Great Lakes: North America’s Freshwater in Jeopardy Term Paper

Introduction

We all know that the foundation of human existence and life on earth is dependent on water. As the most common and abundant liquid in the world, water is at the heart of global environmental issues. Increasing demands for water by the world’s growing and increasingly more affluent populations threaten to create widespread shortages of freshwater. Water, in many ways, defines how we live and determines the limit of sustainable development. Unlike water from rivers and streams, lakes are depressions in the earth that hold some of the earth’s vital freshwater. The source of the water in lakes may be rivers, streams, groundwater, rainfall, melting snow runoff, or a combination of these. However, any of these sources may carry contaminants. Because water exits from these water bodies at a slow rate, pollutants can become trapped. For this reason, lakes are particularly vulnerable to the deposit of pollutants from the air and to pollution from human activity (Jacobson, 2005).

Main body

As it is the five lakes that hold the largest system of fresh surface water in the world, North America’s Great Lakes are a freshwater resource that is in great peril. The five Great Lakes and their connecting channels and the St Lawrence River create one integrated ecosystem stretching from the heart of the North American continent to the Atlantic Ocean (Bruch 2005, p. 119). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Great Lakes contain 20% of the Earth’s and about 84% of the United States surface freshwater (EPA, 2001). In estimate, the Great Lakes consist of about 22,000 cubic kilometers of water spread over 94,250 square miles. Each year, the lakes provide more than 6.7 million cubic meters of water to municipalities and a big chunk of that goes to the industry sector (See Figure 1). The lakes also support a commercial fishery worth about $13 million as of 2002, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and a sport-fishing industry of nearly $1.3 billion as of 2001, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Presently, about 25% of Canadians and 10% of Americans- a total of more than 33 million people–live in the Great Lakes watershed (Fields, 2005).

Since the 1950s, the Great Lakes have faced tremendous stresses because of land use, fisheries, and erosion (see Figure 2). For example, commercial fishing begins around the 1820s with the largest fish harvests recorded in 1889 and 1899 at 147 million pounds (U.S. EPA, 1995). Since the 1950s, the average annual catches have been about 110 million pounds. The overall value of fisheries has declined due to larger more desirable fish giving way to smaller, less-valued species. Today, lake trout, sturgeon, and lake herring survive in reduced numbers when they once were abundant. The fact is that the lake trout were being devastated by the eel-like sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), which had made its way into the Great Lakes as a result of the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway and threatens a fishery valued at $1.55 billion per year (Ferreri & Taylor, 1999). In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire because of contaminants floating on its surface (Bruch 2005, p. 120). Mackenzie (1996) reported that nine hundred families were moved from Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York, because of a leaking hazardous-waste dump in 1976. Other dumps along the Niagara River were found to be leaking dioxins into the river and from there into Lake Ontario. Eagle populations were decreasing, and cormorants with seriously deformed bills were being found. Their health problems were the result of persistent, toxic, bioaccumulative contaminants pouring into the lakes. Wetlands were being drained and decimated reduced the total extent of wetlands by four-fifths of what was there 150 years ago (Marans et al., 1998). Recently, dead fish were being washed up on the shores of Lake Erie as a result of excessive algal growth in the lake (Jarvis, 2006).

Aside from those ecosystem stresses, the Great Lakes have been reported to be shrinking. Muller (2000) reported that “water levels in the lakes are at their lowest levels in 35 years, causing headaches for shipping companies, manufacturers, and other industries that depend on the lakes for transportation or power”. The impact of decreased water levels in the Great Lakes is devastating because giant cargo ships must lighten their loads to avoid running aground. Water levels in the middle Great Lakes are as much as three-and-a-half feet lower than their recent high, in the summer of 1997.

In the special feature of National Geographic, Mitchell (2002) identified three major reasons for the decline of water levels in the Great Lakes:

Precipitation

Below-average precipitation throughout the watershed has robbed the lakes of some natural replenishment. Less winter snow means less spring runoff into lake-feeding tributaries.

Temperature

Warmer temperatures have increased the rate of both evaporations from lake surfaces and transpiration from trees and other plants ashore, which in turn drains the aquifers beneath them. In winter, reduced ice cover further increases evaporation.

Consumption

Most lake water withdrawn for municipal drinking and industrial uses returns to the system after treatment or in the flow of recharged groundwater. Chicago, though, sends its 2.4-billion-gallons-a-day draw on to the Mississippi after treatment.

Barringer (2007) also revealed that gravel mining early in the 20th century by private companies and dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers, particularly in the mid-1960s, may have widened and deepened the St. Clair River, through which lakes Huron and Michigan form the drain into Lake Erie. “The flow may be eroding the riverbed. The erosion may in turn result in increased outflow more than can be replenished by rain or snowmelt”. In fact, “water levels in Lakes Michigan and Huron had dropped three feet since 1999 and were about seven inches above the record low set in 1964”.

To deter the worsening problems in the Great Lakes, the U.S. government intervention focused on the Great Lakes has involved efforts to unify water quality regulations among the eight states and various Native American tribes located in the Basin. This unification has placed particular emphasis on setting stringent standards for releases of toxic contaminants deemed to pose unusually serious ecological and environmental health risks. As in the case of the earlier federal water pollution control initiative, this latter effort, best-known as the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI), stems from the failure of individual states to reach common ground. Enormous variations in state standards and growing concern over toxic contamination in the Lakes prompted the eight governors of Great Lakes states to sign the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement (GLTSCA) in 1986. This agreement endorsed the concept of “virtual elimination” of the release of persistent toxic substances into the Lakes, following the 1978 lead of the GLWQA. It also set forth a number of commitments to move toward a more unified approach to this problem, including an effort to eliminate state-by-state disparities. Some states with particularly stiff standards, such as Michigan, were especially active in promoting this accord. The premiers of Ontario and Quebec also became signatories to the Agreement through a separate Memorandum of Understanding in 1988 (Rabe, 1997).

Conclusion

Fortunately, numerous efforts are now underway to protect and preserve the Great Lakes. In the State of the Great Lakes 2007, communities, states, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and local industry are now working together to remediate contaminated sediments in U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs) with funding provided through the U.S. Great Lakes Legacy Act. Since the inception of the Act in 2002, sediment remediation has been completed at three U.S. AOC sites (Ruddiman Creek and Ruddiman Pond in Michigan, Black Lagoon in Michigan, and Newton Creek and Hog Island Inlet in Wisconsin). For the monitoring part, people have focused on monitoring physical, biological, and chemical parameters with monitoring occurring on a five-year rotation of one Great Lake per year. Also, a binational Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory has been established that currently provides information on 1,137 monitoring programs in the basin. The International Joint Commission maintains a Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Research Inventory of the many funded projects that help increase people’s knowledge about the structure and function of the Great Lakes. Together the government, various agencies, organizations, and ordinary people will join hands to protect and preserve the Great Lakes. We all need to do our part in maintaining the Great Lakes through remedial actions for cleanup of the areas of concern and lake-wide management plans to be implemented thoroughly.

Timeline of the State of the Great Lakes (Adapted from Eric McGuinness, The Spectator, 2006).

The 1950s

• Lake Erie is “dying” becomes one of the continent’s biggest environmental news stories. Phosphorus from sewage and detergents spurred algae growth which when decomposing sucked oxygen out of the water, killing other forms of life.
• Fish-eating birds such as bald eagles, double-crested cormorants, and herring gulls were failing to reproduce. Toxic chemicals, including the insecticide DDT, were later blamed.
• The International Joint Commission (IJC) reports major concern over pollutants in the Niagara River. The St. Lawrence Seaway opens in 1959, allowing alien species like sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) to enter the lakes in ballast water carried by ocean-going ships.

The 1960s

• More wastes are discharged into the lakes and persistent toxic substances begin to accumulate in the food chain. Rachel Carson publishes Silent Spring, raising widespread concern about pollution’s effects on human health and the environment.
• 1965: The IJC recommends a reduction of phosphorus, a move especially beneficial for lakes Erie and Ontario.
• 1969: The oily surface of the Cuyahoga River in downtown Cleveland catches fire. University of Toronto students and faculty from Pollution Probe.

The 1970s

• The first major crisis over eating Great Lakes fish is triggered when toxic mercury contamination is found in fish from lakes St. Clair and Erie. The U.S. Environmental Agency is created.
• 1971: Environment Canada is created, talks begin for a Canada- U.S. water quality agreement; Canada and Ontario sign a deal on the lake’s ecosystem; manufacture of toxic PCBs is halted.
• 1976: Seepage of chemical wastes into neighborhood basements from the Love Canal toxic chemical dump in Niagara Falls, N.Y. become a major environmental scandal.
• 1978: The second Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement introduces the idea of zero discharge of toxic chemicals and of virtually eliminating persistent toxic substances.

The 1980s

• Concern about chemicals in the lakes peaks with a series of scientific discoveries. Industries begin to show leadership in pollution prevention.
• Scientists measure significant declines in many dangerous chemicals in birds and fish along with improved reproductive success in some birds, but a Burlington scientist reports the presence of toxic dioxin in herring gull eggs.
• 1982: The IJC identifies Hamilton Harbor and 38 other contaminated places around the lakes as Areas of Concern. The list is expanded to 42 in 1985.
• 1987: Zebra mussels from Europe are discovered in the lakes, the Canada-U.S. water quality agreement is amended and the two nations agree to clean up the Areas of Concern.

1990-2006

• Levels of persistent toxins, while lower, are still high enough to threaten human health, particularly children’s.
• 1994: Collingwood Harbor is the first Area of Concern removed from the list of 42.
• 1997: Canada and the U.S. sign a strategy supposed to lead to the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances.
• 2000: E. coli bacteria from farm waste contaminate municipal water wells in Walkerton, Ont., sickening 2,300 and killing seven.
• 2001: State of the Great Lakes report, says 25 percent of indicators improved, 50 percent are mixed and 25 percent are worse.
• 2006: Dead fish were being washed up on the shores of Lake Erie as a result of excess algal growth.

Works Cited

Barringer, Felicity. Water Levels in 3 Great Lakes Dip Far Below Normal. New York Times, 156.54036 (2007): A11.

Bruch, Carl (Ed.). Public Participation in the Governance of International Freshwater Resources. Tokyo, JPN: United Nations University Press, 2005.

Ferreri, C.P., and Taylor, W.W. (Eds.). Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Bi-national Perspective. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1999.

Fields, Scott. Great Lakes: Resource at risk. Environmental Health Perspectives 113.3 (2005): 164

Jacobson, Robert (Ed.). Surface water: Rivers and lakes. Water: No Longer Taken for Granted. Detroit: Gale Group, 2006.

Jarvis, Anne. The massive dead zone in Lake Erie puzzles scientists, Standard, (2006): A9.

MacKenzie, Susan Hill. Integrated Resource Planning and Management: The Ecosystem Approach in the Great Lakes Basin. Washington: Island Press, 1996.

Marans, Robert W., et al. Trends and Emerging Environmental Issues in the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor: Michigan Sea Grant College Program, 1998.

McGuinness, Eric. Great Lakes, great problems; We’ve been trying to clean the lakes for decades and spent millions doing so. Huge problems remain unsolved. A meeting tonight at City Hall asks the question: Where do we go from here? The Spectator, (2006): A10.

Mitchell, John G. Down the drain? National Geographic 202.3 (2002): 34-52.

Muller, Joann. These days the Great Lakes aren’t so great. Business Week, 3681(2000).

Rabe, Barry G. Politics of ecosystem management in the Great Lakes Basin. American Review of Canadian Studies 27.3 (1997): 411-36.

U.S. EPA. State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights.

U.S. EPA. The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, 3^rd edition. Chicago, IL: EPA #905-B-95-001, 1995.