Data from: Cities can grow without harming lakes: Lake Washington has become less eutrophic despite rapid population growth
Data files
Oct 17, 2025 version files 13.47 MB
-
LakeWashingtonWaterQuality1998-2022.csv
13.47 MB
-
README.md
3.66 KB
Abstract
As cities grow, lakes are often assumed to suffer from increasing nonpoint pollution. Many waterbodies have become more eutrophic in recent decades, as expected, but many others have become less eutrophic, especially in urban/suburban areas. What policies, practices, and ecosystem processes have helped some lakes stay stable or become less eutrophic even in a growing city? Identifying and understanding success stories is important to continue protecting these lakes and improving other urban/suburban lakes. We found one such success story when we examined water-quality trends over the past 25 years (1998–2022) in Lake Washington, a well-studied large lake in the Seattle metro area. The watershed population grew rapidly during that time (34% from 2000–2020), yet Lake Washington became substantially less eutrophic, and indicators of development impacts stabilized or decreased. Chlorophyll concentrations during the main spring bloom decreased sharply ( 25%/decade), and water clarity and near-bottom dissolved oxygen both increased (8.5% and 17%/decade, respectively). Alkalinity and specific conductance had increased during the 1970s–1990s, but in recent decades they have held stable. Peak winter/spring nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations decreased (-4.9% and -5.6%/decade, respectively), indicating decreased watershed inputs. The type of development during this time was likely a key contributor: we found no net loss of forest area and little increase in developed land area (4.7% from 2001–2021). Instead of expanding into new areas, redevelopment increased density on already-developed land and likely drove improvements in stormwater treatment and other environmental protections. Future work comparing stream watersheds could help discern which specific aspects of redevelopment helped reduce nutrients and other impacts. However, nutrient reductions were not the only factors controlling the lake’s trophic state; chlorophyll decreased much more strongly than phosphorus did. Lake Washington is a complex ecosystem governed not only by water chemistry but also by interactions with physical and biological factors such as stratification, warming, phytoplankton community shifts, or food-web interactions. A better understanding of all these factors is essential to provide sound scientific guidance and ensure that Lake Washington and other lakes can thrive in a growing city.
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.dfn2z35fj
Description of the data and file structure
This contains the water-quality data associated with the following manuscript:
Nidzgorski, Daniel A. and DeGasperi, Curtis L. (2025). Cities can grow without harming lakes: Lake Washington has become less eutrophic despite rapid population growth. Ecosphere.
For questions or requests, please contact Daniel Nidzgorski at dnidz@civiceco.org, and we would appreciate it if you cited.
Files and variables
File: LakeWashingtonWaterQuality1998-2022.csv
Description: These water-quality data were collected from Lake Washington (Seattle area, USA; 47.6° N, 122.3° W) by King County's long-term monitoring program. This dataset includes data from 1998-2022 from the Madison Park 0852 monitoring location at one of the deepest points in the lake (~65 m deep). All missing data represented as NA.
Variables
- Locator: Numeric designator for the sampling location
- Site: Name of the sampling location
- LabSampleNum: Unique sample ID number generated by the King County Environmental Lab.
- CollectDate: Sample collection date
- Depth: Depth (in m). NAs indicate missing values, usually for chlorophyll samples that were collected as an integrated sample from 0-10 m.
- Parameter: Parameter name. "Field" indicates parameters measured in situ with field instruments rather than by collecting water samples for lab analyses.
- Value: Measured value of that parameter for that sample. NAs indicate missing values, usually because the concentration was less than the method detection limit (<MDL).
- Units: Units associated with the Value.
- Qualifier: Laboratory qualifiers, most commonly "<MDL" (less than the method detection limit) or "<RDL" (less than the reporting/quantification detection limit).
- MDL: Value of the method detection limit (MDL), which is defined as the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be reliably detected. Estimated values below the MDL are not reported, leading to censored data.
- RDL: Value of the reporting/quantification detection limit (RDL), which represents the minimum concentration at which method performance becomes quantitatively accurate to the expected capability of the method. Concentrations between the MDL and RDL are reported as estimated values subject to a higher degree of uncertainty than concentrations above the RDL.
- OriginalValue: Nitrogen and phosphorus data from 2006 and earlier have been adjusted to account for method changes on January 1, 2007. This column contains the original, uncorrected Value.
- OriginalMDL: Nitrogen and phosphorus data from 2006 and earlier have been adjusted to account for method changes on January 1, 2007. This column contains the original, uncorrected value of the MDL.
- OriginalRDL: Nitrogen and phosphorus data from 2006 and earlier have been adjusted to account for method changes on January 1, 2007. This column contains the original, uncorrected value of the RDL.
- Method: Analytical method used.
- StewardNote: Additional notes about the sample or analysis.
- Text: Additional notes about the sample or analysis.
Code
The R code and outputs associated with this manuscript are available on Zenodo at:
- Water-quality analyses, including all trend analyses: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14503643
- Land-cover analyses: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14503593
