Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality Monitoring Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Iowa Flood Center urges Linn County to help bridge funding gap for statewide nitrate-monitoring network
Summary
At a joint meeting, an Iowa Flood Center presenter asked Linn County supervisors and the conservation board to consider using bond or budget funds to help sustain a statewide nitrate-monitoring network after the legislature cut a $500,000 annual appropriation; Polk County has agreed to one year of $200,000 support.
An Iowa Flood Center representative on Monday asked Linn County supervisors and the county conservation board to consider short-term funding to keep a statewide nitrate-monitoring network running after the state legislature cut a recurring $500,000 appropriation.
The presenter said the network needs about $600,000 a year to operate the sensors, telemetry and public data system and that Polk County supervisors just passed a resolution to provide $200,000 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. "This is a really truly unique information system. Nothing else exists like this in the nation, only in Iowa," the presenter said.
Why it matters: The network supplies continuous nitrate and related hydrologic data from roughly 70 locations across Iowa that researchers, watershed managers and utilities use to calculate load, estimate nitrate loss per acre and evaluate nutrient-reduction practices. The presenter warned that a multi-year shutdown would break a continuous record that began in 2014 and make it harder to track trends and evaluate interventions.
What was proposed: The presenter framed county contributions as a bridge to restore state appropriations, asking Linn County to consider options in its upcoming budget and whether some bond funds might be allowable. "We would certainly be happy to provide a proposal," the presenter said, offering to supply a breakout between equipment and staff costs for review by bond counsel.
County responses and next steps: Conservation Director Dennis Goomate said the first step is to submit a formal proposal so staff can work with bond counsel to determine whether bond proceeds are an appropriate funding source and to show which costs would be capital (equipment) versus operational (staff, maintenance). "I think probably the best way to move forward is to get the proposal so we can look at what's in it," Goomate said.
Political context: A speaker who identified as the former ranking member of the agriculture and DNR budget subcommittee said the 2023 budget bill defunded the sensors and that some legislators publicly argued funds should go to on-the-ground conservation practices instead. That speaker added, "Maybe we don't wanna see what the results are," suggesting political reluctance to sponsor ongoing monitoring that may highlight worsening trends.
Technical and operational details: The presenter described the network hardware (nitrate sensors, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH), solar power with charge regulators and batteries, GPS time stamps and cellular modems that send data every 15 minutes to the Iowa Water Quality Information System. He said the system combines sensor readings with USGS streamflow, rainfall, soil moisture and other data to compute loads and normalize loss per acre.
Funding history and scale: The presenter stated the network previously received roughly $500,000 annually from the Nutrient Research Center for 2013–2026 and had supplemental foundation grants. With flat budgets and rising costs, the presenter said a $600,000 annual budget is necessary to maintain instruments, telemetry, staffing and the public information system.
Requests for support and outreach: Supervisors praised the Flood Center's work and asked for a formal request to be included in budget deliberations; one attendee suggested approaching large corporate water users and data-center developers as potential funders. The presenter welcomed any industry connections that could supplement public funding.
Outcome: The boards did not vote or make a funding commitment at the meeting. County officials said they would review a written proposal and consider the request during the county budget and bond-counsel review processes. The presenter noted slides and contact information could be posted and shared for follow-up.
Next procedural step: Flood Center staff will provide a formal proposal and cost breakout for county staff and bond counsel to review; Linn County supervisors and the conservation board will consider the request during their budget process and may consult bond counsel on eligibility for bond proceeds.
