The U.S. Geological Survey discontinued continuous nitrate monitoring at 13 Outstanding Florida Springs on July 1, 2025, ending a system that had provided data on water quality at some of Florida's most important natural resources.
The monitoring instruments sampled spring water every 15 minutes, measuring nitrate levels and transmitting the data to researchers and the public.
Without continuous monitoring, researchers will rely more heavily on periodic manual sampling and other datasets, which some experts say may leave gaps in understanding how nitrate levels change over time.
Haley Moody, director of the Florida Springs Institute, discussed what the loss of these monitors means for scientific research and the long-term health of Florida springs.
This interview has been edited for clarity and concision.
Moreno: The U.S. Geological Survey discontinued continuous nitrate monitoring at several Florida springs last year. From your perspective, what does losing that continuous data mean for scientists studying spring health?
Moody: We lost that continuous nitrate monitoring at 13 of our 30 Outstanding Florida Springs. So those are the springs that are legally protected under the 2016 Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act and nitrates, it's one of the parameters for determining if the spring is impaired.
The water management districts had an agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to get that data from them, from their continuous monitors, and I think this really puts a lot of pressure and stress on the districts to gather that data themselves, or figure out how they're going to fill those gaps.
It's really a big challenge. I think that a lot of the districts have agreed they're going to monitor them quarterly. Although that still gives us data, what it doesn't do is capture those very specific events. If we were to have a real intense rain event, for example, if we were to have a sewage leak, how does that change things, and having that continuous monitoring and being able to capture things as they're happening in real- time, really just gives us a lot more information.
Moreno: Since the monitoring stopped, have researchers or agencies increased any other types of testing to make up for the missing continuous nitrate data?
Moody: I don't know if I can really speak to everything that the districts are doing.
I know that the Suwannee River Water Management District did pick up continuous monitoring at one of the Outstanding Florida Springs, Falmouth, but I'm not sure where they stand on the rest of it.
We have a citizen science group, our program called Springs Watch, where we have citizen scientists, or community scientists that are going out to take water quality samples every month and we did establish two new Springs Watch groups at two of these springs that have lost that continuous monitoring, so we're hoping to fill some of those gaps in that way.
Moreno: Are these groups monitoring all Florida springs, or are they focusing on specific ones, such as the 13 Outstanding Florida Springs that no longer have continuous nitrate monitoring?
Moody: Springs Watch right now, we have 11 groups that are active currently and we are adding these two more, so that'll be 13, but they are not at all of these [springs], the ones that lost the monitoring.
We have a group at Itchituknee. We have a group at Silver, we have a group at Wakulla, we have a group at Wekiwa and then we're adding Fanning and Manatee.
Moreno: How important is nitrate monitoring when scientists are trying to understand whether a spring ecosystem is improving or declining?
Moody: Very important. It's really that parameter that determines whether one of these Outstanding Florida Springs is impaired or not considered impaired. If it is found to be impaired, meaning the nitrate levels are above 0.35 milligrams per liter, and that's a state standard, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection set that standard for a healthy spring.
A healthy spring should have no more than that. If one of these 30 springs is found to be above that level, it goes into what's called a Basin Management Action Plan, which is a plan in order to restore that spring to health within 20 years, so to bring that nitrate level down below the 0.35 mg/L.
So not only are we losing that real time data of whether springs are going above that level, we're also losing that continuous data of whether they are improving and going below that level.
These BMAPs [Basin Management Action Plans] that have been issued, have recently, a number of them have been updated to include responsible entities. So very specific groups that are are legally responsible for reducing the nitrate load within the BMAP area. So agriculture for one, cities, counties, they've all been given a certain amount of nitrate reductions that they are responsible for.
Moreno: What nitrate levels are typically found in Florida springs, particularly in the 13 springs that recently lost continuous monitoring?
Moody: The historic background level for a spring [before large- scale agriculture] would be about 0.05 milligrams per liter. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has said a spring system can really tolerate up to that 0.35 mg/L before you start to see signs of impairment.
What I can tell you is that over 80% of springs across Florida are beyond that 0.35 mg/L, and we have Outstanding Florida Springs that are measuring at 6, 7, 8 or 9 [mg/L].
The idea that they're going to be brought down to that 0.35 mg/L or below, it's hard to imagine how that could be accomplished.
Moreno: Some scientists say a sudden drop in nitrate levels can signal a flow reversal in spring conditions. Why is nitrate data so important for detecting those kinds of changes?
Moody: [Flow reversal] can happen really quickly and it can not last very long, so that's where continuous monitoring really is able to capture those events. If we're only collecting that data four times a year, at a very quick sample, you're not going to capture that, it's going to be very rare.
We have some anecdotal evidence that there have been flow reversals at certain springs, I can think of Gilchrist Blue Spring, for example, but without that continuous monitoring, we don't have the data to support that.
Moreno: Are you concerned that the gap in monitoring could mean we’ve already missed important shifts in water quality at some springs?
Moody: Yes, absolutely, especially considering that we're in a drought right now.
You know that’s really important data when we have these extreme events that we're able to capture what happens during this time.
Moreno: What are the potential long-term consequences for spring management and policy if there are gaps in the data used to track nitrate levels?
Moody: So hydraulic modeling is used in establishing minimum flows and levels. So all of these 30 Outstanding Florida Springs and other Outstanding Florida Waters have a minimum flow and level that's set by the state. We really want to keep that water body at that level, at minimum. There are some spring systems that actually include nitrate data in establishing that minimum flow and level like Wakulla, for example.
The thing with the modeling is that it's really the more consistent data that you have, the better the model is going to be, so the less often you're collecting this data, the more room there is for errors in the model.
Then those models are used again to set these minimum flows and levels, but also to make predictions about water supply and what's going to happen in the future and where we're going to get water from when we need it.
Continuous monitoring is very important for that reason. The more data and the better data that you can provide, the better the model will be for sure.
Moreno: Looking ahead, what would you like to see happen in terms of monitoring Florida springs so researchers and the public can better understand what’s happening to these ecosystems?
Moody: We need to restore the continuous monitoring and either that is restore the USGS funding and allow those monitors to be put back in place, or we need to give the water management districts the necessary funding to do it themselves and/or support nonprofits or outside organizations like ours to be able to fill in some of those gaps.
If we're going to protect these places, we really need the best, most consistent data possible.