By Erin Niehoff
Agricultural runoff is a persistent challenge to water quality in the Upper Midwest. To better understand how state-led policies address this issue, students Meghan Anderson and Taylor Hohensee in the Humphrey School’s Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP) program recently completed a research project on policy implementation.
Even after years of effort, policies to reduce nonpoint source pollution have had limited success in improving water quality.
More than half of stream and river miles in the United States are still considered impaired, as well as more than 40 percent of lakes, according to 2024 data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Runoff from farm fields, which contains sediment and nutrients from fertilizer, is the largest source of pollution for rivers and streams, and the third leading source for lakes in the U.S.
While many studies focus on farmers' perspectives and their willingness to adopt conservation practices, this study takes a different approach—by examining the role of state agency professionals in designing, implementing, and enforcing these programs.
Since water quality policies are implemented at the state level, there are significant differences from state to state in how those policies are developed and carried out. The research team interviewed staff from six water quality programs in three states, who shared their perspectives on how to successfully implement their policies.
As a result of those interviews, they identified several factors that are key to the success of state policies aimed at reducing nutrient runoff:
Strong local capacity: Conservation districts and partner agencies need adequate staffing and resources to effectively implement policies.
A well-connected policy ecosystem: Policies do not operate in isolation. Their success depends on strong interagency collaboration, effective monitoring, and partnerships with universities and technical experts.
Reliable technical tools: Models and tracking systems help guide and evaluate program outcomes, but they require ongoing investment in development and training.
Balancing voluntary and mandatory policies: Voluntary programs are more widely accepted but often lack participation. Mandatory policies can be more effective but require strong enforcement and may face public resistance.
Flexibility in policy design: Programs must adapt to complex and changing conditions, but increased flexibility also places greater demands on staff and technical capacity.
By understanding these building blocks, policymakers can create more effective strategies to address nonpoint source pollution in agricultural areas, the study concludes.
The study also highlights significant gaps in equity within existing conservation programs. Many efforts to reduce pollution fail to address the unique challenges faced by small-scale, minority, and historically underrepresented farmers—such as limited access to land and financial resources. Ensuring that policies are inclusive and equitable will be essential for creating long-term environmental and social benefits.
State agency professionals play a critical role in shaping these programs. They develop technical tools, build networks that determine policy sustainability, and adapt strategies to fit local needs. Exploring policy implementation from the perspective of agency staff provides useful insights and can be useful in research across policy domains and sectors.
About the research
Student researchers in Associate Professor Bonnie Keeler’s lab contributed to the study design, data collection, stakeholder interviews, and policy analysis of this research project. By engaging directly with policymakers and environmental experts, students gained valuable hands-on experience that prepares them for careers in environmental policy, conservation, and public administration once they complete their degrees.
Funding for this work was provided by The Nature Conservancy and the Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs.
