Advocates of the state’s widest-spread and fastest-with-data water quality monitoring system are feeling frustrated by a lack of state support, and say appropriations that did make it through the legislative process won’t help every Iowan.

The Iowa Legislature went back and forth on funding for water quality during the final days and hours of its 2026 session last weekend. Lawmakers approved measures to appropriate $300,000 to the University of Iowa IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering department-run Iowa Water Quality Information System (IWQIS) — then changed the bill to send the money to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources instead.

Rep. Norlin Mommsen, R-DeWitt, said the final bill still provides an avenue for the university to receive funding for the monitoring system and the publicly available data it supplies through grants from the DNR.

“There’s a path there, basically, for them still to receive the $300,000…,” Mommsen said. “The Senate felt, let’s start out with our regulatory branch and keep everything in one spot, and then they divvy it up from there.”

Downstream funding uncertain with lack of state support

IWQIS hasn’t received funding directly from the state since 2023, and has operated since then on support from the Walton Family Foundation, which is set to end this summer. Certain counties and cities have also committed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the system, but IIHR director Larry Weber said that’s only enough to keep it running through June 30, 2027.

Mommsen said he and Weber came up with the $300,000 funding amount together, but Weber is now unsure of just how the process will work to apply for funding through the DNR and, hopefully, receive it. The DNR also received $500,000 for water quality monitoring that previously went to the Water Quality Financial Assistance Fund.

“Irrespective of where the funding is coming from, whether it be counties or cities or the state, we feel an obligation to serve the people of Iowa with the expertise that we have, and we plan to continue doing this work,” Weber said.

Weber described IWQIS as “one of a kind,” with sensors deployed in waterways across Iowa that provide information on temperature and concentrations of nitrate, pH and dissolved oxygen every 15 minutes. Information from the IIHR sensors is brought together with U.S. Geographical Survey sensors, National Weather Service and other data to create a publicly available website to show water quality conditions and more in Iowa.

Thousands of Iowans were part of advocacy efforts to fund IWQIS during the 2026 legislative session, said Iowa Environmental Council Senior Director of Policy and Programs Kerri Johannsen, many of whom shared their concerns of water quality impacts on cancer rates with the council last summer.

The council, in collaboration with the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement, identified nitrates as an environmental risk factor in Iowa’s high cancer rates in a report released in late March.

“On behalf of all of the people of Iowa who are feeling so much concern, anxiety, grief over what is happening in our state with water quality, to have that funding taken out at the last minute was very frustrating,” Johannsen said, “especially given that just the day before, there was a press conference about water quality, where Gov. Reynolds and [Agriculture] Secretary Naig and legislative leaders were talking about making investments in water quality.”

State water quality package leaves gaps in support

Johannsen, as well as Iowa House Democrats, raised concerns about parts of the “farm to faucet” water quality package introduced May 1 by Reynolds and Naig, many portions of which were passed by the Legislature. It included water quality funding for the DNR and the reallocation of $25 million to double the Central Iowa Water Works’ nitrate removal capacity over three years.

Rep. Austin Baeth, D-Des Moines, said in a press conference after the announcement that while it’s “better late than never,” the water quality package doesn’t do enough to address issues of water quality in Iowa. Rather than focus on removing pollution from waterways, he said the state needs to provide financial incentives to farmers to implement sustainability practices and create guidelines on when fertilizer should be applied and other practices.

Rep. Elinor Levin, D-Iowa City, advocated in the press conference for IWQIS funding, calling it cheaper than DNR or U.S. Geographical Survey water monitoring and more publicly available.

“I would also say it’s frustrating to those of us who don’t live in central Iowa to see picking and choosing,” Levin said.

Johannsen agreed with Levin’s point, saying Reynolds’s water quality package and its focus on central Iowa leaves out portions of the state, especially rural areas “which are suffering disproportionally from nitrate pollution.”

This could also be a consequence of individual towns and counties funding IWQIS rather than the state, Johannsen and Weber said — the potential for greater water quality monitoring in those funded areas while others see their monitoring go away.

Polk County committed $200,000 to IWQIS in the fall, Weber said, with Johnson County promising another $200,000 in the past month. Wright County has also committed $35,000 and Linn County may give as much as $100,000, but Weber said negotiations are ongoing. This funding, alongside $80,000 from the Izaak Walton League and $17,000 from the City of Decorah, will power the system for another year.

However, some of those funding streams come with restrictions on how or where it can be spent. Weber said he believes the system sensors will be able to stay where they are even with these limitations, but details are still being figured out and “last-minute shifts” may be necessary.

Having state funding would eliminate this concern, he said, and his team, as well as the Iowa Environmental Council, will continue to advocate for state support for IWQIS in the future.

“Although we didn’t get that budget line item approved this year, we’ll continue to work with our state legislators in the next legislative session to see if we can get back to state funding,” Weber said. “So we’ll continue to try to do that, and we’ll remain undeterred in the work that we do.”

Related article:

Brooklyn Draisey is a Report for America corps member covering higher education for Iowa Capital Dispatch, where this story first appeared.

During most of the Artemis II mission, the crew of four astronauts beamed back low-definition video, both from inside the spacecraft and from exterior views of the Moon. It was exhilarating stuff, but in a world in which we're all watching HDTVs, it also felt a little flat.

This is because Orion largely communicated with Earth via radio waves, picked up by large dishes sprinkled around the world. This is pretty much the same way the Apollo spacecraft talked to Earth more than half a century ago.

However, unlike Apollo, the astronauts on Orion would periodically send batches of much higher-resolution data, including the stunning photographs of the far side of the Moon and the Solar eclipse observed from there. This was made possible by optical laser communications, and not just those built by NASA. The mission included a commercial component that could pave the way for vastly more data returning to Earth from space than ever before.

Read full article

Comments

It took just a few months of President Donald Trump’s second term for Palantir employees to question their company’s commitments to civil liberties. Last fall, Palantir seemed to become the technological backbone of Trump’s immigration enforcement machinery, providing software identifying, tracking, and helping deport immigrants on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, when current and former employees started ringing the alarm.

Around that time, two former employees reconnected by phone. Right as they picked up the call, one of them asked, “Are you tracking Palantir’s descent into fascism?”

“That was their greeting,” the other former employee says. “There’s this feeling not of ‘Oh, this is unpopular and hard,’ but ‘This feels wrong.’”

Read full article

Comments

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman told lawmakers on Monday that SpaceX and Blue Origin, the agency's two lunar lander contractors, say they could have their spacecraft ready for the next Artemis mission in Earth orbit in late 2027, somewhat later than NASA's previous schedule.

This mission, Artemis III, will not fly to the Moon. Instead, NASA will launch an Orion capsule with a team of astronauts to rendezvous and potentially dock with one or both landers in Earth orbit. The details of the Artemis III flight plan remain under review, with key questions about the orbit's altitude and the configuration of the Space Launch System rocket still unanswered.

A mission to low-Earth orbit, just a few hundred miles in altitude, may not require NASA to use up an SLS upper stage that is already built and in storage, saving the unit for the following Artemis mission to attempt a landing on the Moon. A launch into a higher orbit would require the upper stage, but it would allow NASA to perform tests in an environment more similar to the Moon. NASA is buying a new commercial upper stage, the Centaur V from United Launch Alliance, to pair with the SLS rocket after flying the last of the rocket's existing upper stages.

Read full article

Comments