Progress Tracking: Why It’s Lacking

Progress Tracking: Why It’s Lacking

by | Jul 31, 2025

If the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy had a United Way style progress banner

You know those United Way posters with a thermometer showing progress toward a fundraising goal?  The image above is my attempt at a similarly easy-to-understand progress meter for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS).  Based on changes to farming practices in the decade since the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy was released, we should have met our goal for phosphorus but have only reduced nitrogen losses by 2%, not enough to undo the increases of the previous decade.  These are best-case scenarios which do not account for manure, legacy sediment and nutrients, and interactions between practices.

Iowa State University is responsible for tracking the progress of the INRS, and has created a set of data dashboards covering dollars spent, minds changed, conservation practices on the land, and water quality trends in the rivers.  These were updated in May of 2024.  There is no top-line summary of where we stand relative to our goals, but wasn’t hard to make one.  I just added up the numbers in a pair of tables labelled “change in modeled nitrogen/phosphorus load for practices since the baseline period.”

Change in modeled nutrient loads, from ISU dashboard

Baselines, Goals and Timelines

The timeline requires some explanation.  The INRS was released in 2013, but the baseline period is 1980-1996.  That’s because the Hypoxia Action Task Force was formed in 1997.  The task force set a goal of reducing the size of the dead zone in Gulf to 5000 square kilometers (1,930 square miles).  The target date for meeting that goal has been pushed back several times.  Despite several dry years, the five-year average extent of the dead zone is still twice as big as the target.  Last year it measured 6,705 square miles, larger than Connecticut or Hawaii.

To meet the goals for shrinking the dead zone, each state would need to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus lost down the Mississippi River by 45%.  The Iowa Department of Natural Resources determined that mandatory upgrades for 102 municipal wastewater treatment systems and 28 industrial facilities could reduce state’s overall nitrogen load by 4% and phosphorus load by 16%.  The remaining 41% reduction in nitrogen load and 29% reduction in phosphorus load would need to come from controlling non-point sources of pollution like agricultural runoff.

Iowa State University was tasked with answering the question: “based on what we know about the performance of various conservation practices, how would it be possible to achieve these goals?”  The answer was “only with a combination of practices, and only if every farm uses at least one of them.”  This research began in 2010, using data about land use and farming practices from the previous five years (2006-2010), so the load reduction scenarios are relative to that “benchmark” period.  The researchers later issued a supplemental report to compare the benchmark period to the baseline.  Phosphorus went down due to changes in tillage but nitrogen went up due to an increase in corn and soybean acres and an increase in fertilizer application rates.

Using the information in ISU’s reports and dashboards, I’ve attempted to summarize our progress relative to both the baseline period (before the formation of the Hypoxia Action Task Force) and the benchmark period (before work began on the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy).

Table showing progress of INRS relative to two periods

Modeling vs. Monitoring

As I said, these are best-case scenarios.  While we can certainly expect a big reduction in phosphorus pollution from the growth of no-till and cover crops, ultimately, the only way to be sure that water quality is improving in our rivers is to test it!  If there’s a discrepancy between what you expect (a big reduction in phosphorus load) and what you measure (no clear trend in flow-weighted, five-year-moving-average phosphorus loads) that’s a sign that you left something important out of the spreadsheet!  The most likely suspects are legacy sediment in the river valleys and livestock manure.

On the other hand, if your water quality data is incomplete or inconclusive or just hard to explain, it’s worth stepping back and asking yourself: “how big a reduction in nitrogen can I reasonably expect, based on the conservation practices installed so far?”  If the answer is “1 or 2 percent,” there’s no need to wait for the results of a long-term study to acknowledge that your strategy isn’t working.

I remember doing that kind of reality check in 2019 for the Ioway Creek Watershed Management Authority, at the end of a four-year demonstration project.  I did not enjoy being the bearer of bad news then, and I’m not enjoying it now.  I remember how much work my colleagues put into those field days, and the ingenuity and vision displayed by the farmers who hosted them.  I was there when the woodchips were poured into the first bioreactor in Boone County.  So I totally understand the impulse to brag that Iowa now has 300 bioreactors, 3.8 million acres of cover crops, and 10.2 million acres of no-till.  Many people worked hard to achieve those numbers!  It is real progress!  It’s kept nutrients and sediment out the water!  It proves that there are many farmers who care about soil and water and are doing something about it!  But it doesn’t prove that the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy is working.  For nitrogen, it definitely isn’t.

Conservation efforts have been partially offset by increased fertilizer use

I knew that we needed a lot more cover crops, wetlands, and saturated buffers to reach our nitrogen goal.  Iowa Environmental Council has made this point with infographics.  What I didn’t realize was the extent to which increases in fertilizer application rates have offset the hard-won gains that we’ve achieved so far. 

Nutrient rate management was supposed to be the low-hanging fruit the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy.  At the time the INRS was written, the Maximum Return to Nitrogen (the point at which the yield bump from an additional pound of fertilizer doesn’t generate enough revenue to cover the costs) was 133 lbs/acre for corn in rotation and 190 lbs/acre for continuous corn.  Reducing rates from 150 lbs/acre for corn in rotation and 201 lbs/acre seemed like an easy way to reduce nitrogen in the rivers by 10% while actually saving farmers money.  Win-win!  Instead, rates for corn in rotation averaged 173 pounds/acre for the past several years, which would raise nitrate levels in tile water by (roughly) 23%!  Rates for continuous corn went down just a tiny bit, to 199 lbs/acre.  What happened?

Cropland acres and fertilizer application rates, from INREC survey
Expected response to nitrate in tile water based on fertilizer application rate

Several of the authors of the INRS science assessment just co-authored a new paper in Nature Communications which provides an answer.  133 lbs/acre was economically optimal under outdated assumptions about corn genetics and yield response, fertilizer and corn prices, and precipitation.  Factoring all that in, the optimal rate for corn in rotation actually rose to 187 pounds/acre in 2020, leaving no opportunity for a win-win.  Farmers are acting in their rational economic self-interest and applying as much nitrogen as is required to get good crop yields after a heavy spring rain.  (Huge caveat: this doesn’t factor in manure).  The researchers acknowledged that this is bad for water quality, as measured by a growing gap between the economically optimal rate and an “environmentally optimal rate” with some externalities priced in.  Another way to say that: the fraction of agribusiness profits which come at the expense of other industries (i.e. commercial fishing in the Gulf, tourism for communities on polluted lakes) and the public (i.e. utility bills for customers of the Des Moines Waterworks, hospital bills for cancer patients) has been growing. 

Figure adapted from Baum et al 2025

The companion piece to this paper is a new calculator.  N-FACT uses data from on-farm nitrogen rate trials to factor in location, planting date, residual soil nitrogen, fertilizer price, and your best guess about corn prices and rainfall to provide a customized economically optimal nitrogen rate.  The research that went into it is very impressive, and gave me a new appreciation all the factors that can influence agronomists’ recommendations and farmers’ decisions.  I hope it will lead to reduced nitrogen losses by helping farmers improve their forecasting, but unless you’re doing a split application and soil or corn stalk testing, it seems like there’s still a lot uncertainty.  Your optimal rate may vary by 40 pounds/acre depending on whether we get a wet spring or a dry spring.  That’s why I’m more excited about Practical Farmers of Iowa N Rate Protection Program, which directly addresses uncertainty and risk.

What we really need is a calculator to answer the following questions about the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy:

  • How much voluntary conservation will it take to offset future profit-driven changes in the industry?
  • How soon can we expect to see meaningful reductions in nitrate in our rivers and drinking water?
  • How many people will get preventable cancers in the meantime?
  • How long is the public going to put up with this before we demand a change in strategy?

What do I mean by “a change in strategy?”  Making policy recommendations isn’t our wheelhouse, but if you’re looking for ideas, you might start with this 2020 op-ed by Matt Liebman, Silvia Secchi, Chris Jones, and Neil Hamilton, or this 2022 report by the Iowa Environmental Council.

In Your Nature: Lawn … Care?

In Your Nature: Lawn … Care?

by | Jul 22, 2025

Jim Colbert serves on Prairie Rivers’ board of directors. This essay originally appeared on his Substack on June 16.

Hi. My name is “Jim” and I’m a lawn deviant. With less effort, less money, less water, and zero use of herbicides and fertilizers you could be a lawn deviant too. You’ll still have to mow.

Somewhere along the line, a lawn composed of a monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) became the cultural ideal for the yard surrounding a well-maintained suburban home. There can be a significant amount of “social pressure” to conform to this ideal. The entire business model of some commercial endeavors is designed to promote this ideal. Kentucky bluegrass is a pretty shade of green, and it smells nice when freshly mowed. It’s unclear whether it’s native to North America though you certainly wouldn’t have any trouble finding a specimen of Kentucky bluegrass here in the lawns of Iowa. I readily admit that baseball outfields of carefully mowed Kentucky bluegrass look appealing and make for a uniform playing surface. I also agree that a mowed area in the immediate vicinity of one’s home is comforting. Short grass makes it far easier to spot venomous snakes, should there be any in your region. It also decreases the likelihood of being bitten by ticks (arachnids in the order Ixodida), or ending up with intense itching caused by “chiggers” (mites in the family Trombiculidae) embedded in your skin, after spending some quality time in your backyard. But I encourage you to ponder whether a monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass is the best solution for these non-trivial issues.

Populations of many insect pollinators have been experiencing concerning declines in Iowa and across the United States. One approach to address this issue is to plant “pollinator gardens” to provide nectar and pollen for hungry pollinators. Kentucky bluegrass is of no help in this regard because it is “wind pollinated” (i.e., no insects needed), and it is typically mowed before it can flower anyway. It’s possible to spend considerable time, effort, and money to plant lovely, and effective, pollinator gardens and I certainly encourage that effort. But similar results can be achieved more easily by “doing nothing”. Simply allowing your lawn to be unmolested by watering, fertilizers, and herbicides provides a buffet for pollinators. Here in the Midwest allowing your lawn to “go wild” results in the presence of numerous “weed” species. Weeds are plants growing where they “want” to grow rather than where you want them to grow.

So, they’re plants. Dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) are a very familiar, and often disparaged, “weed” in lawns. They are also an important early season food source for various pollinators including bees, butterflies, hoverflies, and beetles. The common blue violet (Viola sororia) is another early season “weed” that feeds pollinators, especially fritillary butterflies. Later in the season other “weeds” provide food sources for various insect pollinators. These include creeping charlie (Glechoma hederacea), black medic (Medicago lupulina), and white clover (Trifolium repens), amongst others. For me it’s like putting up a sign that reads “Eat at Jim’s”. You could have your own sign.

Deviant lawns have benefits beyond feeding pollinators. You don’t need to water or fertilize such lawns. That, of course, saves time and money. This leads to the additional benefit of needing to mow your lawn less often. I certainly have many better things to do than mow my lawn. You probably do too. No fertilizer also means decreased nutrient run-off from your lawn during heavy rains. Nutrients leaving your lawn in rainwater don’t “magically disappear”. These nutrients continue into storm sewers and enter rivers and streams causing algal blooms in various bodies of water and can contribute to the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. There’s also no need for herbicides in a diverse lawn. More time and money saved, plus the chemicals don’t leave your lawn potentially killing plants elsewhere that nobody wants killed. Lawn diversity has another benefit: some parts of your lawn are almost always “green” during the growing season. Regardless of whether the conditions are dry or wet, some species will be doing well. Crabgrass (Digitaria species) tolerates, and remains green, under much hotter and drier conditions than Kentucky bluegrass. Broadleaf plantain (Plantago major) also deals well with hot and dry conditions. Meanwhile, your neighbor with a Kentucky bluegrass monoculture must choose between lots of watering (maybe even installing an irrigation system) and having a crispy brown lawn. Nature abhors a monoculture. Sadly, that means you’ll still have to mow (a little) when your neighbor doesn’t.

The look of a uniform, neatly trimmed, lawn seems to have a widespread appeal. Homeowners Associations and neighbors may look askance at a healthy population of dandelions. But the costs of conformity are high. Less food for struggling pollinators. Contributions to nutrient pollution. Time, money, and effort spent on watering, fertilizing, herbicide treating, and more mowing. Is the goal of the perfectly manicured lawn worth it? Allow me to be brutally honest for a moment. Major League Baseball is NEVER going to contact you about hosting the World Series in your backyard. So, do less and accomplish more by being a lawn deviant.

(Don’t) Blame it on the Rain

(Don’t) Blame it on the Rain

by | Jul 10, 2025

Gov. Reynolds' interview reminds me of a Milli Vanilli single

Updated on July 31

In an interview with KCCI, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds blamed the weather for high nitrate levels in the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers that led to an unprecedented outdoor watering ban for the Des Moines metro and dismissed any suggestion that Iowa needs to change its policies.  Milli Vanilli’s 1989 hit “Blame it on the Rain” captures the vibe perfectly, so I covered the song and made a silly video with footage from the interview.  However, the situation is no laughing matter.

Let me explain the situation as simply and clearly as I can.  The high nitrate levels we are seeing this spring are not a fluke, drinking water is not completely safe in many communities across Iowa, and if we stay the course with Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy we will be waiting a long time for things to get better.

You can’t have it both ways

It’s true, nitrate pollution in rivers is influenced by both rainfall and recent drought.  This has been a recurring theme in my analysis of water quality data (most recently here, and most rigorously here).  But the Governor and her administration want to have it both ways.  When nitrate in the Cedar River dropped due to favorable weather, they took that as a sign that a voluntary approach was working and took the unusual step of trying to withdraw a pollution budget that might have placed limits on new pollution from industry.  Just last fall they were arguing that the following rivers should be removed from the Impaired Waters List, based on a 10% rule that makes no sense in the context of drinking water. The table below shows the data that they’re using to make those determinations.

Nitrate data for impaired waters disputed by EPA and DNR

Regardless of whether they meet the technical threshold for impairment, as a practical matter, the Raccoon River and Des Moines River regularly have nitrate levels high enough to cause problems for drinking water supply.  The Central Iowa Water Works had to run their nitrate removal facility in 2024, 2022, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013.  (This was reported recently by KCCI).  It’s the largest such facility in the world, and this year it wasn’t enough!

Nitrate levels this spring are higher than average but not a fluke

The graphs below shows how daily nitrate concentrations and discharge (streamflow) in the Raccoon River this year compares to the median for that time of year.  It is unusual for wet weather and high nitrate levels to persist through late July, but nitrate does exceed 10 mg/L about half the time in May and June.  If you want to understand long-term nitrate trends in the Des Moines River and Raccoon River, read Chapter 5 of the new source water report commissioned by Polk County.

The Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers are not alone in having high nitrate levels this year.  Here is 22 years of weekly data from a site on the South Skunk River, just downstream of Ames.  This spring, peak nitrate levels (22 mg/L) were the highest we’ve seen since 2014.   Average spring nitrate levels (15.5 mg/L) were the highest we’ve seen since 2015.  However, it’s only a little above the long-term average (13 mg/L, indicated with a dotted black line) and ranks 7th out of 23 years for which we have data.

Spring nitrate in the South Skunk River, 2003-2025

None of the data I’ve seen rules out a slight improvement in water quality in this or other Iowa rivers, masked by the ups and downs of an 8-10 year cycle.  However the data does rule out this year being a fluke and us not having to worry about high nitrate levels in the future!

In Iowa, it’s normal for it to rain a lot in the spring.  In watersheds with a lot of tile-drained farmland, it’s normal to see high nitrate levels for several days following a rainstorm.  Ames is lucky to have a buried sand-and-gravel aquifer with the right geology and chemistry to remove most of the nitrogen before it reaches wells.  If we withdrew water directly from the Skunk River, it would exceed the drinking water standard every year.  Many other communities in Iowa are not as fortunate in their geology.

Nitrate in Drinking Water Poses a Widespread Health Risk

The Safe Drinking Water Act was written so that we must draw a hard line between “safe” and “unsafe.” Drinking water utilities must meet a Maximum Contaminant Limit of 10 mg/L nitrate as nitrogen.   Most large water systems have been able to say on the “safe” side of the line, although it can be costly to do so.  However, the standard hasn’t been updated to reflect research on the link between chronic exposure to nitrate in drinking water and various cancers.  And really, it’s better to think of health risks as a continuum from “more safe” to “less safe.”  The Environmental Working Group created a map a few years ago showing which communities fall in the “not as safe as they could be” range for nitrate in drinking water.  Last year, Iowa Environmental Council recently released a report about the health risks of nitrate in drinking water and is now hosting a series of listening sessions on cancer and the environment.

Rain falls on the South Skunk River

Conservation efforts have been partially offset by increased fertilizer use

Shouldn’t we expect some improvement in nitrogen levels due to the state’s nutrient reduction strategy and the conservation efforts of farmers?  I’ve written another article to dig into this question but the short answer is that we can expect at most a 2% reduction in nitrogen losses over the past decade.  That’s for the state as a whole, some watersheds are doing better or worse and we don’t have a good tracking system to evaluate it.  Most of the progress that we can expect from cover crops and nitrification inhibitors have been offset by increases in fertilizer application rates, which apparently made economic sense to do.

I can’t really blame farmers for acting in their economic self-interest.  I do think it’s fair to blame your elected officials if they can’t take drinking water safety seriously and offer better solutions.  Just don’t blame it on the rain.

Can Things That Don’t Matter Make a Difference?

Can Things That Don’t Matter Make a Difference?

by | Jul 1, 2025

Jim Colbert serves on Prairie Rivers’ board of directors. This essay originally appeared on his Substack on May 22.

From September 1998 through September 2017, I developed and led an effort facetiously called the “Skunk River Navy”. I had lots of help. The goal was to give first-year Iowa State University biology students hands-on interactions with local biodiversity (primarily benthic macroinvertebrates), while allowing them to work together to make a positive contribution to their local community.  Over those 20 years we did 51 “trash patrols” involving about 2,400 first year ISU biology, as well as other, students. Friends, colleagues, and local community members also participated.

Canoes loaded with tires

All together we removed over 80 tons of trash from about 30 miles of our local streams – the South Skunk River and Ioway Creek. We used canoes as trash barges (our “naval vessels”) and hauled out beer cans, plastic bags, tires, barbed wire, bicycles, washing machines, recliners, 50-gallon barrels, tennis shoes, pieces of agricultural equipment, used condoms, water heaters, port-a-potties, livestock watering troughs, fishing bait containers, fence posts, picnic tables, lawn mowers, corrugated metal, parts of cars, microwave ovens, grocery carts, and on one occasion, an open and empty home safe. It was hard work in wet and muddy conditions, but it did lead to an “esprit de corps”.

It was hard work in wet and muddy conditions, but it did lead to an “esprit de corps”. We would ask the students to share their post Skunk River Navy thoughts in written reflections after they had showered and eaten a warm meal. Here’s a few examples:

“I think the most important thing I learned that day was the fact that so much trash gets dumped into rivers each year. It’s amazing how much people don’t care about the environment. Maybe one day they will.”

“I envisioned that there would be a lot of garbage, but I never imagined that people could treat the Earth with such disrespect… The Skunk River Navy was an educational as well as character building experience for all of us.”

“I have always been amazed by the biodiversity of life on our planet, but being exposed to a thriving example of that vitality in only a fraction of an imperfect stream is almost beyond comprehension.”

“Upon returning from the Skunk River Navy, I have a completely new view of the river environment, and I also realize how ignorant and inconsiderate some people are about the environment.”

“After being tired, sore, cold, and thirsty I was able to look at the huge heap of trash I had helped pick up and know that I had done something good for the entire community.”

“One of the best parts of the day was everybody’s teamwork. We worked well getting the canoes over the dam, and also when we had to carry the trash up the hill and clean out the canoes.”

“The best part was Mrs. Colbert’s chocolate chip cookies!”

Our local efforts reduced the total amount of trash in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean by… well, I’m not sure that they make numbers that small. Trash is both an aesthetic (it’s ugly) and a significant (microplastics, toxins, various harms to wild creatures) problem. Given the global scope of the problem our efforts effectively “did not matter”. And that’s not even the most significant way in which the efforts of the Skunk River Navy did not matter. The major problems impacting our local streams aren’t the accumulation of trash. The major problems are:

  1. High levels of nutrients, primarily from agricultural fertilizers and waste from confined animal feeding operations
  2. High sediment loads mostly from erosion in row crop fields and high water induced collapse of stream banks
  3. Large fluctuations in stream flow resulting from development and historic drainage of wetlands for agriculture
  4. Loss of biodiversity (e.g., freshwater mussel species) due to the preceding issues.

The well-intentioned efforts the Skunk River Navy did nothing to address these major issues.

Cyanobacteria bloom in the South Skunk River
erosion on Ioway Creek between Grand Ave and S Duff Ave
Storm sewer outlet in Ames
A rare mussel found in Ioway Creek

A combination of advancing age, competing demands, and increased liability concerns, amongst other factors, led to the end of the Skunk River Navy after a final trash patrol in September 2017. It is totally unsurprising that, to date, the effort has not been resurrected at Iowa State University. The efforts of the Skunk River Navy didn’t matter but did they “make a difference”? That’s a hard question to answer. One can hope, I certainly do, that none of the Skunk River Navy participants ever thoughtlessly threw trash in a river after their experience. I don’t know whether that’s the case. Maybe some of those participants went on to have careers that focused on protecting natural resources. I hope so, even though such careers are undervalued and typically don’t pay well. The natural world needs all the help it can get in the face of the human juggernaut of technology and the desire for ever more profit.

Final Skunk River Navy trash patrol in 2017. Photo credit: Dan Haug
Final Skunk River Navy trash patrol in 2017. Photo credit: Dan Haug

One can also hope that one’s efforts, as insignificant as they may be, might inspire others. On Saturday 3 May 2025 I believe I got a glimpse of that inspiration. Prairie Rivers of Iowa, in cooperation with the City of Ames, Story County Conservation, the Skunk River Paddlers, and the Outdoor Alliance of Story County, sponsored their 5th annual stream clean-up (which they’re now calling PACRAT: Paddle And Cleanup Rivers Around Town), this year on a section of Ioway Creek. This effort began in 2021, only four years after the demise of the Skunk River Navy. I take no direct credit for the efforts of these groups, but I hope that the previous efforts of the Skunk River Navy helped inspire them to continue to care for Ioway Creek.

Editors note: It sure did!  I participated in SRN as a biology student in 2001 and 2002 and moved back to Ames in time to join the last trash patrol in 2017.  -Dan Haug, PACRAT planning committee

Due to an opening in my rather aggressive turkey hunting schedule, I was able to participate. I was happy to be do to so, especially given that none of the responsibility was mine. We passed through a section of Ioway Creek that the Skunk River Navy had worked on several times in past years. I had the pleasure of sharing a canoe with a young woman who was just about to complete 4th grade. I enjoyed the opportunity to teach her how to hold, and use, a canoe paddle. It was her first-ever experience in a canoe. She was amazed at how “beautiful” this rather abused urban stream was. We saw Canada geese, blue-wing teal, and tracks of deer, raccoons, and beavers. After some initial hesitation, she enthusiastically picked up trash, of which there was no shortage, partially buried in the sand bars we disembarked on. Overall, 33 people participated and just over 1.5 tons of trash were removed from about 2.5 miles of Ioway Creek.

Group photo from PACRAT 2025 creek cleanup
Jim helps canoes land at 2025 PACRAT

The natural world is under tremendous pressure from human activities. Pollution, climate change, impending mass extinction. It will take a great deal of “inspiration” (and perspiration!) to protect and maintain it, while hopefully also maintaining the status of humans as a “non-extinct” species. The specific efforts of the Skunk River Navy and Prairie Rivers of Iowa may not “matter” in the big picture, but maybe they can help inspire all of us to work together to make a difference.

A Good Day for Volunteerism, A Bad Day For Water Quality

A Good Day for Volunteerism, A Bad Day For Water Quality

by | Jun 30, 2025

Map of nitrate in central Iowa streams

Testing multiple sites within a short time period can provide a “snapshot” of water quality across a watershed, county, or state. 

Polk County Conservation had great turnout for their spring water quality snapshot on May 20, testing 117 sites!  I scheduled our event for the same day and volunteers help me test another 45 sites in Story, Boone and Hamilton counties.  We also did some follow-up testing on May 21 for quality control and collected water samples for the lab.  I have assembled the results from both events into a colorful interactive map that shows where water quality was good, fair, or poor in central Iowa during those two days.

There were a lot of “poor” readings on May 20.  Not only was nitrate in the Skunk River and Raccoon River higher than we’ve seen in a decade, the water in most creeks was chocolate brown with sediment and had E. coli counts in the thousands.

An Ames High student tests water clarity in Ioway Creek
Ames High students test water quality in Ioway Creek

One reason we do snapshot events is to get a better sense for where that pollution is (and isn’t) coming from.  You’ll notice that streams with urban watersheds like Yeader Creek in Des Moines and College Creek in Ames have much lower nitrate than streams in rural areas.  However, urban streams had high levels of sediment and fecal bacteria. 

The other reason we do snapshot events is to provide a hands-on educational experience for people who might be curious about water quality but who can’t commit to monitoring a stream twice a month.  I joined six classes of earth science students (taught by Kean Roberts and Collin Reichert) to test sites within walking distance of Ames High School.  While there were a few complaints about the weather and walking in heavy waders, most students enjoyed the break from the classroom and spotting wildlife.  The data students collected is part of a larger citizen science effort.

Ames High students test chloride in a tributary of Ioway Creek
Ames High student tests water clarity in a tributary of Ioway Creek.

Volunteers in the Ioway Creek watershed have been doing twice-a-year snapshot events since 2006.  Prairie Rivers of Iowa helped keep the tradition going after the IOWATER database was shut down in 2017, and we are in the process of uploading the data from those events to a permanent home on the Izaak Walton League’s Clean Water Hub!

However, I’ve wondered whether we should keep doing these events the same way now that Story County Conservation staff and volunteers are testing many of these streams on a regular basis.  This is the third map I’ve made from a coordinated snapshot event (see also May 2024 and September 2023) and I’ve noticed some issues with our standard suite of tests that limit our ability to narrow down where pollution is coming from or where conservation practices are making a difference:

  • Nitrate test strips are not very precise at the high range (color matches at 10, 20, or 50 mg/L).  This can be improved with a smartphone app.  We also had some big discrepancies that we traced back to a bottle of just-expired strips that I had assumed would still be okay; when in doubt, throw them out!
  • Dissolved oxygen in streams has a daily cycle (rising in the afternoon when plants and algae are photosynthesizing), so sampling at the same time of day is more important than sampling on the same day.
  • During scattered showers, water clarity may not tell us where the soil is better protected from erosion, just where the rain was more or less intense. 
  • It’s difficult to match colors to get a phosphate reading when the water is cloudy with sediment.  I’ve tried filters but they clog with silt before you can get a 25 mL water sample.

Our next volunteer monitoring event might look a little different.  I’d welcome ideas for how we can collect more useful data or get more new people involved!

A smartphone app does color matching to get a more precise nitrate reading
Colors are harder to match when water gets muddy

Thirsty Wings: How to Add a Pollinator Oasis to Your Garden

Thirsty Wings: How to Add a Pollinator Oasis to Your Garden

by | Jun 26, 2025

Summer is here, and with the rising temperatures, we all need to stay hydrated—including pollinators. These hardworking creatures are busy in your backyard, and being a good Midwestern neighbor means giving them a little help. One simple way? Offer a safe water source.

Adding a water feature to your balcony, patio, garden, or yard is an easy and effective way to support wildlife and help them thrive.

Why Pollinators Need Water

Bees, butterflies, and other invertebrates rely on water to stay hydrated—especially during hot, dry days. Social bees use water to regulate the temperature and humidity inside their hives. Butterflies and moths are often seen sipping from puddles, not just for hydration but also to absorb minerals and nutrients—a behavior known as puddling.

You may even notice small bees or butterflies landing on you to sip your sweat. They’re not just being curious—they’re searching for moisture, salt, and other nutrients. Bees also use water to dilute stored honey and aid in digestion.

What About Natural Water Sources?

Sure, there are natural water sources like ponds and rivers, but for an insect, those look like vast oceans. A bee or butterfly venturing too close to a pond might get eaten by a fish—or drown if there’s no safe landing spot.

Historically, puddles and dewdrops served as safer alternatives. But today, many puddles contain runoff from roads and lawns, often contaminated with pesticides or other toxins. In cities, puddles evaporate quickly on hot concrete, and even moist soil is hard to come by.

What Can You Do?

Creating a safe water source for pollinators is simple and rewarding. Start by choosing a good location—if you’re on a balcony or deck, place your water dish near potted plants. In a yard, look for spots with high insect activity, such as near a log pile, compost area, or bare soil. Use a shallow container like a dish, plate, or birdbath, and fill it with water. To make it safe, add pebbles, marbles, or small sticks so pollinators have a place to land and perch while they drink, preventing them from drowning. Be sure to keep the water fresh by changing it every couple of days, which also helps prevent mosquitoes from breeding. 

Add a Pond

If you have some space, consider installing a pond for a larger-scale impact. A small backyard pond can support a surprising amount of biodiversity, such as birds, frogs, and rabbits.  You don’t need a big yard or fancy equipment to build one. With a bit of planning, some basic materials, and a little time, you can create a thriving mini-ecosystem right outside your door.

Start by choosing a location that gets partial sunlight—too much sun encourages algae, while too little limits plant growth. Avoid areas where rain runoff collects, as it may carry pollutants like pesticides.

Next, dig a shallow hole with gently sloping sides and varying depths (12–24 inches is ideal). Include a shallow shelf or area near the edge where insects and birds can safely access water. Line the pond with a flexible pond liner or use a pre-formed plastic basin. Secure the edges with rocks, bricks, or soil to keep it in place.

Fill the pond with water, ideally rainwater. If using tap water, let it sit for a day or two to allow chlorine to dissipate. Add rocks, logs, or branches around and in the pond to provide perches and hiding spots. Make sure there’s a gentle ramp or slope so animals can get in and out easily.

Include native aquatic plants, like duckweed, pickerelweed, or blue flag iris. They help oxygenate the water, provide shade, absorb excess nutrients (which prevents algae), and create habitat. Avoid adding fish, as they can eat tadpoles, insect larvae, and eggs.

You can also add a small fountain or dripper. Moving water helps keep mosquitoes away and oxygenates the pond. Just make sure it’s gentle—pollinators and frogs prefer calm areas.

Once set up, let nature take over. Within days, you can spot dragonflies, bees, or even frogs visiting your new mini-ecosystem. Keep the pond free of chemicals and avoid over-cleaning—natural debris helps balance the habitat.

A small pond can have a big impact. With just a little effort, you can turn a corner of your yard into a thriving wildlife refuge.

Now get out in your yard and help save the pollinators!