In 1994, researchers published the results of an experiment in concrete-lined canals in California and Arizona. Lining the canals helped conserve water, but it also eliminated habitat used by fish and other aquatic organisms. Their solution was innovative: build artificial habitat from discarded automobile tires.

And it appeared to work.

Areas containing the tire reefs had three times the density of aquatic invertebrates and 20 times the density of fish compared with typical sections of the canals. At the time, discarded tires seemed to solve two problems at once: keeping waste out of landfills while restoring lost aquatic habitat.

More than 30 years later, however, we know considerably more about what happens when tires spend years in an aquatic environment.

What We Didn’t Know About Tires

Tires aren’t simply rubber. They contain chemicals and metals that can make their way into the environment as tires wear and break down. Research has since found that some tire-related chemicals and particles can be harmful to aquatic life.

And the concerns aren’t limited to chemistry. During the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, hundreds of thousands of tires were intentionally placed in waters off Florida to create artificial reefs. Over time, many broke loose, becoming marine debris and damaging natural habitat. Today, projects are underway to remove thousands of these legacy tires.

The people who created these reefs weren’t trying to harm the environment. Quite the opposite. They were trying to improve it. They simply didn’t have decades of additional research available to them.

When Our Understanding Changes

Tires aren’t the only example of how environmental practices can change as we learn more. Herbicides once approved for controlling aquatic weeds were later removed from use after concerns about their potential effects on human health and the environment.

We have seen the same evolution with chemicals used in Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. What was once widely used was later linked to serious health and environmental concerns, leading to restrictions and discontinued uses.

The point isn’t that everything we use today will eventually prove harmful. It’s that science continues to evolve. What seems acceptable based on what we know today may look very different when we have decades of additional research to consider.

Managing With What We Know Today

There is rarely one answer for managing a lake or waterway. Chemical treatment, mechanical harvesting, biological controls, physical removal and sometimes simply leaving an area alone can each have a place depending on the waterbody, the species involved and the management objective.

That’s why asking “What are we trying to accomplish?” can be just as important as asking “What should we use?”

The 1994 tire reefs are a fascinating reminder of how environmental management evolves. Researchers saw a problem, developed a solution and measured real benefits. They weren’t necessarily wrong about what they observed. We simply know things today that they couldn’t have known then.

Good environmental stewardship means continuing to learn, asking questions and being willing to change our approach when new information gives us a reason to do so.

Learn More

In the Southwest, three major reservoirs now sit closer to “dead pool” than any others in the country. A reservoir reaches dead pool when its water level falls so low that water can no longer flow downstream through the dam’s outlets. At that point, water deliveries can be disrupted and the dam may no longer be able to generate hydropower.

Elephant Butte Nears Empty

One of the most striking examples is Elephant Butte Reservoir, the largest reservoir in New Mexico. Located along the Rio Grande, the reservoir plays an important role in a region where water is already a precious resource.

As of mid-July 2026, Elephant Butte had fallen to just 2–3% of capacity. The consequences of such low water levels extend well beyond the reservoir itself. Elephant Butte provides irrigation water for hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in New Mexico and Texas and supplies a portion of El Paso’s water.

Low reservoir levels can also affect recreation and local communities that depend on visitors coming to the lake. As shorelines retreat, boat ramps and marinas can become difficult or impossible to use, changing how people are able to access and enjoy the water.

Lake Powell and Lake Mead Remain Critically Low

Elephant Butte isn’t alone. Lake Powell and Lake Mead, two of the largest and best-known reservoirs in the United States, also remain at historically low levels.

Both are part of the Colorado River system, a water source relied upon by approximately 40 million people and more than five million acres of agricultural land.

In July, Lake Powell was at roughly 27% of capacity. Its water level was about 70 feet above the elevation at which Glen Canyon Dam would no longer be able to generate hydropower.

Farther downstream, Lake Mead was also around 27% full. The reservoir stores water used by communities, farms and businesses in Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico, while Hoover Dam uses water released from Lake Mead to generate electricity.

Years of drought, combined with the enormous demand placed on the Colorado River, have left both reservoirs far below the levels they once routinely reached.

The Effects Reach Beyond the Southwest

Drought isn’t only a concern in the desert Southwest. This summer’s conditions across other parts of the country are another reminder of how closely our communities are tied to reliable water supplies.

Lower water levels can affect agriculture, drinking water, hydropower and recreation, but they can also change the waterways themselves. Reduced flows and shallower water can lead to warmer water temperatures and changes in water quality and aquatic habitat. Fish and other aquatic organisms may have less suitable habitat available, while recreational access can become more difficult.

Reservoirs are designed to capture water during wetter periods and make it available when conditions turn dry. But when drought continues year after year, even enormous reservoirs have limits.

The conditions at Elephant Butte, Lake Powell and Lake Mead offer a striking reminder that the health and availability of our water resources cannot be taken for granted. Whether it’s a massive reservoir in the Southwest or a lake or river closer to home, reliable water supplies are essential to communities, agriculture, recreation, wildlife and healthy aquatic ecosystems.

Read More

Managing Eurasian watermilfoil often requires a long-term commitment and a combination of management techniques. Mechanical harvesting, hand removal, bottom barriers, biological controls, and aquatic herbicides are all commonly used to reduce infestations and improve waterway access. Each method offers advantages and limitations, and many lake managers rely on integrated management programs that combine multiple approaches to achieve their goals.

One herbicide that has gained significant attention in recent years is ProcellaCOR®, a selective aquatic herbicide designed to target invasive plants while minimizing impacts on many native species. Lake associations and resource managers across the country have used ProcellaCOR to combat persistent milfoil infestations, often reporting successful control of invasive growth and improved conditions for recreation and native plant recovery.

However, as with any management tool, questions remain about potential long-term effects and environmental persistence.

Findings from Lake George

Following a ProcellaCOR treatment in Lake George, New York, researchers conducted independent sampling of water, sediment, and aquatic plants to better understand how the herbicide behaved within the ecosystem after application.

According to the study, degradants associated with the herbicide were detected in the upper layer of sediment five months after treatment. Researchers also reported finding the herbicide’s active ingredient, florpyrauxifen benzyl, in deeper sediment layers more than a year after application.

These findings have generated discussion among lake residents, scientists, and resource managers regarding how herbicide compounds interact with lake sediments and whether long-term accumulation may occur under certain conditions.

Balancing Benefits and Concerns

For many lake communities, ProcellaCOR has become an important tool in the ongoing effort to control invasive milfoil. Dense infestations can significantly impact recreation, property values, water flow, and native aquatic plant communities. Effective control methods can provide substantial benefits when invasive species threaten the health and usability of a lake.

At the same time, some residents and environmental advocates have expressed concerns about possible unintended consequences of repeated herbicide use. Questions have been raised regarding sediment persistence, impacts on non-target organisms, and the long-term effects on lake ecology. While current research continues to evaluate these issues, many stakeholders are calling for additional monitoring and independent studies to better understand the full environmental picture.

The Importance of Integrated Aquatic Plant Management

The debate surrounding Eurasian watermilfoil management highlights the complexity of aquatic ecosystem stewardship. There is rarely a single solution that works for every lake or waterway. Factors such as infestation size, waterbody characteristics, management goals, budget, and environmental considerations all influence the selection of appropriate control methods.

Mechanical harvesting continues to play an important role in many aquatic plant management programs by physically removing plant biomass from the waterway without introducing chemicals into the ecosystem. Harvesting can improve navigation, reduce nuisance growth, and remove nutrients contained within the harvested vegetation. In many cases, harvesting is used alongside other management strategies as part of a comprehensive aquatic plant management plan.

As research continues and new information becomes available, lake managers, regulators, and stakeholders will need to evaluate all available tools carefully. Ongoing monitoring, transparent reporting, and science-based decision making remain essential for protecting both recreational access and long-term ecosystem health.

The conversation surrounding ProcellaCOR and Eurasian watermilfoil management is likely to continue as additional studies are completed. For lake associations and water resource managers, understanding both the benefits and potential tradeoffs of available management options remains a critical part of maintaining healthy and usable waterways.

Read More

That connection does not stop on land. It continues below the surface of our lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Aquatic plants play a critical role in maintaining water quality and supporting life. They produce oxygen, stabilize sediments, absorb nutrients, and provide essential habitat for fish, waterfowl, and invertebrates. In many ways, they are the foundation of a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Without them, water bodies can quickly lose balance.

However, like any natural system, balance is key. Too little vegetation can lead to erosion, poor habitat, and declining water quality. Too much growth can restrict water flow, limit recreation, and contribute to issues like low oxygen levels and algae blooms as plants die and decompose. Excess nutrients from runoff, changing weather patterns, and other environmental pressures can all shift that balance in the wrong direction.

Managing aquatic plants is not about removing them entirely. It is about maintaining a healthy, functional system. Mechanical harvesting and targeted removal can control excessive growth while preserving beneficial vegetation. Aquarius Systems has worked with lake managers, municipalities, and contractors to remove overgrowth in a way that improves water flow, supports recreation, and helps maintain overall water quality.

Healthy aquatic plant communities lead to clearer water, stronger ecosystems, and better recreational opportunities. Whether you are managing a lake, river, or pond, understanding the role of aquatic plants is an important step toward long term water health.

Read More

Glyphosate is one of the most heavily used herbicides in the world. Regulatory decisions surrounding its approval have relied on research evaluating toxicity, exposure limits, and environmental impact. When a study that helped shape public confidence is pulled back, it naturally raises broader questions. Science is meant to evolve. That’s not a flaw — it’s the process. But it does highlight the importance of independent review, long-term data, and open disclosure of funding and methodology.

The same framework applies to aquatic herbicides used in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. These products are also deemed safe when applied according to label directions, based on studies measuring water concentration levels, species sensitivity, and breakdown rates. Yet water systems are complex. Variables such as temperature, oxygen levels, sediment composition, and nutrient loading all influence outcomes in real-world conditions. Ongoing evaluation matters.

For communities managing aquatic vegetation, the discussion often comes down to balancing effectiveness, cost, and environmental impact. Mechanical harvesting, for example, physically removes vegetation from the water body — along with the nutrients contained in that plant material. Left in place, excessive vegetation eventually dies and decomposes, releasing nutrients that can contribute to algae blooms and reduced oxygen levels. Different management tools bring different trade-offs.

What the glyphosate retraction ultimately reinforces is this: sound environmental decisions depend on sound science. That science must be transparent, repeatable, and open to scrutiny. Whether addressing agricultural weeds or aquatic vegetation, long-term ecosystem health depends on continually testing assumptions and being willing to re-examine conclusions when new information emerges.

Read More

Eurasian water milfoil grows aggressively, uprooting native vegetation, disrupting aquatic habitats, and interfering with recreation. By 2013, the Commission was spending up to $250,000 per year on herbicide treatments to control approximately 300 acres of milfoil. Grants helped fund these efforts, but by the mid-2010s, funding had dwindled to around $50,000 annually.

After a decade of chemical treatment, the Commission made a bold decision to stop using herbicides altogether. The results? Within a few years, the milfoil population began rebounding. According to the aquatic ecologist who has monitored these lakes for 18 years, the plant is “too big, it’s too much” for manual removal alone, which costs roughly $2,500 per day.

The lesson is clear: eradication with herbicides is expensive, temporary, and environmentally damaging. Even if chemicals were used without regard for ecological impacts, controlling the entire population long-term is not practical.

Instead, a management-focused approach should to taken to target plants that interfere with navigation and recreation rather than attempting total eradication. Mechanical harvesting offers a solution; it doesn’t attempt to eliminate every plant but efficiently manages growth, maintains recreational access, and avoids repeated herbicide costs.

After more than a decade of observation, the evidence is in: spending hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing eradication with chemicals is far less effective than strategic, mechanical management. It’s time for a shift in mindset: toleration and control, rather than endless eradication efforts, may be the only sustainable way forward for our lakes.

Read more about the Lower Eagle River Chain of Lakes Commission’s milfoil efforts

What’s Behind the Wake Boat Trend? Wake boats are equipped with ballast tanks that can take on thousands of pounds of water, allowing riders to surf waves nearly 3 ft high at speeds around 11 mph. Born from a booming $13,000‑boat segment that surged 20% in 2020, they are symbols of modern lake culture—freedom, thrills, and community—even as they stir controversy.

Why It Matters:

• Ecosystem Health: Waves can reach the lake bottom in shallower waters, uprooting plants and stirring sediment that releases phosphorus—fuel for algae blooms—and disrupts fish habitat.
• Shoreline Erosion & Property Impacts: Sudden wake surges hit docks and shorelines hard—rattling boats, damaging rip‑rap, and unsettling paddlers.
• Recreational Conflict: Lake users like kayakers, swimmers, anglers, and wake surfers often collide—literally and culturally—prompting complaints, legal suits, heated town meetings, and damaged community spirit.

Policy Landscape Across States: Out East and North, states are acting fast. Maine restricts wakesurfing to ≥15 ft depth and ≥300 ft from shore; Vermont demands ≥20 ft depth and ≥500 ft buffer plus “home-lake” rules; New Hampshire is debating either 200 or 300 ft setbacks; Michigan aligned on 200 ft but deeper restrictions were proposed then stalled; Minnesota and Michigan default to 100 ft buffer with education programs.

Wisconsin, with over 15,000 lakes, remains at the crossroads. Patchwork local bans fill gaps while proposed bills to limit wake boats by lake size, depth, or setbacks (200–700 ft, 30 ft depth) fail to gain state traction. A coalition led by Wisconsin’s Green Fire and Last Wilderness Alliance is calling for statewide minimums: 700 ft buffer, 30 ft depth, no wakes in lakes under 1,500 acres—while preserving stronger local rules.

The Science & Emotion Mix: Research paints a complex picture: some studies show natural decay of waves beyond 200 ft, others show ecological damage at 500 ft. Industry-funded scientists argue wake boats are no different than other boats at similar distances; critics point to real-world impacts—erosion, algae, upset kayaks—as compelling evidence.

The Path Forward:

• Balanced Regulation or Education? Do we need rigid statewide rules—or layered solutions combining minimum setbacks, mandatory depth zones, and local flexibility?
• Enforcement and Buy-In: Establishing signage, launching community monitoring, and supporting DNR enforcement are key to fair implementation.
• Science That Matters: Ongoing independent studies, not industry-funded ones only, are vital to build trust and guide policy that protects both ecosystems and enjoyment.

Wisconsin isn’t alone in challenging this modern watercraft dilemma. As states from Maine to Tennessee fill the regulatory wave, Wisconsin’s choices now could set a model for communities everywhere: curbing environmental damage without sinking the joy of recreation. The question facing taxpayers, lake associations, and lawmakers isn’t whether wake boats are fun—they are. It’s whether their wake washes away what we value most: lakes as shared, healthy, enduring places.

See What Happens to the Lake Bottom youtube.com/watch?si=-n_0E10L6hN3tZg_&v=XuUvWnIXRPo&feature=youtu.be

Watch the Wave Action Hit Shore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU_h6XSIHfQ

The Apple River Protection and Rehabilitation District (ARPRD) reported removing roughly 2.73 million pounds of aquatic vegetation from the Apple River Flowage as of June of this year. This follows back-to-back years where totals reached around 3.8 million pounds, highlighting a consistent and highly productive management program.

Keeping the Flowage Open and Healthy

The 640-acre Apple River Flowage sits within a watershed that covers more than 111,000 acres. As with many Wisconsin waterways, invasive and fast-growing native plants—like coontail and curly-leaf pondweed—can quickly limit boating access, trap nutrients, and reduce dissolved oxygen levels if left unmanaged.

Through consistent mechanical harvesting, the ARPRD helps maintain navigation channels, improve water flow, and reduce the buildup of decaying plant matter that can lead to poor water quality. Unlike chemical treatments, mechanical removal takes the vegetation out of the water entirely, helping reduce nutrient recycling and long-term regrowth.

A Sustainable Approach to Aquatic Management

Mechanical harvesting is one of the most effective and environmentally responsible tools for managing dense aquatic growth. By physically removing weeds rather than killing them in place, this method helps protect fish habitat, limit algae growth, and keep waterways open for recreation.

The Apple River Flowage’s ongoing success shows how local commitment, steady maintenance, and the right equipment can make a lasting impact on the health of a waterway.

Learn about ARPRD

Read More

Chemical Treatments: A Short-Term Fix That Makes Things Worse
Many lake managers turn to algaecides and herbicides to control harmful algae. On the surface, these treatments may look effective, but the reality is very different.

When algae are killed by chemicals, the cells release toxins directly into the water. The dead material then sinks, decomposes, and consumes oxygen—creating hypoxic conditions that stress or kill fish. Low oxygen also triggers internal nutrient release from sediments, fueling the very blooms that the chemicals were meant to stop.

Instead of restoring balance, chemical treatments can lock lakes into a cycle of recurring blooms and declining water quality.

Looking at the Surface Isn’t Enough
It’s common to judge a lake’s health by what can be seen at the surface—clear water, healthy oxygen levels near the top, or visible fish. But many lakes stratify, with deeper waters cut off from oxygen. While the surface looks fine, the bottom layers can be oxygen-depleted and nutrient-rich.

Fish crowded near the surface aren’t thriving—they’re escaping conditions that are deadly below.

Runoff Isn’t the Only Problem
Nutrient runoff from land is an important driver of algae, but it’s not the only one. Sediments at the bottom of lakes often act as storage banks for phosphorus and nitrogen. When oxygen levels drop, these nutrients are released back into the water, feeding new blooms year after year.

Focusing only on reducing runoff misses the internal nutrient cycle already at work inside the lake.

The Limits of Simple Metrics
Common tools like the Trophic State Index (TSI) are often used to measure lake health. But they mostly track surface-level data like clarity and nutrient concentrations. These numbers don’t reveal what’s happening in deeper waters, or how sediments and oxygen loss are driving long-term decline.

A Call for Smarter Lake Management
The misconceptions around lake health—and the overreliance on chemicals—are keeping many lakes stuck in poor condition. Chemical treatments may offer short-term relief, but they create long-term problems.

To break the cycle, management strategies need to focus on oxygen restoration, sediment nutrient control, and ecosystem balance. Prevention and smarter monitoring are also key to creating lakes that are resilient, healthy, and able to support aquatic life for generations.

Read More

Chemical Treatments: Lethal to More Than Just Mussels

The copper treatment was designed to kill mussels, but it didn’t stop there. Entire populations of aquatic life were hit hard. Native mussels, snails, and insects dropped by as much as 90%. Fish populations took a devastating blow too—most of the local sturgeon were wiped out along with other species.

On top of that, more than 7,000 pounds of copper settled into the riverbed, creating long-term toxicity risks for sediment-dwelling organisms. Instead of targeting only the quagga mussels, the treatment spread lethal effects across nearly the entire food chain.

A Partial Success at a High Cost

Despite the widespread losses, the treatment did not eliminate the mussels. Quagga larvae were still detected in the Snake River a year later, forcing another round of chemical use. Officials report that the infested stretch of river has shrunk in size, but containment is far different from eradication.

For millions of dollars spent—and with ecosystems damaged in the process—the results fall short. Many now see the effort as a failure, because the mussels survived while native species did not.

The Bigger Problem With Aquatic Chemicals

Copper and other aquatic chemicals may be approved for use, but they are far from safe. In a river system, they do not stay neatly in place. They travel downstream, settle into sediments, and continue poisoning life long after the initial treatment ends.

The Idaho case highlights the risks of relying on chemicals as a “quick fix.” They may knock back invasive species temporarily, but they also create lasting harm for native species, water quality, and ecosystem balance.

A Call for Smarter Solutions

Idaho’s quagga mussel response is a cautionary tale. We cannot treat complex waterways like controlled test sites. Before future treatments, agencies must consider alternatives that remove or manage invasive species without poisoning everything else along the way. Smarter strategies—such as mechanical removal, improved monitoring, or long-term prevention—are needed to protect both water quality and aquatic life.

Read More https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/article311507151.html