International Joint Commission - The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement review

Tell us what
you think

Publications

Scope

Participants were asked whether they thought that the Agreement deals with everything it should, and three questions were used to probe for responses:

Are the purpose and scope of the Agreement appropriate for 2006 and beyond? If not, how should they be expanded or limited in a revised Agreement?
Are parts of the Agreement out of date? If so, what are they and should they be revised or deleted?
Does the Agreement address all critical issues? If not, what is missing and what are the most important two or three of these?

Framing the issue
Dealing with aquatic invasive species
Including the St. Lawrence River
Other issues proposed for inclusion

Framing the Issue

One expert, a retired senior government official, recalled that the general purpose of the Agreement is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem" (Article II) and he framed the issue of scope as follows:

Although not an official vision for the future of the resource, it [the purpose] seemed to be something that people could remember and work toward in their day-to-day activities. In hindsight, it is a bit narrow and stovepipe in its approach. ... Perhaps now is the time to articulate a better vision for the future. Do we need to consider such things as the full ecosystem rather than just water quality? Do we need to look at the St. Lawrence River as well? Perhaps we should consider the economic and social aspects that flow from the resource. The original version served us well for the first 20 years, but it is time to move on.

Participants expressed widely divergent views on whether the Agreement should deal with more than it does today and three streams of thought emerged: (1) those who want no expansion of the Agreement but, rather, an intensified effort toward implementing the current one; (2) those who appear to support an expansion, albeit somewhat hesitantly; and (3) those who are enthusiastic about adding to the Agreement. By and large, the second and third categories outweighed the first.

One binational environmental group put it, "The review should not be so broad in its intent as to be looking at scrapping the Agreement or doing a wholesale rewrite and renegotiation of it. But it should also be seen as more than a simple tinkering exercise." This organization also urged that the focus of the Agreement not be changed:

The Agreement should remain as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It should not be changed to the "sustainability" agreement or some other intent that strives to solve all the problems in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin. The focus of the Agreement should remain on water quality. With the understanding that we have developed over the past decades, we may find that we need to add additional topics to the Agreement (probably through annexes) in order to more adequately address water quality problems. This includes topics such as climate change impacts, urban development, invasive species, etc. But they should always be looked at from the perspective of impact on quality.

A retired government scientist, with many years of experience in the basin, articulated reasons, which were shared by others, for not expanding the current scope of the Agreement:

The Governments have never been able to find sufficient funding to address Great Lakes water quality, let alone the ecosystem or the watershed. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves with an Agreement whose mandate is so large that it will be meaningless, nothing more than 'motherhood and apple pie.' We will not have the personnel, science, knowledge, wisdom or political will to do anything but talk. I do not believe that the citizens of the basin want that. Nor do I believe it is what responsible stewardship entails.

Among other participants, outright opposition to a broader scope gave way to hesitant support - with the caveat that the Agreement not become too broad. This position was well expressed by a member of a binational environmental group:

Specifically on whether or not and how the Agreement should be reviewed, the NGO community is in discussions right now to figure out how to advise you in more detail on how that should happen. We are in concert, in unity together saying that 'Yes, the Agreement must remain a vital, crucial force in the region, it must be revived and it must be invigorated.' But there are concerns that if the review is too broad, it could weaken the Agreement, or milestones and timelines could be lost, or the rewriting and the renegotiation could take a very lengthy amount of time. But there is also concern that because of so many of the emerging issues, such as invasive species, that we shouldn't just keep it restricted to the scope that it was originally founded on.

Another group stated its case as follows:

We, as an organization, have opposed changing the Agreement in the past. ... We're not strongly opposed to it today, and I think there are many good arguments that can be made. We could use this opportunity to re-invigorate and re-elevate the prominence of the IJC and its role in the region and the Agreement as an important part of the institutional fabric we have to protect and restore the Great Lakes.

In a public meeting, the city's mayor argued for expansion: "The Agreement should take a full ecosystem approach and not be limited to water quality. Invasive species, water levels, water diversions and other issues are of great importance to the future integrity of the resource and should be recognized in the Agreement."

The regional coordinator of a binational environmental group also supported expansion, noting that, in addition to some persistent problems, new ones have emerged such as invasive species, climate change and urban development: "We have reached a point where we have to wonder about the integration of all this into the Agreement."

Many other people - from environmentalists to ordinary citizens - made similar comments:

The review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement affords an excellent opportunity to update the list of problems that must be taken into account in the management of the Great Lakes basin.

Does the Agreement cover everything it should? No, we don't believe it does.

The Water Quality Agreement should be revitalized, as it can and should reflect how far we have come in understanding the science of water quality issues and how much our new understanding tells us about what we don't know and, lastly, what this means in the context of our Great Lakes experience over the last century.

The list of additional issues proposed for inclusion in the Agreement was fairly extensive, and best summarized by a county executive who made the following intervention:

[We recommend] that any update to the Agreement recognizes the serious threat from biological pollution by invasive species and takes a much stronger position on control of existing invasive species and prevention of further introduction; includes a greater focus on processes occurring in the near-to-shore areas of the lakes that are causing continued problems with eutrophication and growth of nuisance algae; develops some method of addressing atmospheric transport from outside the Great Lakes basin as a serious source of contaminants and recognizes the difficulty presented to localities when expectations for remediating these substances are placed at the local level; continues in its strong support for remedial actions both within the Areas of Concern and within the Lakes proper; and incorporates greater emphasis on the impact of the contributing watersheds of the Lakes into the language of the Agreement.

Others, however, worried that, as a result of the review, the Agreement would be revised to encompass too much. "I think we need some criteria for deciding what the scope of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement should be," said one participant during the Web dialogue. "The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement cannot be everything for everyone." Since the Agreement is based on the Boundary Waters Treaty, this person's criteria for inclusion included scale (transboundary aspect, not local nature), injury (potential for injury to health and property) and water quality (water pollutants):

[The] enabling legislation is water-focused, pollution-focused and injury-focused, whether we like it or not. The upshot is that any revisions in the language [of the Agreement] must respect the constitutional powers and abilities of the Governments to implement and deliver the Agreement. If you couch the Agreement in vague, ambitious terms that involve needed actions that are not within the powers of the Governments, the federal Governments, then you will, in fact, kneecap the Agreement. If you couch the Agreement in terms that the Governments cannot deliver, then the Agreement will fail."

This cautionary note was explicitly sounded in connection with proposals to have the Agreement take more of an ecosystem approach than it does at present:

The ecosystem concept is already in the Agreement. To call it a Great Lakes Ecosystem Management Agreement is to use language that has an inherent imprecision of meaning. ... People know clearly what water is, but not many understand with any corresponding clarity what an ecosystem is. The Governments have clear jurisdiction over transboundary waters, but certainly not over the ecosystem, which is in essence everything. A similar critical view can be applied to the ideal of a sustainability agreement. Again, with a lot of discussion and debate, it's another vague and ambitious concept that's a buzzword. We don't have any agreement on what sustainability means. The Governments don't have jurisdiction over Great Lakes sustainability. The jurisdictional issues are Byzantine, as are the policy disconnections, contrary to any notion of sustainability.

Dealing with Aquatic Invasive Species

The problem of aquatic invasive species was the subject of widespread concern and the issue most often proposed for inclusion in the Agreement by those who supported broadening its scope:

One of the main reasons for including the issue of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is because they are the most significant threat to biodiversity.

Non-indigenous species are a severe threat to biodiversity and ecological integrity and every possible measure should be taken to stop the introduction of new species or at least reduce the introduction rate, which is about one new species every seven to eight months. Nowadays, very little is done to protect our systems from non-indigenous species. This has to change.

I argue that AIS [aquatic invasive species] cover a broad spectrum of taxonomic groups (mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, spiny water flea) and that prevention and control should be part of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Many utilities spend millions of dollars to combat zebra and quagga mussel infestations, which clog water intake valves. Also, beds of Eurasian water milfoil clog recreational waterways, requiring either mechanical removal or chemical treatment.

However, there were some dissenting voices. One, for example, insisted that the Agreement is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing the problem. "Most of the damage from the inadvertent introduction of exotic species seems to be to fisheries resources," he wrote during the Web dialogue, and continued:

The Great Lakes Fishery Convention is a well-established existing bilateral instrument that could be used to address these threats to fisheries. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission could take on the full responsibility for protecting the fisheries from exotic species introductions. Surely, this is where the biodiversity responsibility lies and not with trying to reframe the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Another participant, who works in the shipping industry, reported reading that 20,000 new species of animals were discovered around the world last year alone: "I would suggest the researchers are finding one new species every eight months in the Great Lakes not because new species are continually arriving, but because researchers are looking for them more diligently than ever before and finding species that may have been here for a long time," he said.

Overwhelmingly, though, the view was that the issue of invasive species should be addressed by a separate Annex to the Agreement. There were also many who argued that the scope of the Agreement should include terrestrial invasive species as well as aquatics. And one expert in a Coast Guard advised: "If AIS is to be included in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, all vectors and pathways [not just ballast water] should be discussed (aquaculture, pet industry, etc.) for inclusion."

Measures related to ocean-going ships in the Great Lakes were often suggested as a way to address aquatic invasive species, given the linkage between their discharge of ballast water and the introduction of exotic species. The ideas ranged from more regulations and control technologies to using market forces to change shipping practices:

Invasive species ... invasions could be minimized by the exchange of ballast water prior to ships entering the Great Lakes basin. ...The Agreement should require that federal Governments will put in place laws requiring compliance and take steps to monitor same.

As you consider the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, I would urge that there be careful consideration to ... what can be done to control additional introduction of invasive species ...We really have to look very carefully at additional control measures on ocean shipping. Now that may involve ballast water treatment. That does not deal, however, with ship ... hull fouling that can result in invasives coming in. There are a number of measures that can be taken [such as fines for ballast water discharges].

There is just a very, very marginal benefit for most companies using ocean shipping into the Lakes. So market forces might well result in most ocean shipping into the Lakes ending if the industry was liable for any damages resulting from those invasives. If they were, you know, subject to fines for biological pollutants, there's a good chance that much of the ocean shipping would end.

A marketing and transportation expert advised looking at whether it makes sense to continue to have ocean ships come into the Great Lakes: "Is the benefit of ocean shipping in the Lakes worth the cost?" he asked, stating that it accounts for less than seven per cent of total tonnage moving on the Great Lakes in a given year and that annual transportation cost savings to manufacturers, retailers and others on the U.S. and Canadian sides of the basin amounts to just $55 million.

Some questioned completeness of this economic estimate associated with ocean-going shipping in the Great Lakes. Another transportation expert put it this way during the Web dialogue:

I would cautiously suggest an examination of actual feasibility - and examine it in the context of other modes. At the present time the railroads (both U.S. and Canadian) are already at capacity in that corridor, and while they would gladly move the cargo, they would be looking at governments to foot the bill for infrastructure improvements needed - at considerably more than $55 million. The trucks are at over capacity. The cargo moved is predominantly steel, which is going to the steel mills around the Great Lakes, of which only two of 16 are not in some form of financial difficulty. The outgoing cargo is predominantly grain, which is moving at increased levels [on the Great Lakes] because of the hurricane-induced problems ... .

Others cautioned against taking action that might have unintended trade and economic consequences. It was noted that the sea lamprey - the first exotic known to have taken up residence in the Great Lakes - was discovered in Lake Ontario in the 1830s, at about the time the Erie Canal first connected Lake Erie to the Hudson River, and that the Welland Canal and Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago opened other potential conduits to the Great Lakes for invasive species. All this was long before the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1959:

"My point is that the problem we confront started a long time ago. ... Closing the Welland Canal [now] would not eradicate the zebra mussel or the spiny water flea or the round goby, nor would it serve any other useful purpose. I suspect that whatever environmental peril was invited by the opening of the Great Lakes to the rest of the world's commercial waterways, the peril is already an irrevocable fait accompli. In retrospect, the decision to build the St. Lawrence Seaway and its predecessors may well have been environmentally unsound, but to close it now would be economically unsound and quite probably environmentally irrelevant. ... One can hardly evaluate the costs and benefits of closing the Great Lakes to foreign shipping without addressing the larger question of whether foreign trade per se is beneficial or harmful.

Including the St. Lawrence River

In Quebec, not surprisingly, there were calls for the St. Lawrence River, downstream of the international boundary at Cornwall, Ontario, and Massena, New York, to be included in the Agreement. Even in Quebec City, 500 kilometres from the Great Lakes, the view was that the region was an integral part of the larger Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. As one elected official put it: "These two entities [the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River] constitute one and the same ecosystem, one and the same ecological unit, completely indivisible. We think that they must be dealt with together."

The ecosystem perspective was the general rationale for including the St. Lawrence River, and calls to do this came from outside Quebec as well, including from various locations in the United States:

The Agreement should be revised to include the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River to ensure a full ecosystem approach. There is no way to separate these two connected waterways. The water quality and quantity of the Great Lakes is the water quality and quantity of the St. Lawrence. The problems and solutions must be considered for the entire system.

To ensure that the ecosystem approach is taken, we do need to look not just in the Great Lakes basin but also into the St. Lawrence River ecosystem as well, and whether or not the Agreement needs to have a greater impact downstream, as well as assessing threats that are coming into the basin, such as air pollution and global warming.

In addition to the ecosystem perspective, pragmatic arguments were made based exclusively on water quality issues: "Some studies indicate that the Great Lakes account for between 33 and 40 per cent of the pollutants in the Saint Lawrence," said one participant who called the river the spillway of the Great Lakes. "As a result, everything that is done there or that isn't done there has an impact on the river." Many people echoed these comments:

The Agreement needs to go beyond old borders. As an example, persistent contaminants introduced in the Lake Superior watershed near Duluth or Thunder Bay will pass through the different lakes, come in the St. Lawrence River, pass the old border of the Agreement near Massena and Cornwall, and end up in the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence. The same holds true for nutrients causing eutrophication in the St. Lawrence. ... Everything done in the Great Lakes has an effect on the functioning of the downstream waters. Therefore, these downstream waters should be (in one way or another) included in the Agreement.

Every day, thousands of residents [of our area] drink water that comes from the St. Lawrence. Similarly, many demand access to beaches that are safe for swimming. All this underscores the need for an improvement in the quality of the water of the Great Lakes, especially through a revision in the Canada-U.S. accord [Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement].

Invasive species were cited as an example of why management of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basins needs to be better integrated: "Invasive species, introduced by accident or deliberately, impact equally on aquatic life in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes....Many of these species migrate toward Quebec; other species, introduced into the St. Lawrence, make their way to the Great Lakes."

A program manager for a regional environmental group in Quebec looked to the IJC to help bring groups together in the two areas: "We would very much like that you had a capacity to establish a network of AOCs, LaMPs, RAPs, the ZIP (zone d'intervention prioritaire) committees in Quebec and the conservation authorities; this would give us the ability to exchange [information] and provide a better integration of upstream and downstream environmental forces."

Other Issues Proposed for Inclusion

One environmental organization prepared a detailed review of issues and identified their top three priorities: an annex to deal with pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupters (see discussion of emerging chemicals below); a specific annex to address the threat posed by road salts (see below); and the addition of a public petition mechanism on the effectiveness and implementation of the Agreement.

Emerging Chemicals

Pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors attracted a lot of attention, especially on the Web dialogue, and gave rise to suggestions that a new Annex be devoted to these. "But," asked one participant, "why limit it to just pharmaceuticals? There is a whole host of chemicals that enter the Great Lakes through our municipal sewage systems." Provisions to deal with new chemicals were also proposed for inclusion:

The Agreement must address emerging chemical threats to the Great Lakes in a preventative way. This need is urgent, as certain emerging chemical threats have already been shown to adversely affect wildlife, and we still know little about synergistic, additive or interactive effects of legacy and emerging contaminants. High production volume flame retardants such as decabrominated diphenyl ethers and halogenated flame retardants, perfluorinated compounds, certain pharmaceuticals and personal care products are some examples of relatively newer and known contaminants and chemical threats to Great Lakes water quality.

There are many, many new chemicals of concern that regular, routine environmental tests aren't even available for. These chemicals need to be addressed in a process. Because there are so many chemicals coming out and so many new substances being created, it is requested that, over the long term, there be a process to deal with emerging synthetic chemicals of concern and that this be represented in the revised Agreement.

Proposed strategies for addressing issues related to emerging chemicals included updating the beneficial use impairments section in Annex 2 of the Agreement by replacing what are perceived as less important issues [such as taste and odor problems in drinking water] with "more significant issues, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals and other contaminants of emerging concern." Others proposed a variety of initiatives, including take back and disposal programs for pharmaceuticals, improved treatment of domestic sewage and management of biosolids, better treatment and management of livestock waste and regulation of select contaminants.

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle⁶ was widely endorsed as an operating principle of the Agreement: "If there is one element that could stand to be improved," one participant advised, "I would think it would be the incorporation of this [the precautionary principle] into the Agreement, this whole concept and not just as it relates to toxic pollutants, but as it relates to the protection of streams and watersheds." Or another: "The specific thing that I would like to encourage the IJC to do is to consider incorporating the precautionary principle into the ecosystem approach if you do open up the Agreement for revision."

An attorney and scientist from an environmental organization suggested that greater international collaboration might be one approach to implementing a precautionary approach in the management of persistent toxic substances:

"It is neither efficient nor effective to have two similar countries conducting separate assessments if the same scientific principles are being used. Greater collaboration and cooperation is needed to quickly assess the ever-growing list of potential chemical risks to ecosystems like the Great Lakes. With respect to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, it is recommended that the Governments collaborate on research into chemical risks and take a precautionary approach to management of substances in the absence of complete assessments. ... Until the time when an assessment of a substance is complete, the Governments should adapt the assessment of another comparable jurisdiction, such as another OECD [Organization for Economic Coopertion and Development] country."

Others talked about the idea behind the precautionary principle, even if they did not cite it specifically: "We should be assuming that chemicals are guilty and preventing their release until we fully understand their effect," said one person. "We should be testing for the full range of possible effects - immune system, reproduction, cancer, all of the possible health effects - before they are allowed in any discharges to the system."

Consistency with Other Agreements

A number of participants pointed to the number of important developments in international and other environmental agreements since the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was last reviewed. "At the least," one wrote during the Web dialogue, "it ought to be revised to make explicit reference to and to be made consistent with leading ones such as the Rio declaration, the Biodiversity and Climate Change Conventions, the Stockholm Convention on POPs [persistent organic pollutants], UNECE [United Nations Economic Commission for Europe] Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution Agreement, the Aarhus Convention on Public Participation, as well as others."

Incorporating a reference to the Climate Change Convention into the Agreement, for example, was seen as facilitating basinwide action to address climate change. As another participant put it, "In our view, changes in water levels and water quality that climate change will eventually entail need to be part of the analysis undertaken by the International Joint Commission."

Another proposal for making the Agreement consistent with other agreements was to incorporate into it such principles as the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and the principle of public participation in decision-making. Specific instruments have been designed to give effect to these principles. All this, it was suggested, would make the Agreement "more effective and consistent with global developments."

In addition to international agreements, it was proposed that the Agreement make reference to and be made consistent with other developments in the Great Lakes basin and other organizations such as the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Great Lakes Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Governors.

Road Salts

Two organizations recommended that a specific annex be added to the Agreement to address the threat from the application of road salts. Findings from a five-year study by Environment Canada and Health Canada were cited that road salts are harming the environment and biological diversity, and that they should be considered toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was noted that once chloride is in our water, it can only be diluted and not removed. Therefore, the use of road salts should be minimized and alternative practices and substances used to maintain road safety. It was proposed that the annex include strategies to review best management practices, the regulatory context, thresholds for loadings of chlorides and sodium, and to establish monitoring and reporting that will ensure a consistent basinwide approach over time.

Land Use

Specific standards to encourage better land-use planning practices were suggested for inclusion in a revised Agreement. One expert put it this way:

It might be possible to incorporate into the Agreement some specific objectives for land use best practices. For example, the Center for Watershed Protection has demonstrated unequivocally that irreversible ecosystem damage occurs within urban river systems when land cover is more than 20 percent impervious surfaces. There appears to be a very solid scientific basis for this, so I wonder whether we might incorporate something into the Agreement that says, for example, that "impervious surfaces should not exceed 20 percent of the land surface in any watershed within the Great Lakes basin. ... Recent work by the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board suggests that we can also be explicit about the kinds of activities allowed in headwater reaches and groundwater recharge zones versus other parts of a watershed.

One watershed council said that an improved understanding of the relationship between urbanization, water and environmental quality is critical:

It is important to do this because urbanization as a multi-faceted phenomenon appears to be rapidly outstripping the capacity of our institutional forms of governance to manage it in a sustainable manner to protect vital ecological values. Much of our ecological and socio-economic future in the Great Lakes basin is tied to how well public and private institutions can manage the urbanization process.

The council urged implementation of the Commission's recommendations for urban growth management as outlined in the Commission's Twelfth Biennial Report.

Mercury Emissions

Numerous participants in the public meetings, Web dialogue and written comment process expressed concern about the human health effects from the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. As one environmental group noted: "Overall, mercury emissions to the environment have dropped in recent years. While this is good news, one important source continues to increase: emissions from coal-fired power plants." Several people recommended that a specific annex to the Agreement deal with mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Groundwater

Meeting participants noted that, since the Agreement deals primarily with the surface waters of the Great Lakes and the tributaries to them, groundwater, which is addressed in Annex 16 of the Agreement, has generally been ignored. They suggested that both groundwater quality and quantity need to be included in a revised agreement. "Aquifers are being pumped dry and ponds have dried up," "groundwater flows are a concern in the Lake Simcoe region because of their direct connection to the lake," "many of these aquifers discharge directly into streams, lakes and other such areas, so if they were contaminated it would get into the water sources," "aquifers are being depleted and mined so Lake Michigan is under threat of reduced water quantity and Climate change will just make it worse," and, "any Annex 2001 diversions to replace groundwater with Lake Michigan water should be under the control of the Commission" were typical of the comments heard during the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Review meetings.

Monitoring

Many participants spoke about the need to improve monitoring (see section on Expectations above). It was noted that the Agreement creates an important surveillance and monitoring program, but that this relies heavily on information provided by the Governments. It was recommended that the Annex 11 be updated to explicitly empower the Commission to collect independent data and encourage the public to participate in a surveillance, monitoring and reporting program.

Sewage

In a similar vein, many participants identified issues or products that should be taken into account by the Agreement: "It absolutely surprises me that in the Water Quality Agreement, there's a list of a couple of hundred chemicals that are dangerous, but sewage and manure are not in there - nowhere."

The head of a watershed organization suggested that the Governments commit to making needed investments in wastewater treatment as they review the Agreement:

Accordingly, we urge the Governments to refocus their efforts on the control of pollution from municipal sources to the Great Lakes with particular emphasis on addressing combined and storm sewer overflow problems in a renewed Agreement. It is clear that a major funding effort is required to bridge the growing gap in wastewater infrastructure investment and to accelerate the clean up of long-standing pollution problems in urban areas throughout the basin and especially in Areas of Concern.

Further reductions in phosphorus loadings and measures to reduce the influx of nitrates, including from atmospheric deposition and subsequent runoff caused by emissions of nitrous oxides from fossil-fuel burning sources were also recommended by an environmental organization.

Lake Simcoe

A Canadian Member of Parliament asked that the Commission recommend that Lake Simcoe be designated as an Area of Concern: "My request to you today is to exercise that jurisdiction and recognize the critical environmental needs of one of the largest bodies of water within the Great Lakes basin, a body of water that's fully connected with the boundary waters that the Great Lakes represent, and that's Lake Simcoe....[T]he health of Lake Simcoe is both affected by impacts from other parts of the Great Lakes basin and also has downstream impact on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence waterway."

Watershed Approach

The need to link local watershed plans to the Agreement was an issue that often arose. On the Web dialogue, a county official reported that there are 11 sub-watershed management plans in his county: "Although they are all within the Great Lakes Basin, they have been developed independently and devoid of any input from Great Lakes issues and initiatives. The Water Quality Agreement and Great Lakes programs and regional initiatives have not made it down to a local planning level where these watershed plans are being written .... It seems to me that the Agreement needs to recognize these watershed management plans and planning process."

Other participants made similar points:

I'd like to see more explicit requirements incorporated into the updated Agreement for the development and implementation of watershed management plans. And these plans must require clear identification of major ecological issues to be addressed in the watershed, the measures to be taken to alleviate the issues, and a proposed schedule of any implementation actions.

Local processes haven't got the scientific resource base to discover the appropriate things to do. Nor can they afford to go out and hire the talent. They need manageable reference points and technical support that they can draw on to support their processes. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement should support the provision of that technical support to local processes.

Natural hydrologic regimes

The natural range of variation in lake levels and tributary flows was an issue with some participants, who raised questions about the Agreement's protection of them: "There is growing recognition of the importance of these natural flow patterns and their influence on the chemical and biological integrity of freshwater aquatic systems," said one expert during the Web dialogue.

Another participant made a similar point: "Despite their importance to the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin ecosystem, hydrology and watershed hydraulics are absent from the current Water Quality Agreement." Citing a 1984 article in a scientific journal, this individual proposed a new purpose statement: "To restore and maintain the conditions of air, water, land and metabolic activities, consistent with the integrity of chemical, physical, biological, human and aesthetic elements comprising the hydrological cycle of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, so to achieve their highest use."

Wetlands

As the earlier section on expectations indicated, the preservation of wetlands was a widespread issue of concern among participants. Some translated this concern into proposals for specific language in a revised Agreement. For example:

I would very much like to see ... wetland protection be explicitly incorporated into the Agreement in stronger language than currently exists in Annex 12, which does not mention recreational impacts (marinas, boating activities, etc.) or cottage development. I would also like to see Annex 17 strengthened to include research that deals with predicting impacts of climate change (warmer water, lower water levels, higher runoff) on wetland ecology. These Great Lakes coastal wetlands are critical habitat to fish, mammals and waterfowl, and once they're gone, they're gone.

The Agreement has to leap a hurdle in rehabilitating the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem in a way that protects [in advance] against the effects of problems that endanger water quality. Clearly, the lakes have to be cleaned up, but we must go farther than that. This means, for example, considering the establishment of riparian zones as a means of reducing pollution brought on by runoff.

Interbasin Transfers of Water

Some concern was expressed about importations of water into the Great Lakes: "The absence of the term 'interbasin transfer' from the Agreement strongly implies that this form of replenishing the Great Lakes water is considered to be a viable option," said one participant, who felt that the only practical source would be Canada's Arctic watershed and that any such activity would be catastrophic to the region's ecosystem. "Can anyone state categorically in writing that no such diversions are or will be considered now or in the future?" A scientist was one of many people who agreed with this position:

One area that still appears to need some refinement is interbasin transfers, taking water from one Great Lake and dumping it into another Great Lake. In my mind, as a biologist, good ecosystem management would suggest that water should be returned to the point of taking, and that's something that needs to be incorporated a little further into the Agreement.

Cargo Sweeping

The practice of "cargo sweeping" from ships⁷ was said to violate the provisions of Annex 4 of the Agreement, which prohibits the discharge of oil and hazardous polluting substances from vessels. It was proposed that the Commission study the practice on the Great Lakes and issue a report clarifying how common cargo sweeping is and the ways that Canada and United States can halt it.

Aboriginal Representation

Although the Governments indicated that they would undertake direct consultations with Tribes and First Nations, a number of participants in the Commission's public meetings represented aboriginal communities. Several proposed that the Agreement include provisions for interfacing with Tribes and First Nations, such as including Aboriginal people in planning processes, representation and public appointments.

Role of Local Governments

Not surprisingly, a number of mayors argued that cities and towns play an important role in the protection and rehabilitation of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River and, consequently, should be formally recognized by the Agreement. "The first recommendation I'd like to make here this evening is that the Agreement should be revised to recognize and include local governments as full partners with other governments," said one mayor, who went on to state:

Local governments must be at the same table as the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada, the province of Quebec and Ontario, and the American Great Lakes states to identify the problems and determine solutions. This is critical because local governments are responsible for implementing many, if not most, of the solutions through everything from stormwater runoff to wastewater treatment to land use and to dealing with initiatives ... that threaten water quality in our area. Local governments also effectively and directly communicate with and engage communities about issues like water conservation and invasive species. It is only through full partnership with local governments that Great Lakes policies and programs can attain the desired results on the ground and in the water.

This recommendation was also made in a written submission by the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, representing mayors and other local officials across the basin in both countries.

Agreement Institutions

Others commented on the need to review the structure and functions of the Commission's Agreement boards. As one former government official suggested:

The chairs of the Water Quality Board are from Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the remainder of the board is populated with government officials. Hence, the Water Quality Board members are charged with reviewing the programs and policies of themselves. It is an objectionable paradox that must be addressed during the review of Article VIII.

This participant also pointed out that the charge to the Commission under Article VII to "assist in the implementation of the Agreement" is an important role, but its definition is vague. "The Governments must make clear the meaning and expectations embodied in Articles VII and VIII so that the Commission's actions regarding the bilateral institutions and the [Great Lakes] Regional Office satisfy the expressed requirements of the Governments through these articles."

Radionuclides

Several participants commented on the need for stronger provisions in the Agreement to address the release of radionuclides, such as updating the limits on radioactivity in drinking water in Annex 1, reassessing environmental monitoring at nuclear facilities as recommended by the Commission's 1997 Nuclear Task Force Report, and the management of nuclear wastes. One written submission stated that, due to the porous nature of the limestone formations in southern Ontario, the potential underground disposal of high-level waste in the Lake Huron coastal zone could be one of the most critical issues for the long-term quality of Lake Huron and the lower Great Lakes. Another pointed out that little has been done to establish the programs called for in Article VI regarding the discharge of radioactive materials into the Great Lakes system.

⁶ A popular definition of the precautionary principle was articulated in a consensus statement from a January 1998 conference organized by the Science and Environmental Health Network and others in Racine, Wisconsin: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof."

⁷ Cargo sweeping is described in the U.S. Coast Guard's 2002 Enforcement Policy for Cargo Residues on the Great Lakes as "the incidental discharge of cargo residues, what are commonly called 'cargo sweepings,' from commercial dry cargo carriers." The Enforcement Policy "does not alter the strict prohibition of any discharge of oily waste, untreated sewage, plastics, dunnage, or other things commonly understood to be "garbage," from vessels on the Great Lakes."

Last update: