|
A. Background
1. What is the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River ecosystem?
2. How are the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence
River governed?
3. What is the International Joint Commission
(IJC)?
4. What are the responsibilities of the
IJC?
5. What is the approval function of the
IJC?
6. What is the investigative function of
the IJC?
B.
Water Quantity
7. What is the administrative function of
the IJC?
8. Can the levels and flows of the Great
Lakes be controlled?
9. Has the IJC studied the possibility of
controlling lake levels?
10. What are the effects of lake levels
on power generation?
11. What are the current issues with respect
to navigation on the Great Lakes?
12. Can large quantities of water be removed
from the Great Lakes?
13. What actions have the states and provinces
taken to control water removals?
C.
Water Quality
14. How does pollution affect water quality
in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River?
15. How did awareness of water quality
problems in the Great Lakes begin?
16. What influence has the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement had on the Great Lakes?
17. How has the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement changed since the first agreement?
18. What is the Canada-Ontario Agreement?
19. What are the areas of concern around
the Great Lakes?
20. What are remedial action plans?
21. What health studies have been done
on the degraded areas of the Great Lakes?
22. What are the problems with airborne
toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes?
23. How are the Great Lakes today?
24. What are the emerging and future threats
to the Great Lakes?
25. What is Canada doing to address new
and existing problems on the Great Lakes?
26. What is the United States doing to
address new and existing problems in the Great Lakes?
27. What are the Canadian Environmental
Law Association views on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River
ecosystem?
28. How can I find out more about the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem?
Background
1.
What is the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River ecosystem?
The
Great Lakes are a unique chain of five glacial lakes that contain
one-fifth of the world’s freshwater. These five lakes are
a single interconnected system with the water from Lake Superior
flowing into Lakes Michigan and Huron, then into Lake Erie, Lake
Ontario, along the St. Lawrence River and finally mixing into the
Atlantic Ocean.
Back
to Top
2.
How are the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence
River governed?
The
Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River are shared by Canada and
the United States. They are governed by a complex legal network
that includes international treaties and agreements, federal laws
and regulations of the two countries, laws of the eight Great Lakes’
states (New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana and Minnesota) and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and
the rights of Aboriginal Peoples and Indian tribes under both Canadian
and American laws.
One
of the most important documents governing the Great Lakes is the
Boundary Waters Treaty. In 1909 the United States and Great Britain,
on behalf of Canada, signed this historic treaty ushering in almost
a century of cooperation between the two countries. The Boundary
Waters Treaty committed Canada and the United States to cooperate
in the management of the lakes and rivers along their shared border.
The treaty set out the legal principles to deal with boundary and
transboundary waters and established the International Joint Commission
to anticipate problems and resolve disputes between the two countries.
Back
to Top
3.
What is the International Joint Commission
(IJC)?
The
International Joint Commission is an independent body of six commissioners,
three from Canada, appointed by the Governor in Council, and three
from the United States, appointed by the President with advice from
the Senate. Of the six commissioners, there are two co-chairs, one
representing the United States and one representing Canada. The
Commission carries out most of its functions through Boards.
Back
to Top
4.
What are the responsibilities of the
IJC?
The
International Joint Commission (IJC) has four principal functions,
as defined by the Boundary Waters Treaty -- an approval function,
an investigative function, an administrative function, and a rarely-used
arbitral function.
Back
to Top
5.
What is the approval function of the
IJC?
The
Boundary Waters Treaty gives the IJC the authority to approve or
disapprove applications for the use, obstruction or diversion of
boundary waters on either side of the border that would affect the
natural level or flow on the other side (Article III). It may also
regulate the operation of these structures. This responsibility
involves primarily the approval and management of structures built
for hydroelectric generation and navigation.
Back
to Top
6.
What is the investigative function of
the IJC?
The
Boundary Waters Treaty also allows the governments of Canada and
the United States to refer issues to the Commission to investigate
and make recommendations to help the countries resolve problems
with boundary waters. These are called references. For example,
the IJC in the late 1970s issued a landmark reference study on pollution
from land use activities, one of the first in-depth studies to be
done on non-point source pollution. In the year 2000 the IJC completed
a reference study on the controversial issue of consumption, diversion
and removals of water from the Great Lakes. The IJC has been given
references by both countries on many important issues over the last
94 years, not just on issues affecting the Great Lakes, but in many
other cases of potential conflict with respect to waters along the
shared border.
In
the 1970s the IJC was given a standing reference by Canada and the
United States that conferred another important responsibility on
it – overseeing the implementation of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. This Agreement was first signed by the two countries
in 1972 and amended in 1978 and 1987. It is currently up for review.
The Agreement commits the governments to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the
Great Lake Basin ecosystem. The IJC tracks progress in the implementation
of the Agreement and makes recommendations for furthering its goals.
Back
to Top
Water Quantity
7.
What is the administrative function of
the IJC?
Because
of its mandate to approve dams and other structures in the Great
Lakes, the IJC exercises considerable control over the movement
of water through the Great Lakes. The IJC has issued orders of approval
for major structures in three different areas of the basin. These
structures are managed by Boards of Control that report to the IJC.
The Boards must balance the sometimes conflicting interests of navigation,
hydroelectric generation and environmental concerns such as the
protection of fisheries and shorelines.
-
The International Lake Superior Board of Control
The
IJC’s first order of approval in the Great Lakes Basin was
in 1914 for control structures for navigation and hydroelectric
generation above the St. Mary's Rapids at Sault St. Marie. These
structures include power canals, navigation locks and a control
dam. The Lake Superior Control Board was set up to supervise the
operation and maintenance of these works and to regulate the outflow
from Lake Superior in order to balance the levels of Lake Superior
with Lakes Michigan and Huron.
-
The International St. Lawrence River Board of Control
The
St. Lawrence River Board was established in the IJC’s 1952
orders of approval for the construction of the St. Lawrence River
hydropower and navigation project. The control structures on the
St. Lawrence River include hydroelectric generators, dams and ice-booms.
The Board regulates the outflow from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence
River to maintain adequate depths for navigation, provide water
for hydroelectric generation and balance the water levels of Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
-
The International Niagara Board of Control
In
1950 Canada and the United States signed the Niagara Treaty in order
to ensure that the use of Niagara Falls for power generation did
not detract from its value as a tourist attraction. The treaty specifies
certain minimum flows over the Falls during tourist and night times.
The Niagara Board of Control was set up in 1953 by IJC orders of
approval. The Board is responsible for supervising the operation
of a partial dam that allows for adjustment of the flow of Niagara
Falls.
Back
to Top
8.
Can the levels and flows of the Great
Lakes be controlled?
Over
the last century the Great Lakes have experienced years of extremely
high water levels and years of very low levels. To a certain degree,
the Control Boards are able to affect the levels and flows. However,
numerous studies have shown that the effects of artificial controls
are dwarfed by the influence of climate.
The
major factors that decide the amount of water in the Great Lakes
are natural – evaporation, precipitation and runoff. This
is known as the hydrological cycle. Water evaporates from the surface
of the lakes as it comes into contact with dry warm air and forms
water vapour. Water vapour falls into the Great Lakes Basin as rain
or snow, either directly onto the surface of the lakes or as runoff
from the drainage basin. These factors caused high water levels
in the early 1950s and mid-1980s, and low levels in the 1930s and
mid-1960s.
More
recently in 1998 and 1999 low precipitation in the Lake Superior
region in winter resulted in less runoff to the lake and reduced
flows to Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, causing dramatic drops in
lake levels. As well, warm air temperatures throughout the Great
Lakes area caused warmer water temperatures that increased evaporation
rates. As a result, beaches have become wider today than at any
time during the last 30 years.
Wetlands
are also an important natural influence on lake levels. Their thick
vegetation acts as a buffer to protect shorelines. During high water
levels wetlands store water and release it as the water recedes.
During low water levels wetland vegetation expands and stabilizes
in readiness for higher waters.
Back
to Top
9.
Has the IJC studied the possibility of
controlling lake levels?
Concerned
about the effects of fluctuations in water levels, governments have
always had an interest in exploring whether the Great Lakes could
be maintained at more constant levels. In 1964 when water levels
were very low, the IJC was asked by Canada and the United States
to investigate the feasibility of controlling levels in the Great
Lakes. By 1973 when the report was completed, lake levels had risen
to record highs. The IJC reported that the high cost of engineering
further regulation of lakes Michigan and Huron could not be justified
by the benefits. The IJC reached the same conclusion during another
study in 1983 on regulating levels in Lake Erie.
In
a 1993 study the IJC again concluded that the costs of major engineering
works to regulate levels and flows o the Great Lakes would outweigh
the benefits. Instead they recommended that land-use and shoreline
management programs be implemented in order to reduce the damage
from flooding and erosion.
Now
that water levels have once more fallen into a low cycle, the IJC
has again been asked to look at lake levels – this time in
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Since 1959 when the St.
Lawrence Seaway was completed, levels have been controlled primarily
for hydroelectric generation and navigation. For a number of years
people living around Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River have
pressed the governments to consider the effects of lake levels on
other interests such as tourism and the environment. The five-year
study now underway will review the criteria used to regulate Lake
Ontario outflows taking into account how water fluctuations affect
all interests and considering the future impacts of climate change.
For
more information on this reference study, see the study group’s
own web site at: www.losl.org
Back
to Top
10. What
are the effects of lake levels on power generation?
The
Great Lakes have served as a reliable low-cost source of power.
Low lake levels reduce the amount of water flowing through the power
dams. This in turn reduces the amount of power that can be generated
by these stations and decreases the revenues from selling electricity.
The
hydroelectric plants on the Niagara River contribute a significant
part of the electricity used in Ontario – about 25 per cent.
Ontario Power, responsible for the province’s generating capacity,
would like to increase the capacity of the Niagara River generating
stations. They announced in 2002 that they planned to expand their
hydroelectric capacity at Niagara Falls by building a third tunnel
at Sir Adam Beck 2 Generating Station. Plans for new diversion tunnels
and an intake structure for the proposed underground power plant
were completed, but construction has been deferred.
Back
to Top
11.
What are the current issues with respect
to navigation on the Great Lakes?
The
Great Lakes have also served as a valuable shipping lane for large
cargo ships transporting goods to and from cities around the perimeters
of the lakes. Recently the U.S. Congress has shown interest in reviving
the declining shipping industry. Consequently, it funded the Army
Corps of Engineers to update the 1985 Connecting Harbors and Channels
study to explore the possibility of increasing commercial navigation
in the Great Lakes.
Although
the original Harbors and Channels study found that it was not economically
viable, the Army Corps of Engineers reconnaissance study, “The
Great Lakes Navigation Study Report” (February 2003) argues
that an expansion of the navigation system would attract large-volume
container vessels away from ports on the east coast of Canada and
the United States and boost shipping traffic in the Great Lakes.
To facilitate these larger ocean-going ships, the governments of
Canada and the United States would have to build bigger locks and
deepen shipping channels throughout the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River system.
Although
the Army Corps of Engineers has received funding from both Canada
and the United States to proceed with a supplementary study, an
independent study commissioned by Great Lakes United, a coalition
of non-governmental organizations around the Great Lakes, refutes
their conclusions. This report released in September 2003, “Analysis
of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River Navigation System’s
Role in U.S. Ocean Container Trade” by the Pennsylvania Transportation
Institute, found that container cargo is time sensitive. The longer
transit times and uncertainties of the Great Lakes navigation system,
therefore, make it unlikely that container ships would use the Great
Lakes rather than East Coast ports.
Great
Lakes United is opposed to the re-engineering of the navigation
system primarily for environmental reasons. They point out that
the reconnaissance study does not consider environmental consequences
of expansion such as the introduction of new invasive species from
foreign commercial shipping, the effects of dredging on aquatic
habitats and shorelines, and the impacts of deepening and widening
channels on lake levels.
The
Georgian Bay Cottagers’ Association also opposes further studies
of the navigation system. They have already seen the waters of Georgian
Bay and Lake Huron recede away from their docks and marinas, and
are concerned about further deepening of connecting channels. Their
own research has revealed that there has been shoreline alteration
and dredging of the channel at the outflow of Lake Huron beyond
the depths allowed by international agreements. Since there are
no control structures at the outflow of Lake Huron, any deepening
or widening of the channel has a major impact on the levels of Lake
Huron and Georgian Bay.
To
see the Great Lakes Navigation Study and to follow the progress
of the supplementary study, see the web site of the Detroit
District of the Army Corps of Engineers.
For
more information on the issue of expanding the navigation system,
see the work of the Biodiversity and Habitat Task Force on the web
site of Great Lakes United.
Back
to Top
12.
Can large quantities of water be removed
from the Great Lakes?
Another
issue that has galvanized governments and groups around the Great
Lakes is the issue of large-scale removals of water. Although the
Great Lakes are large, only one per cent is renewed every year by
rain, snow and runoff. The volume of freshwater in the Great Lakes,
however, has attracted proposals from private companies that would
like to export it for sale to water-poor areas of the world.
In
the spring of 1998 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment granted
a water-taking permit to the Nova Group in Sault Ste. Marie. This
permit would have allowed the company to take by tanker more than
600 million litres of freshwater per year for export to Asia. A
public outcry and concern from the governors of the Great Lakes’
states prompted the Ontario government to rescind the permit.
However,
the granting of this permit underscored the vulnerability of the
lakes to private proposals.
Consequently,
the governments of Canada and the United States asked the International
Joint Commission for a reference to study the impacts of major water
withdrawals on the Great Lakes. In its preliminary conclusions the
IJC found that there is never a surplus of water in the Great Lakes
system and that removals of water reduce the system’s resilience.
The IJC released its final report in March 2000 recommending that
the Canadian and U.S. federal, provincial and state governments
should not permit the removal of water from the Great Lakes Basin
unless the proponent can demonstrate that it will not endanger the
integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. This report can be found
at: www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/finalreport.html.
In
addition to their recommendation on removals of water, the IJC also
found that the cumulative effects of using the lakes wantonly could
also eventually alter their levels. Increases in the consumptive
uses – for homes, power, industry and agriculture –
are expected to increase in the future as the population grows.
These escalating demands will further stress the integrity of the
lakes and their ability to respond to change. The IJC has pointed
out that people in Canada and the United States use much more water
per capita than Europeans -- according to Statistics Canada, two
to four times as much. They recommended that the Great Lakes states
and provinces adopt a basin-wide water conservation initiative.
In
December 2001 the Canadian government moved to stop large withdrawals
of Great Lakes water. The government passed amendments to the International
Boundary Waters Treaty Act that prohibit the bulk removal of boundary
waters from the water basins in which they are located.
See:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-17/77063.html
The amendments also require persons to obtain licenses from the
Minister of Foreign Affairs for water-related projects that affect
the natural level or flow of waters on the American side of the
border.
Back
to Top
13.
What actions have the states and provinces
taken to control water removals?
The
Great Lakes governors and the governments of Ontario and Quebec
also acted quickly to address the issue of large-scale water withdrawals
with the aim of avoiding future threats. The eight governors and
the premiers of Ontario and Quebec set up a process to protect and
manage the Great Lakes collectively by strengthening their own agreement,
the Great Lakes Charter.
The
Great Lakes Charter is an agreement signed in 1985 by the eight
governors of the Great Lakes states and the premiers of Ontario
and Quebec. The original voluntary agreement outlined a series of
principles for the collective management of the lakes. The governments
agreed that no state or province would proceed with a new or increased
diversion or consumptive use over 5 million gallons a day without
seeking the consent of the other affected governments.
After
the Nova controversy, the governors and premiers agreed to develop
a more binding agreement to manage the Great Lakes. In June 2001
they signed a supplementary agreement, Annex 2001, to the Great
Lakes Charter. In doing so, the jurisdictions committed to complete
by June 2004:
- A
binding agreement(s) to protect, conserve, restore, improve, and
manage use of the waters and water-dependent natural resources
of the Great Lakes Basin; and,
- Establish
a decision-making standard based on the following principles:
to prevent or minimize Basin water loss through return flow and
implementation of environmentally sound and economically feasible
water conservation measures; to cause no significant adverse individual
or cumulative impacts to the water quality, quantity or natural
resources of the Great Lakes Basin: and, to improve the waters
and water-dependent natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin.
As
one of their commitments in the supplementary agreement, the Governors
agreed to notify and consult with the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec
on all proposals subject to the United States Water Resources Development
Act (1986, amended 2000). This Act prohibits "any diversion
or export of Great Lakes water by any State, federal agency, or
private entity for use outside the Great Lakes basin unless such
diversion is approved by the Governor of each of the Great Lakes
States". As well, the projects already approved under this
Act are being reviewed.
Ontario
also joined with other provinces and the Canadian government in
signing The Accord for the Prohibition of Bulk Water Removal from
Drainage Basins in 1999 at the Canadian Council of Ministers of
the Environment. This agreement prohibits the bulk removal of surface
and groundwater from the Canadian portion of major basins. For more
information, see: www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo99/83067000_e.html
To
assist the governors in coordinating activities under the Charter,
the Council of Great Lakes Governors was established. For more information
about the Great Lakes Governors and the work of the Council, see:
www.cglg.org
For
information on the responses of non-governmental organizations to
Annex 2001, see the work of the Sustainable Waters Task Force on
the Great Lakes United web site
Back
to Top
Water
Quality
14.
How does pollution affect water quality
in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River?
The
Great Lakes have been a magnet for industry and urban development,
both of which have strained the capacity of the lakes to absorb
the resulting pollution and degradation of its waters. Because the
lakes are one interconnected system, contaminants starting their
journey in Lake Superior will eventually find their way to the St.
Lawrence River.
A
special feature of these impressive “sweetwater seas”
is the long retention time of their waters. Pollutants, particularly
long-lived toxic chemicals that find their way into the lakes can
only be moved very slowly through the system. Lake Superior, which
is the largest of the Great Lakes, takes almost two hundred years
to flush out. Lake Erie, in contrast, takes less than three years.
The
lakes are vulnerable to two types of pollution – often described
as “point” and “non-point”. Point sources
are easily identified – smokestacks, discharge pipes and waste
outlets. Non-point sources are harder to identify and to monitor.
They include contaminants such as road salt or pesticides washed
into the lakes by rain or melting snow. The Great Lakes also act
as a sink for airborne contaminants in North America.
Back
to Top
15.
How did awareness of water quality problems
in the Great Lakes begin?
In
the 1960s people living around the lakes became alarmed about the
deteriorating quality of water in the Great Lakes. They found their
favourite beaches closed because of high bacteria counts, they were
warned against eating contaminated fish and they began to worry
about the safety of their drinking water. These obvious signs of
pollution put pressure on governments to begin the formidable task
of reversing the steady degradation of the lakes.
One
of the earliest successes was the revival of Lake Erie. In the 1960s
this shallowest of Great Lakes was being slowly strangled by the
growth of excessive algae, a process called “eutrophication”.
The problem was identified as an excess of nutrients flowing into
the lake from phosphate detergent, sewage treatment plants and farm
runoff. A concerted effort to address this problem paid off in bringing
Lake Erie back to better health. Both governments co-operated in
limiting phosphates from detergents, in constructing and upgrading
sewage treatment plants and in developing programs to reduce nutrient-rich
fertilizers from running into the lake. Phosphorus loadings were
cut in half.
Lake
Erie, however, has once again become the first lake to show fresh
signs of trouble. The lake has experienced a three-year epidemic
of botulism that has killed millions of fish and thousands of loons,
ducks and other fish-eating birds. And oxygen-poor “dead zones”
that afflicted Lake Erie in the 1960s are resurfacing as a problem.
The
reasons for Lake Erie’s most recent problems are not clear
but a combination of factors are suspected. It is believed that
exotic species – goby fish, zebra and quagga mussels –
are robbing the lake of oxygen. The mussels, introduced by ocean-going
ships discharging their ballast water, are now growing in dense
mats on the lake bottom. Another possible factor in creating this
dead zone is the aging sewage treatment plants. Because of increasing
urbanization, sewage treatment plants, already at capacity, are
overloaded and flood into the lakes whenever there is a rainfall.
Scientists are looking at low lake levels, warmer climate and increased
water clarity caused by zebra mussels, all as possible factors contributing
to the problem.
Back
to Top
16.
What influence has the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement had on the Great Lakes?
The
International Joint Commission was given the responsibility by both
Canada and the United States for monitoring the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. As a result of this responsibility, the IJC has
been an important catalyst prodding the government to improve water
quality in the Great Lakes. For thirty years the IJC has called
both Canada and the United States to account for their mutually
agreed upon obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The IJC has also inspired the scientific research on the lakes which
is the foundation for all the agreements and disseminated this information
to the broader public. However, the IJC’s effectiveness has
been hampered by the lack of legal authority to enforce the provisions
of the agreement.
The
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was first signed by the two
countries in 1972. The eutrophication of Lake Erie influenced the
focus of the first agreement – to control oxygen depletion
of the lakes due to nutrient loadings. This first agreement also
established the Great Lakes Water Quality Board to help implement
its provisions. In addition, it created the Science Advisory Board
to provide the scientific research capability for identifying water
quality problems.
For
an evaluation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, see "The
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: Its Past Successes and Uncertain
Future", by Lee Botts and Paul Muldoon, March 1997, for the
Institute on International Environmental Governance, available at:
www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/glreport-5-e.html
Back
to Top
17. How
has the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement changed since the first
agreement?
The
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was renewed in 1978. This second
agreement was intended to address problems that were not in the
original one. By 1978 the perceived threats to the Great Lakes had
changed significantly and toxic substances were recognized as a
critical concern. Many areas were contaminated with PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls, DDT, dioxins, heavy metals and other chemicals being
discharged directly into the lakes. As well, toxic substances were
discovered to be finding their way into the lakes by different pathways
– through the air, contaminated groundwater and polluted sediments.
Evidence increased that fish and wildlife were being negatively
affected by these toxins.
An
important goal of the 1978 agreement was to rid the lakes of persistent
toxic substances, chemicals that stay in the environment for a long
time, build up in the food chain and pose a threat to fish, wildlife
and human health. They were found to bioconcentrate or biomagnify
as they moved up in the food chain. The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement introduced the concept of “virtual elimination”.
The governments agreed that “the discharge of toxic substances
in toxic amounts be prohibited and the discharge of any or all persistent
toxic substances be virtually eliminated” (Article II). Virtual
elimination recognizes the reality that zero discharge may not be
easily accomplished but it establishes the principle that elimination
of these toxic chemicals should be pursued both as a strategy and
as a goal. The inclusion of the ecosystem – recognizing that
the lakes were a crucial part of a complex web of air, water, land
and biota that included humans – was another pioneering aspect
of this agreement.
In
1987 a third agreement was negotiated. Canada and the United States
signed the 1987 Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
This time the agreement stressed the importance of human and ecosystem
health. It aimed to restore degraded areas identified around the
lakes, to prevent and control pollution and to conserve and protect
human and ecosystem health.
Back
to Top
18.
What is the Canada-Ontario Agreement?
On
the Canadian side, the province of Ontario is largely responsible
for the programs that are necessary to implement the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. In anticipation of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, the governments of Canada and Ontario first signed
the Canada-Ontario Agreement in 1971 and have renewed this agreement
four times since then, most recently in 2000. The agreement sets
out how the two governments will co-operate and coordinate efforts
to restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.
These agreements reflect the goals and strategies of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
For
more information on the Canada-Ontario Agreement, see Environment
Canada’s web site at:
www.on.ec.gc.ca/coa/intro_e.html
Back
to Top
19.
What are the areas of concern around
the Great Lakes?
In
1985 the International Joint Commission identified the most severely
degraded areas around the Great Lakes. These 43 “Areas of
Concern” were areas where there were problems with contaminated
sediments, degraded fish and wildlife habitat, restrictions on fish
and wildlife consumption and impaired beaches. The 1987 Protocol
provided for the development of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) by
the Canadian and American governments to restore water quality in
the Areas of Concern. It also allowed for the development of Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMPs) to address broader contaminant issues in
each of the five Great Lakes. In addition, this Protocol included
new annexes that targeted non-point source contaminant sources,
contaminated sediment, airborne toxic substances and contaminated
groundwater as important for cleaning up the Great Lakes.
Back
to Top
20.
What are remedial action plans?
Remedial
action plans have been a major project of the IJC since 1985. Both
governments agreed to develop a plan to improve water quality for
the 43 areas of concern, with an emphasis on involving the local
community in each area. The development of these plans was conceived
as a three-stage process. Stage One was to determine the severity
of the pollution problems and identify the factors causing the degradation.
Stage Two was to identify goals and recommend actions that would
restore the health of the ecosystem, and Stage Three was to implement
the recommended actions and evaluate progress. When Stage Three
was completed, the Area of Concern could be “delisted”.
Delisting
an Area of Concern means that the goals identified in the Remedial
Action Plan have been achieved. Of the 43 Areas of Concern, 26 are
solely in the United States, 12 are in Canada and 5 are shared by
the two countries. The International Joint Commission released a
report in May 2003 that discussed the progress being made in cleaning
up these areas. In more than 15 years since they were identified,
only two have made enough progress to be “delisted”.
Both are in Ontario – Collingwood Harbour and Severn Sound.
Two other areas, Presque Isle Bay in Pennsylvania and Spanish Harbour
in Ontario, are recognized as being in a recovery stage.
The
IJC commended the two countries on their investments in sewage treatment
plants and sediment remediation in some areas of concern. They concluded,
however, that “the job is not finished and much of the needed
information on actions taken to restore beneficial uses and activities
planned for the future is either unavailable or incomplete”.
The
complete IJC report on the progress to restore Great Lakes Areas
of Concern, "The Status of Restoration Activities in the Great
Lakes Areas of Concern", April 2003, can be found at: www.ijc.org
Back
to Top
21.
What health studies have been done on
the degraded areas of the Great Lakes?
As
part of the Canada-Ontario Agreement to consider the impacts of
pollution on human health, Health Canada undertook health studies
focusing on Areas of Concern. They studied the 17 original Canadian
sites, and compiled statistics on the incidence of disease and death
for each community. Although they did not suggest a direct correlation
between environmental contaminants and health problems, they looked
at those health problems where environmental contaminants could
be a contributing factor.
One
of the areas of concern with a significantly high incidence of disease
and death was the Windsor and Essex County area, in the Detroit
Area of Concern. Health Canada’s data showed that over a seven-year
period there were a thousand excess deaths and forty thousand excess
hospitalizations in the Windsor area. Cancer rates among men were
7 per cent higher than the Canadian average. Diseases occurring
at elevated rates in Windsor included lung cancer, cancers of the
digestive and reproductive system, lymphoma, leukemia, heart and
circulatory diseases, chronic bronchitis, diabetes, asthma, ovarian
failure, diseases of the immune system, thyroid disorders, infertility,
endometriosis and degenerative nerve diseases. In addition, these
diseases occurred prematurely, many years earlier than expected.
Health Canada suggested that their study should be a starting point
for further investigations and Windsor groups are also calling for
more work to be done on the links between pollution and disease.
Health
Canada’s “Health Data and Statistics Compilations for
Great Lakes Areas of Concern”, including statistics on disease
and mortality for each of the 17 Canadian areas of concern, is no
longer available on Health Canada's web site However, information
about this study can still be found at:
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-6/817-826elliott/EHP109s6p817PDF.pdf
Back
to Top
22.
What are the problems with airborne
toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes?
After
the initial concern over toxic chemicals being discharged or leaking
into the lakes, scientists began to realize that pollutants transported
hundreds of miles through the air were also degrading the Great
Lakes. As early as 1966 Canada and the United States asked the International
Joint Commission to monitor air quality and alert them to problems.
The IJC set up an International Air Quality Advisory Board to provide
advice on transboundary air pollutants. Their first task was to
define the airshed of each country by analyzing the potential of
air pollutants from one country to have an impact on the other.
In
the late 1970s scientists were surprised to discover that lakes
on Isle Royale, a remote wilderness island in Lake Superior, were
contaminated with PCBs and toxaphene. A few weeks after a toxaphene
was sprayed on cotton crops in the southern United States, it could
be detected in fish in these lakes. Because the only possible source
of these contaminants was the air, this discovery confirmed that
the atmosphere was indeed a critical pathway.
Contaminants
from the atmosphere can be either rained or washed out onto land
or water. Dry particles can be blown into lakes from land or dissolved
in water from the air. Once they arrive in the lakes, they can settle
into the sediment and become part of the food chain, contaminating
and accumulating in fish and wildlife. The IJC has established that
most of the PCB’s in the upper Great Lakes come from airborne
sources.
Annex
15 of the 1987 Protocol committed the governments to address the
problems of transboundary air pollutants, and in March 1991 Canada
and the United States signed a separate Air Quality Agreement formalizing
these commitments. A bilateral Air Quality Committee was set up
to review its progress. Their periodic reports are submitted to
both governments and to the IJC.
Mercury
was identified in 1985 as one of the 11 critical pollutants targeted
for virtual elimination because of its persistence and toxicity
in the Great Lakes. A current priority of the IJC is to determine
the amount of mercury entering the Great Lakes from the air and
to develop monitoring and control programs. The primary sources
are incinerators for municipal garbage and medical waste, coal fired
generating plants and metallurgical processes. Recently sewage treatment
plants have been identified as significant sources of mercury to
the Great Lakes.
Back
to Top
23. How are the Great Lakes
today?
One
of the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was to make
the waters “drinkable”, “swimmable” and
“fishable”. The International Joint Commission is required
to report on progress towards the goals of the agreement every two
years. Despite decades of research and work to improve the Great
Lakes, the most recent IJC Report, the Eleventh Biennial Report
on Great Lakes Water Quality, issued in September 2002, found that
greater efforts must be invested by both countries in order to realize
any real improvements.
The
IJC requested that the governments of Canada and the United States
use a system of biological indicators to monitor the health of the
lakes. Based on these indicators, the IJC deemed the drinkability
of treated Great Lakes water as “good”. With respect
to fishability, the chemical contamination of edible fish was described
as “mixed, improving”. The improvement was based on
very slow declines in the concentrations of PCBs in fish samples,
although warnings are still in effect in all five lakes. The swimmability
of water at beaches around the lakes is also described as “mixed”,
with many beaches continuing to close because of elevated bacteria
levels.
The
report also highlighted two problems that continue to plague the
Great Lakes – contaminated sediments and invasive species.
Sediment
in the Great Lakes continues to be a reservoir of toxic substances
such as pesticides, PCBs and heavy metals. These persistent toxic
chemicals pose a threat to human health. They are taken up by fish
and, in turn, the fish are consumed by people around the lakes.
In 1990 the IJC found that mothers eating large quantities of Lake
Michigan fish caused harm to their children. Research has confirmed
the health impacts from exposure to toxic substances in the Great
Lakes. The Commission concluded that injury is occurring and political
leaders must act to protect citizens from further injury.
In
addition, new invasive species are heading towards the Great Lakes.
The lakes have been continually threatened by the introduction of
new and diverse alien aquatic invasive species. The first highly
publicized invader was the lamprey eel. Because of its devastating
impact on fisheries, both governments have spent millions of dollars
on control programs. Another alien species, the zebra mussel, has
already cost the economies of both Canada and the United States
an estimated $10 billion in damage to water intake pipes since it
first came to the Great Lakes 15 years ago.
The
current most imminent threat is the Asian Carp, making its way up
the Chicago Canal and threatening to enter Lake Michigan. Three
species of carp, native to China, were imported in the early 1970s
for use in the aquaculture industry of Arkansas. They were used
to control algae and snails in aquaculture ponds. During floods
in the early 1990s, they escaped and rapidly multiplied in the Mississippi
watershed. Known as an “aquatic vacuum cleaner”, the
infiltration of the Great Lakes by these fish could potentially
turn the Great Lakes into a carp pond and destroy a $4.5 billion
fishery.
A
temporary barrier was set up in the Chicago Canal near Romeoville,
Illinois, in April 2002. It is a type of electrical barrier that
has been used before to stop fish from entering power plant intakes.
This barrier, however, will only last two or three years and will
not be effective in the event of a power failure. At the urging
of the IJC, the U.S. government has agreed to construct a second
barrier.
For
more information on the IJC's recommendations on controlling invasive
species, see:
www.ijc.org/rel/news/030604b.html
Back
to Top
24. What are the emerging and
future threats to the Great Lakes?
Although
governments and citizens are struggling to come to terms with the
known problems that have damaged the Great Lakes, new concerns continue
to come to light. Ongoing scientific research in the Great Lakes
Basin confirms the complexity of the past problems, that have not
yet been resolved, and reveals areas that need attention. The old,
new and emerging threats identified by the IJC include:
-
Unmonitored chemicals
The IJC is concerned that the number of chemicals being monitored
in the Great Lakes is inadequate. The environmental consequences
of many unmonitored chemicals that find their way into the lakes
are unknown -- notably pharmaceuticals, flame retardants and high
volume chemicals such as the new generation of biodegradable pesticides.
Nor are there any objectives set for these chemicals under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
-
Endocrine disruptors
Chemicals such as dioxin, PCBs, DDT and some other pesticides
are now known to be endocrine disruptors. This means that, when
synthetic chemicals of this kind are absorbed into the body, they
either mimic or block hormones, and disrupt the body’s normal
functions. Many fish, contaminated with PCBs and other man-made
chemicals, have numerous reproductive problems, as well as abnormal
swelling of the thyroid glands. Fish-eating birds of the Great
Lakes, such as eagles, terns and gulls, have shown similar problems.
-
Pharmaceuticals
The Great Lakes have been found to be contaminated with pharmaceuticals.
Tests done by Environment Canada, the federal environment department
found trace levels of pharmaceuticals near sewage treatment plants
and in open waters around the Great Lakes. Pharmaceuticals include
antibiotics, growth hormones, contraceptive drugs, veterinary
products, and pesticides for animals and household pets. Some
of these chemicals have endocrine disruptor properties, while
others induce antibiotic resistance to bacteria.
- Invasive
species
Invasive species cause severe ecological damage by disrupting
food chains and threatening biodiversity. The IJC has identified
three open “doorways” into the Great Lakes: the front
door is the discharge of untreated ballast water or sludge brought
in by foreign ships; the side door is the Chicago Canal that allows
foreign species such as the Asian Carp to find their way from
the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes; and the back door is
the fish markets that sell live bait and live fish for aquariums
or aquaculture that are dumped into the lakes. In addition to
promoting a second barrier in the Chicago Canal, the IJC has recommended
that Canada and the United States develop workable, enforceable
ballast water standards and fund public education programs.
-
Urban development
Annex 13 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement seeks to reduce
pollution from non-point sources such as runoff from urban and
agricultural lands. All around the Great Lakes basin, farmland
and green spaces are being converted to residential areas even
though the populations are relatively stable. This urban sprawl
increases polluted runoff from paved surfaces and the new roads
that are built to service these communities. It increases air
pollution by increasing the number of people commuting long distances
and the number of vehicles on the road, and it destroys animal
and plant habitat. The IJC has been promoting the management of
growth around the Great Lakes as an important part of creating
sustainable cities and protecting land and water.
-
Water use
The IJC has pointed out that water quality and water quantity
are inextricably linked. They are concerned about the risk to
the Great Lakes of future consumption of water, small-scale removals,
diversions and climate change. All of these could reduce the amount
of water available in the lakes and affect water quality.
-
Climate change
Climate change is expected to bring warmer temperatures and more
severe storms to the Great Lakes regions. It is predicted that
there will be lower water levels in the Great Lakes as moisture
evaporates because of warmer temperatures and less ice cover.
This will have a significant impact on navigation and hydro generation
in the Great Lakes. It will also have negative environmental effects
such as reducing wetlands. The IJC is also studying the impact
of climate change on groundwater. For
more information, see the Climate
Change and Water FAQ.
- “Dead
zones” in Lake Erie
The outbreak of botulism in Lake Erie and the re-emergence of
“dead zones” are old problems in a new guise, causing
concern.
Back
to Top
25.
What is Canada doing to address new
and existing water quality problems in the Great Lakes?
In
Canada the Great Lakes Action Plan 2000-2005 has been developed
to co-ordinate the activities of the federal government, the government
of Ontario and the actions taken in cooperation with the United
States federal and state agencies. The framework for the Plan focuses
on the restoration of the environment in Areas of Concern, the problems
with exotic species and the root causes of many of the stresses
on the environment and human health in the Great Lakes Basin.
For
more information on Canada’s Great Lakes Action Plan, see
Environment Canada’s web site at:
www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/greatlakes/action-plan-e.html
Back
to Top
26.
What is the United States doing to address
new and existing water quality
problems on the Great Lakes?
The
United States General Accounting Office did a study to assess progress
in restoring the Great Lakes Basin. The study identified numerous
federal and state programs directed toward restoration activities,
but concluded that there was not enough co-ordination between the
strategies to be effective. They recommended that the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Great Lakes National Program Office develop
an overarching Great Lakes strategy.
In
response to this study, Representatives of Great Lakes states in
the House of Representatives introduced legislation that would authorize
funding for the restoration of the Great Lakes. The bill, called
the Great Lakes Restoration Financing Act of 2003, would give states
funding for restoration in the form of block grants, authorizing
$4 billion over 5 years.
It
would also create a Great Lakes Advisory Board, including governors
of the Great Lakes states, representatives of the federal government,
local mayors and the business, scientific and advocacy communities.
Previously, funding has been provided for similar restoration projects
in the Florida Everglades and for Chesapeake Bay in Virginia and
Maryland. In a similar move, the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration
Act was introduced into the United States Senate.
For
ongoing information about the activities of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in the Great Lakes States, see: www.epa.gov/region5/
Back
to Top
27.
What are the Canadian Environmental
Law Association views on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River
ecosystem?
The
Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) has been actively
involved in the cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes for three
decades. CELA is a coalition member of Great Lakes United. CELA’s
Great Lakes work can be found in numerous presentations and publications
available on the CELA web site
Back
to Top
28.
How can I find out more about the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem?
Information
about the International Joint Commission, its reports and current
and past activities, including the Boundary Waters Treaty and the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, can be found on the IJC
web site
Environment
Canada is the lead agency in Canada responsible for the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. Information about all aspects of the Agreement
can be found on its web site at:
www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/
In
the United States, the Great Lakes Office of the Environmental Protection
Agency is responsible for ensuring that the eight states implement
the provisions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Information
on activities related to the agreement in the United States can
be found at:
www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa
In
Ontario, the Ministry of the Environment provides information on
its activities related to the Great Lakes, including its fish advisories,
at: www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/greatlakes/
Information
on all critical Great Lakes issues from the perspective of non-governmental
organizations can be found on the web site of Great Lakes United,
including a comprehensive study called “The Fate of the Great
Lakes: Sustaining or Draining the Sweetwater Seas?” at: www.glu.org
A
web site containing daily environmental articles on the Great Lakes
is available at:
www.greatlakesdirectory.org
Back
to Top
|
