In the 1960s and 1970s, there was no denying that many bodies of water in the United States were seriously impacted. When I was going through college, the Clean Water Act (CWA) was relatively new, and there were grass-root efforts to clean up our local lakes, rivers, and streams. The “poster child” for impacted lakes for many was Lake Erie.
Even back then, algal blooms in Lake Erie were becoming increasingly problematic. What’s more, because Lake Erie was bounded by several states and a province of Canada (Ontario), it wasn’t “just” a local issue. The problem, and any subsequent solution, required a joint and concerted effort.
Historical View of Nutrients in Lake Erie
The framework for this joint effort was found in The International Joint Commission (US and Canada), which was established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. The “culprit” that the IJC and others had to tackle back then was phosphorus loading, a familiar “culprit” today. In 1972, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was established to address the international issues. And within seven years of this pact, strict limits were placed on phosphorus in laundry detergents, and more than $10 billion was invested in publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
In “Saving Lake Erie, Again,” Spring 2016 authors Dereth Glance and Dave Dempsey write of past solutions that, “The IJC found that 70 percent of the phosphorus in US sewage and 50 percent of the phosphorus in Canadian sewage – originated from laundry detergents. In addition to calling for improvements to municipal sewage treatment, the IJC recommended reductions of phosphorus in laundry detergents…” The result was a relatively swift recovery of Lake Erie (Glance, Dempsey, 2016).
End of the story … not so much. As with many environmental issues, these are dynamic and often complicated issues as well. As for Lake Erie and many other parts of the US, many of the “solved” problems are back.
Nutrients Sources and No Simple Solutions
We have reported numerous times over the past several years on the algal blooms in Lake Erie. We have also discussed that they are a complex issue with numerous potential or contributing “culprits.” But what’s the culprit? Natural processes? Anthropogenic inputs? Urban runoff? Changing rainfall and runoff patterns? Temperature patterns? Aging infrastructure including POTWs and Combined Sewer Overflows? Agriculture? Septic fields? Wildlife? In my opinion, the answer is not a simple yes or no, but rather, it’s some degree of yes for all of these, if not more.
There are many potential sources of phosphorus, but in spite of multi-jurisdictional efforts, the problem, at least according to some reports, is not improving fast enough.
Lake Erie “Impaired”
And so, on November 10, 2016, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality released a statement that said, in part, “The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) today announced its 2016 Integrated Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designates Michigan waters of the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) as impaired due to extensive algal blooms caused by excessive levels of phosphorous” (emphasis added).
This is a significant announcement, because once waterbodies are designated as impaired, the “tables are set” for the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. TMDLs are often called a “pollution diet.” They are also often controversial and prescriptive.
Responding to the impairment designation, Jim Byrum, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association, said that the decision by the MDEQ to designate Lake Erie as impaired is “…a misguided attempt to solve a very complex problem” that “sets the table for even more government mandates, largely driven by fringe groups out to dismantle Michigan agriculture.”
Having been “knee deep” in this (TMDL) issue from a legislative perspective in Vermont, I can tell you that some of the resulting prescriptive measures as they relate to agricultural practices can be challenging for farmers. My colleagues and I have worked on many sites where nutrients (phosphorus and nitrates) were a potential issue and found that a regulatory rush to “solutions” can be expensive and sometimes counterproductive.
Assuming Michigan moves forward with a TMDL program, it will be extremely vital for those potentially affected by the program to have an active seat at the table.
In the 1980s, we were pretty confident that the nutrient loading issue for Lake Erie was “solved.” But as we have learned, the books are never really closed on environmental issues. Workable solutions will require a rational, scientific understanding from all stakeholders.
If you have any questions about solving environmental issues, please feel free to contact me (jbolin@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228, ext 125.