chapter in a long and complex history surrounding efforts to protect the monarch butterfly. In fact, this iconic pollinator has been under consideration for ESA listing for more than a decade.

This is a flow chart from the US Fish and Wildlife Service showing the process for getting listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The saga actually started in August 2014 when a petition was filed with the USFWS from several reputable organizations, including Xerces Society, the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and Dr. Lincoln Brower. They requested that the Monarch be listed as a threatened species with a 4(d) rule. Essentially, a 4(d) rule allows for continued conservation activities like monitoring, tagging, and rearing for educational purposes while still having protective actions in place.

In December 2014 the USFWS released a 90-day finding on the proposal . They “found the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information that indicated listing the monarch may be warranted (79 FR 78775) and initiated a range-wide status review.” They proceeded to issue 12-month findings on the petitions.

You would think that would lead to a decision in 2015, however more research was requested and they actually took 5 years to create an assessment of population trends, threats, and consult with stakeholders. Granted, collecting data takes time and isn’t always the easiest to sort through or coordinate. While the research was being done, the Monarch was flying its way into the hearts of millions. Classrooms, communities, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) were banding together to create habitat for the beloved butterfly. Many concerned individuals were planting milkweed, reducing pesticide use, tagging Monarchs, and planting flowering native plants.

Over the next five years, USFWS conducted extensive analyses while monarch conservation gained widespread public attention.

Finally in September of 2020, the USFWS published their findings in the Monarch Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report. In this report they assessed the historical and current (2020) distribution of monarch populations, their status and health, identified key drivers of their health/decline, and their resiliency. Three months later, in December 2020, the USFWS announced their decision on listing the Monarch Butterfly under the ESA. They determined that the monarch should be listed as an endangered species, HOWEVER it was precluded due to higher-priority listing actions for other species that were in greater danger of extinction. The Monarch was categorized as a candidate species and the USFWS will review its status each year until it is finalized and published as a notice in the Federal Register, assuming it was still warranted.

In December of 2024, just a little over a year ago, the Monarch Butterfly was once again proposed as threatened under the ESA, along with a 4(d) rule and a critical habitat designation. This would have been a significant step in protecting the monarch butterfly. For 90 days following this proposal (Dec 12, 2024 – Mar 12, 2025) a comment period was open to the general public. Then the comment period was extended for another 60 days, meaning it ended in May 2025. Comments are essential to the proposal process and allows invested parties, such as scientists, organizations, individuals, and volunteer groups. Prairie Rivers, as well as many other conservation organizations, sent in a comment in favor of listing the Monarch as Threatened. The USFWS received more than 186,000 comments during this period.

Monarch Caterpillar on Whorled Milkweed by Katelyn Rinicker

USFWS generally has up to one year after a proposal to review comments and data before issuing a final rule. That rule may modify the original proposal or finalize the listing as proposed, after which it is published in the Federal Register and takes effect within 60 days. This listing would ensure the development of a recovery plan and provide clearer guidance for conservation actions.

As of December 15, 2025, roughly one year after the proposal, no final decision has been made. Recently, the Department of the Interior updated an agency rule list suggesting delays in the timeline for monarchs and other species awaiting listing/delisting actions to the ESA. The final rule for listing the monarch is now categorized as “Long-term Actions”. This means that the agency does not expect to act within the next year. Now, at the earliest, a final decision for the monarch would be the fall of 2026, at the earliest.

This is a bar graph from Monarch Watch showing the overwintering populations of eastern monarchs. 6 hectares are needed to have a sustainable population.

To say that this is a disappointment is an understatement. More than ever, monarchs need our help. Their populations have steadily declined and have been under stable repopulation numbers for the past few years. The Eastern population of monarchs (those in Iowa fall in this group) have declined by 80% since the 1990s. “According to the most recent monarch Species Status Assessment, by 2080 the probability of extinction for eastern monarchs ranges from 56 to 74% and the probability of extinction for western monarchs is greater than 95%.” (USFWS).

Without timely and decisive action, monarch butterflies could disappear within this generation.

The economics of nitrogen have changed. Has our thinking?

by Dan Haug | Dec 4, 2025

Revised December 10

It sounds too good to be true, wrote Neil Hamilton in a 2021 opinion piece. Reducing nitrogen fertilizer application rates to the Maximum Return to Nitrogen (MRTN) recommended by Iowa State University promised to save farmers money while keeping nitrate out of the rivers and greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. In retrospect, it was too good to be true.

Reducing fertilizer rates will cut into profits (for most farmers)

Early this year, ISU researchers published a study in Nature Communications showing that the amount of nitrogen fertilizer required to maximize yield (the agronomic optimum) and maximize profits (the economic optimum) have been steadily increasing, driven partly by corn genetics and partly by weather. The economic optimum is always lower than the agronomic optimum (the revenue from those last few bushels isn’t enough to pay for the fertilizer) but the difference between the two is getting smaller. I wrote about this in July, but since then I’ve had a chance to download and explore the data used in the study. Here are the trends in optimal nitrogen application rates for just the sites in Iowa, compared to actual nitrogen application rates, which I estimated using a combination on IDALS fertilizer sales data and INREC survey data. For more details on the data I used to estimate actual nitrogen application, read this attachment.

The scenarios in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy were based on data from 2006-2010. At that time, it would have been possible for farmers to reduce nitrogen application rates on corn following soybeans from 151 lbs/acre to 133 lbs/acre while increasing profits, on average. However, those figures were already out of date when the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy was released in 2013, and in the decade since, fertilizer application rates have levelled off while the amount of nitrogen needed to maximize yields or profit has continued to increase. A minority of farmers may still find opportunities to boost profits by reducing nitrogen application, but average rates are now below the economic optimum.

This part of the study looks solid and matches what I’ve seen from other sources. Practical Farmers of Iowa have done their own trials and found that a majority of their participants were able to save money by reducing nitrogen rates in an especially dry year, but in a more typical year only 41% of farmers saw potential for savings.

Reducing fertilizer rates could still have significant water quality benefits

Farmers no longer have an economic incentive to reduce rates (on average) but it’s not hard to imagine policies that could shift the incentives by making it cheaper or less risky to apply at low rates, or more expensive to apply at high rates.

The ISU study includes an “environmental optimum nitrogen rate” that hints at that. The authors used a crop systems model to estimate nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching for different scenarios, assigned a price to the pollution, and calculated the nitrogen application rate that would be economically optimal if those costs were reflected in the marketplace. Instead of evaluating the environmental benefits of reducing rates from current levels, they estimate the impacts of reducing rates (for corn after soybeans) from an economic optimum of 143 lbs/acre to an environmental optimum of 116 lbs/acre. Those are averages for the entire 20 year period and not at all relevant today. Oops! Because of this mistake, they conclude that “a reduction in N fertilizer rate towards improving sustainability will not have the anticipated reduction in environmental N losses because of the nonlinear relationship between N rate and N loss.”

Actually, the non-linear (curved) relationship between nitrogen application rates and nitrate pollution implies that rate reduction will have bigger benefits now than it did when rates were lower. The figures below contrast some outdated assumptions with new reality.

The increase in fertilizer rates has been bad for water quality

In most presentations and interviews about the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, ISU faculty correctly point out that fertilizer management alone is not enough to meet our water quality goals and emphasize the need for a variety of conservation practices. However, every scenario in the INRS assumed that fertilizer application rates would go down. It may not be possible to meet our goals now that fertilizer rates have gone up.

Based on the increase in fertilizer rates for corn after soybeans (from 151 lbs/acre in 2007 to 173 lbs/acre since 2017), we would expect a 16% increase in nitrate concentration in drainage water. The 3.8 million acres of cover crops reported in recent INREC aren’t enough to undo the damage. Nitrate in streams is also affected by weather, changes in land use, and other practices not modeled here, but fertilizer rates and cover crops do help to explain why nitrate concentrations in many streams peaked between 2013 and 2015 and have fallen since.

What about continuous corn?

Nitrogen application rates for corn after soybeans have gone up, but application rates for continuous corn may actually have gone down. I say “may” because we didn’t have good baseline data. Because corn stover ties up a lot of nitrogen as it decomposes, growing corn after corn requires higher nitrogen application rates to achieve the same yield. The confusing Figure 5 in the Nature Communications paper looks at the yield penalty for reducing nitrogen rates from the economic optimum to the “environmental optimum,” which is what it would make economic sense for farmers to apply if the societal costs of pollution were reflected in the marketplace. The authors concluded that reducing nitrogen application rates past the economic optimum would have unacceptable consequences for grain markets and food security, especially for continuous corn. I looked at the same figure and concluded that growing corn after corn would not be commercially viable in a society that valued clean water, a stable climate, and public health.

Your mileage may vary

My biggest takeaways from both the Iowa State University research and the Practical Farmers of Iowa research are how much the optimum nitrogen rate varies from year to year and place to place. One farmer in the PFI study saved money by reducing rates from 150 to 100 lbs/acre, while another lost money by reducing rates to 246 to 200 lbs/acre.

The ISU study includes nitrogen rate trials for seven sites in Iowa and six years since the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy was released. If you had followed the recommendations from the old nitrogen rate calculator and applied 140 lbs/acre to corn after soybeans, 62% of the trials would been at least 10 lbs/acre below the economic optimum. But even in the most recent year, there were 2 sites where that would have been at least 10 lbs/acre above the economic optimum!

The Iowa Nitrogen Initiative addresses this problem through an expanded program of nitrogen rate trials and a decision support tool that can provide customized recommendations by county given assumptions about rainfall, planting date, and residual soil nitrate. Using the new information, some farmers will find an opportunity to increase profits while reducing nitrogen rates. A larger group of farmers will find opportunities to increase profits by increasing nitrogen rates. Dr. Castellano has made a complicated argument for how the water quality benefits of bringing down the high rates can be greater than the water quality penalties of bringing up the low rates. Great. Please apply that logic to manure.

What about manure?

Since 2017, the INREC survey report has asked farmers what percent of fields receive manure application (about 20%), how much commercial fertilizer is applied to fields that do not (174 lbs/acre for corn in rotation and 199 lbs/acre for continuous corn), and what proportion of cropland is planted to continuous corn (about 12%). Manure expert Dan Anderson recently did some algebra to see what that implies about nitrogen application rates for fields that do receive manure, and came up with 342 lb N/acre on corn-after-soybean and 391 lb N/acre on continuous corn. I used slightly different assumptions and came up with lower numbers, but they’re still much higher than needed to maximize yield. If you’ve read anything by Chris Jones, this won’t come as a surprise.

I’m showing the agronomic optimum rate rather than economic optimum because the economics of manure aren’t the same as commercial fertilizer. Manure has much lower nutrient content and is much more expensive to haul. Manure pits fill up and there’s often a time and labor crunch to get it applied. Manure has highly variable nutrient content, which adds to the uncertainty and makes a supplemental application of commercial fertilizer seem like cheap insurance. If farmers had a strong economic incentive to make the most of manure nitrogen, nobody would be applying it in early fall and we wouldn’t have a cloud of ammonia hanging over the Midwest. There are also some farmers who are doing an exceptional job of conserving soil and water by feeding cover crops, small grains, or forage to livestock, and we should figure out how to level the playing field to make it easier to replicate their model.

Are these changes in nitrogen management good or bad?

It’s a mixed bag. I had to puzzle over this for quite a while!

The increase in the economic optimum nitrogen rate is partly due to good things (improved corn yield response) and partly due to bad things (increasing nitrogen losses to the air and water).

It’s good that nitrogen fertilizer use has gotten more efficient. Farmers can grow more bushels per pound of nitrogen than they used to. It’s bad that manure management plans still allow nitrogen to be applied at a rate of 1.2 lbs per bushel of potential yield.

It’s good that fertilizer rates for corn following soybeans have levelled off recently. It’s bad that nitrogen fertilizer rates went up in the early 2000s.

It’s good that nitrogen application rates for continuous corn have fallen. It’s bad that farmers are planting corn after corn.

It’s good that farmers are now applying less commercial fertilizer (on average) than required to maximize yield. It’s bad that farmers are over-applying manure.

It’s bad that we don’t have a plan to reach the goals of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy without rate reduction, and it’s bad that the price tag of reducing rates (either to farmers, the public, or both) is higher than we previously assumed. However, it might still be a better deal than other conservation practices. It’s bad than more people aren’t talking about this.

Does Adding a Pollinator Garden Really Save You Money?

by Katelyn Rinicker | Oct 31, 2025

Most people don’t think twice about what it costs to maintain a traditional lawn, but the numbers add up quickly. Let’s break down how much the average homeowner in Ames spends compared to maintaining a small pollinator garden.

Lawn Maintenance Costs

The average lawn in Ames is about 5,400 square feet, which is roughly the size of a basketball court. Mowing that space with a push mower uses about one-eighth of a gallon of gas per session, which costs around $0.37 each time. During the growing season (March through October), homeowners mow about 23 times, spending $8.51 per year on gas.

Watering Costs

Keeping grass green takes about one inch of water per week. That is roughly 3,364 gallons for a 5,400-square-foot yard per watering session. Depending on rainfall and frequency, watering 10–20 times a year costs between $129 and $329.33 annually in Ames.

Fertilizer and Pesticides

Most people fertilize three times a year, which adds up to $120 annually. Common lawn chemicals—like insecticides and weed killers—cost another $135 per year.

Time Investment

An average of 2.5 hrs a week are spent on lawns with about 26 weeks in the season. Meaning we are spending 65 hours a year on lawn maintenance.

Total Lawn Costs

1 year: $348.01 to $547.84 and 65 hours

3 years: $1,044.03 to $1,643.52 and 195 hours

5 years: $1,740.05 to $2,739.20 and 325 hours

10 years: 3,480.10 to $5,478.40 and 650 hours

Pollinator Garden Costs

Now let’s compare that to a small 10×10-foot (100-square-foot) native pollinator garden.

Seeds and Plants

Seeds are often inexpensive or free through programs like the City of Ames rebates or the Prairie Rivers of Iowa Native Seed Bank. The seed for such a small area is only $5.

If using native plant plugs at about $4 each, it is recommended to have one per square foot. You would need 25 plants, costing $400.

Mowing and Watering Costs

In the first year, the area is mowed about four times to control weeds, less than 50 cents in gas for the year.
Watering costs vary. Watering 10–20 times a year ranges from $2.40 to $4.80 the first year, dropping by half the second year, and none the third as plants fully establish.

Time Investment

The first year involves about 16 hours of work total: seeding/planting, and weekly weeding. In later years, maintenance drops to light weeding—around 13 hours per year.

Total Pollinator Garden Cost

1 year: $7.88 to $405.28 and 16 hours

3 years: $9.32 to $407.92 and 42 hours

5 years: $9.32 to $407.92 and 68 hours

10 years: $9.32 to $407.92 and 133 hours

Comparing the Two

You now have the numbers to compare keeping your traditional lawn or adding a pollinator garden. These numbers are vastly different, but keep in mind they are not yet in the same scale. The lawn total is for 5,400 sq ft, while the pollinator garden is for 100 sq ft. Below I will break them down into cost per 100 sq ft to better compare them.

Traditional Lawn

1 year: $6.44 to $10.15

3 years: $19.33 to $30.44

5 years: $32.22 to $50.73

10 years: $64.45 to $104.52

Pollinator Garden

1 year: $7.88 to $405.28

3 years: $9.32 to $407.92

5 years: $9.32 to $407.92

10 years: $9.32 to $407.92

Over time, a pollinator garden requires far less water, chemicals, and fuel than a traditional lawn, saving money and hours while supporting bees, butterflies, and other wildlife. A native pollinator garden pays for itself within a few seasons and creates beauty and biodiversity that benefit the whole community.

In case you missed it – 2025 event recap

by Dan Haug | Oct 24, 2025

Signature Events

Our third annual Monarch Magic was held at Ada Hayden Heritage Park in Ames on September 6th. 37 families brought their kids to learn about butterflies and nature with hands-on activities. Normally we tag butterflies but didn’t this year because of concern about their numbers. Thanks to Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park, Raising Readers in Story County, The Outdoor Alliance of Story County, Trees Forever, Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, Story County Conservation, Boone County Conservation, Greater Des Moines Botanical Gardens, Big Bluestem Audubon Society, Pollinator Friendly Ames, Iowa Monarch Consortium, City of Ames (Parks and Rec and Smart Watersheds) for participating!

Our sixth creek cleanup, which we’re now calling PACRAT (Paddle and Cleanup Rivers Around Town) was held on May 3rd. Thirty-three volunteers removed 3,200 pounds of trash from Ioway Creek! Thanks to the City of Ames, Story County Conservation, Outdoor Alliance of Story County, and Skunk River Paddlers for helping make it happen!

PACRAT 2025 creek cleanup, launching canoes in Ioway Creek.

PACRAT 2025, collecting trash from a log jam

Volunteer water monitoring

We continue to experiment with the format for seasonal volunteer monitoring events. In May (as described in another article), we coordinated our event in Story County with Polk County Conservation and created a map showing water quality across central Iowa. On October 11, eight volunteers joined us bright and early so we could test dissolved oxygen at the low point in its daily cycle, for an event we billed as a “water quality breakfast.” All but one of the sites we tested had dissolved oxygen levels of 8 mg/L or higher, which means we weren’t able to narrow down the cause of the problems we’ve seen in past years, but it’s good news for fish and other aquatic life! The lowest reading was College Creek at the ISU Arboretum (6 mg/L), where the water was barely flowing.

Fall is also a good time for biological monitoring. On October 3, an Ames High School environmental science class helped me survey aquatic invertebrates at Brookside Park in Ames. We found enough insects to make it interesting for the students but not a wide enough variety to indicate a healthy aquatic community–the overall score was “fair.” In one picture below, you can see a new cross-vane structure which redirects the creek’s flow to the center and away from eroding banks. It’s one of several interventions the city is making that we hope will reduce erosion and improve aquatic habitat.

A new volunteer tests temperature and dissolved oxygen

Ames High School students catching invertebrates in nets

Presentations

Dan and Katelyn are always happy to talk about water quality, pollinators, or land stewardship. Our speaking engagements this year included:

A sustainable agriculture class at Iowa State University
4H youth fishing club, by Zoom.
Kirkwood Women in Natural Resources Club
An evening program in Mason City for Iowa Project A.W.A.R.E.
Central Iowa Beekeepers Association winter seminar, by Zoom
A Story County Master Gardeners meeting in Ames
A joint meeting in Stanhope of the Ioway Creek and Headwaters of the South Skunk River Watershed Management Authorities
A panel discussion at a statewide gathering of watershed management authorities in Cedar Rapids
A non-partisan rally organized by the Iowa League of Women Voters

We also hosted a webinar about the importance of native habitat featuring speaker Sarah Nizzi of Xerces Society.

Tabling

Thanks to the following organizations for giving us an opportunity to set up a display and meet members of the community.

EcoVision at the Ames Public Library
STEAM Around the World, organized by the Nevada PTA

We’re looking forward to more opportunities to engage with communities in central Iowa and beyond in what’s left of 2025, and next year!

Pollinator booth Nevada PTA event 2025 scaled

Amending the Clean Water Act

by Dan Haug | Aug 28, 2025

When the House of Representatives reconvenes in September, they will likely vote on a collection of amendments to the Clean Water Act: H.R. 3898, which they’re calling the PERMIT Act (Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today). It’s a bad bill and you should urge your representatives to vote against it.

The Clean Water Act no longer works well in Iowa, because our largest remaining source of pollution is agricultural stormwater runoff, which has a special exemption. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has been reluctant to put waters on the impaired list and write cleanup plans because they can’t enforce them. They have been reluctant to update standards because they think it will result in higher costs for small town sewage treatment plants without making any noticeable difference for water quality in rivers. I have a whole presentation about impaired waters if you’d like more details, but that’s the situation in a nutshell.

HR 3898 makes this worse. It expands exemptions for agricultural stormwater and pesticides without any provisions to encourage conservation. It mixes economic considerations into the process for setting standards and evaluating impairments. If there’s no widely available and cost-effective way to get a pollutant down to the level that science says is needed to protect aquatic life or drinking water, then the DNR would have to set a weaker standard, or delay setting standards. This would leave the public in the dark about the condition of our lakes and rivers.

Oxbow wetlands have lost protection because do not have a "relatively permanent" surface water connection to a navigable water.

How often does a stream need flowing water to be protected?

There has been a long-running controversy over the extent to which the US Army Corps of Engineers and EPA can regulate construction in wetlands and waterways, which hinges on the definition of phrase: “Waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court recently ruled that many kinds of wetlands aren’t covered. This bill would exclude ephemeral streams, which had previously been considered on a case-by-case basis. I would be less worried about the impacts of these decisions if Iowa had state law requiring developers to avoid or mitigate wetland fill, like some of our neighbors do.

HR 3898 goes beyond clarifying a few exceptions to roll back what many people see as federal overreach. It also raises the threshold for general permits, making it easier to fill small wetlands even if they do have an obvious connection to navigable waters. It makes it harder for states to block pipeline projects. Amendments by Democrats to study the impacts of the bill or mitigate them with a no-net-loss policy were rejected and the bill passed out of committee on a party line vote.

The Cuyohoga River in Ohio caught fire nine times before Congress took serious action to address water pollution

The one good thing about the bill is it’s a reminder that Congress does have the ability to fix outdated laws. What we now call the Clean Water Act are the 1972 and 1977 amendments to the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Those amendments made a big difference for waters that were once polluted by sewage and industrial waste. This summer, I paddled on a beautiful and relatively clean stretch of the Shell Rock River with a canoe partner who grew up in the area and recalled how foam used to float down the river from meatpacking plants in Minnesota. The law was amended again in 1981, 1987, and 2014. It could use another amendment to cut red tape while better addressing today’s water quality challenges, but this isn’t it!

« Older Entries