Iowa's frog and toad survey, 1995-2003.

This survey began in response to widespread interest of declines in amphibians. More recently, a comprehensive statewide planning group discovered 44% of Iowa’s herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) to be of special concern. In response to these concerns, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Diversity Program (WDP) initiated an auditory survey for calling anurans to determine geographic distributions within the state. This survey has established itself as an extensive, long term monitoring program. This 2005 report is the second edition since the first report of this survey was shared in 1998 by then program biologist Lisa Hemesath. The goals of the survey are to: (1) determine the distributions of Iowa’s anuran species, (2) determine population trends for each species, and (3) promote education about aquatic life by using volunteers to conduct the survey. In addition to Iowa, volunteer-based auditory surveys for frogs and toads are currently being used in the Midwest by Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, and Illinois.

Water planning law and government.

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done. The question then becomes who has the legal authority or responsibility to do what? Are new laws and programs needed or can existing ones be used to implement the recommendations? ... This document is divided into four main parts. The first, “Carrots and Sticks” looks at two basic approaches — regulatory and non-regulatory — that can be, and are, used to carry out water policy. Both have advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered. The second, “The powers of federal, state and local governments…,” looks at the constitutional powers the federal government and state and local governments have to carry out water policy. An initial look at the U. S. Constitution might suggest the federal government’s regulatory authority over water is limited but, in fact, its powers are very substantial. States have considerable authority to do a number of things but have to be mindful of any federal efforts that might conflict with those state efforts. And local governments can only do those things the state constitution or state legislature says they can do and must conform to any requirements or limitations on those powers that are contained in the enabling acts. Parts three and four examine in more detail the main programs and agencies at the federal level as well as Iowa’s state and local levels and the roles they play in national and state water policy.

Water Planning Law and Government, November 2008

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done.