A great deal has been learned about how to remediate and protect water quality in the Great Lakes since the 1960s and 1970s. As previously mentioned, three of Canada’s areas of concern have been delisted, and two more are “in recovery.” Priority actions for the delisting of five more areas of concern are planned to be complete over the next five years,[149] and the goal is to delist the final seven areas of concern by 2025.[150] A body of best practices in the remediation of areas of concern is building, and with it the pace of delisting areas of concern is picking up.

The Great Lakes, however, are a dynamic system subject and reacting to change. The resurgence of algal blooms, despite continued lower phosphorus inputs, points to new forces that must be taken into account in planning remediation efforts. Non-point sources of phosphorus and other pollutants are now of significant concern. The Great Lakes system’s response to these inputs is complicated by other changes occurring in the system resulting from invasive species, climate change and the influence of a growing population in the region.

For these reasons, the Committee asked witnesses about remediation efforts underway or planned in their areas in order for it to make recommendations regarding best practices that will facilitate further remediation of areas of environmental concern within the Great Lakes Basin. Some witnesses described efforts taking place or planned to remediate specific areas of concern. Other witnesses described efforts underway to address the newer problem of non-point source pollution, particularly phosphorus. Finally, the need to prevent future water quality issues in the face of environmental change was also discussed. The following sections present the Committee’s observations regarding best practices obtained from testimony on these three themes.

Best Practices in Remediating Areas of Concern

Best practices for remediating water quality include both “best physical techniques,” such as methods to manage contaminated sediments or design sewer infrastructure, as well as “best processes,” which are means of ensuring that these techniques are implemented efficiently and effectively. The Committee heard of many best physical techniques, but did not study them in any depth. However, the Committee heard a great deal of testimony regarding “best processes,” including best means of developing and implementing remediation efforts, as well as techniques for sharing best practices, particularly in the context of areas of concern.

A. Best Means of Developing and Implementing Remediation Efforts

The remediation process involves identifying problems and finding solutions. As the Committee heard, it is a collaborative effort involving “a number of federal and provincial agencies, but also involved members of the community from the first nations, industry, municipalities, conservation authorities, non-profits, and other members of the public.”[151] Remediation of areas of concern is an enormous task. It requires significant collaboration and participation, particularly on the part of the community, including any local First Nations.

Various witnesses testified that when members of local communities are involved in the remediation process, they come up with solutions. “The remedial action plans are populated almost entirely by volunteers, by people who are participating in helping to solve the problem.”[152]

Many examples were given of the importance of community involvement in developing remediation plans. Indeed, many community groups testified during the study. In the case of every area of concern addressed during the study, the local community was engaged in identifying key environmental issues to be addressed in a remedial action plan and in implementing the plan.[153] For example, in Hamilton, the Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) “encourages community activity and action by offering school programs, volunteer programs and events, community workshops, evaluative reporting on current issues, and opportunities for digital engagement and promotion.”[154] The outreach function of BARC was cited as a best practice in community involvement.[155]

A second example of a collaborative initiative held up as a best practice is found in the St. Lawrence River Institute, which originated from the areas of concern remediation process. This unique organization has education and public engagement at its core. The Executive Director of the Institute noted a number of methods by which the public is involved in the Bay of Quinte area of concern:

Also important in both of these [areas of concern] has been public engagement, engaging the public in the process. For example, the landowners who were involved in these [best management practice] implementations are volunteers. We have public consultation and other mechanisms, and even children's water festivals that happen both at the St. Lawrence [area of concern], with over 2,000 students being educated each year on these issues, and at the Bay of Quinte. For the last 21 years, our river institute has hosted an annual symposium to talk about Great Lakes water quality and St. Lawrence water quality.[156]

In addition to the importance of community engagement in the collaborative remedial process, witnesses also made it clear that it is important to involve First Nations in a “respectful and cooperative way.”[157] First Nations have a key role in improving the Great Lakes fishery as it is important to Aboriginal interests.[158] In the case of the St. Lawrence River area of concern, “respectful and cooperative relationships have been developed based on focusing on common interests of a healthy river for all.”[159]

B. Techniques for Sharing Best Practices

Areas of environmental concern have both unique and shared characteristics. Hamilton Harbour contains a large coal tar deposit at Randle Reef. Toronto has a significant waste- and stormwater management challenge. The Bay of Quinte has sediments contaminated with arsenic. These challenges may seem to be unique, but they have commonalities. Waste- and stormwater management is needed in all regions, particularly in urban areas in both Canada and the United States, but also on agricultural lands. Sediment contamination is a common problem in many areas of concern, even though the contaminant may vary from area to area.

As a result of these commonalities, and because jurisdictions have different capacities to deal with water quality problems, sharing techniques is vital. For instance, it was suggested that the sediment management techniques used for Randle Reef could also be used to help remediate the Thunder Bay area of concern.[160] It was also noted that Toronto’s Wet Weather Flow Master Plan “has set an example for across the basin.”[161]

However, ensuring that everyone has access to these ideas, let alone resources to put them in place, is challenging. As one witness expressed it, “honestly, people in cities are … so busy dealing with the next crisis that even being able to sit down and write down the key elements [of the best practices they have devised is a challenge.]”[162]

However, some initiatives are underway to facilitate sharing best practices. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative has a website devoted to best practices as well as a similar Municipal Adaptation and Resiliency Service targeted at climate change adaptation techniques.

People gathering to discuss issues is also a good way to disseminate ideas. One example given to the Committee was a binational meeting where a large-scale farmer described how he uses a mulch that retains water and nutrients in the soil and prevents runoff when left on fields.[163] Another example was given where the idea of low technology but much-appreciated wheelchair access to beaches was disseminated at an annual meeting.[164]

Industry can also form networks to share best practices. For example, the Committee heard of wastewater treatment plant operators building a community to share best practices, particularly regarding the optimization of their systems.[165]

Information on best practices can also be disseminated through programs delivered by all levels of government. For example, a witness testified that environmental farm plans have funded 23,000 best practices over about 13,000 different farms of the 59,000 farms in Ontario.[166] The program includes workshops as well as funding opportunities. The Committee was told that some people attend the workshops in order to learn about and implement best practices without even receiving the funding.[167] As a second example, Environment Canada is “also working with conservation authorities in key watersheds to demonstrate best practices in watershed planning and management.”[168]

Applying Best Practices on a Broader Scale to Address Non-Point Source Pollution

Many of the Great Lakes’ water quality problems of the 1970s were addressed primarily through regulations and government funding: phosphorus in detergents was limited, toxic chemicals such as PCBs and DDT were banned, and governments on both sides of the border invested billions of dollars in wastewater treatment plants.[169] While one of the principal causes of degraded water quality in the 1970s — phosphorus — has re-emerged as a key factor in today’s water quality issues, the same mix of approaches that worked so well to clean up the Great Lakes in the 1970s and 1980s is not applicable to current circumstances.

Unlike the 1970s, today’s water quality issues are characterized by non-point sources of pollution, which are not so readily addressed through regulation and infrastructure improvements. As expressed by one witness, “the only effective strategy for managing and reducing these inputs is targeted and sustained non-point source control programs, focussed on urban and rural sources alike.”[170] Numerous examples were given of best practices which can be used to address non-point sources of pollution.

For rural and agricultural areas, best practices include:

• applying “the right fertilizer source at the right rate, at the right time, and in the right place”;[171]
• not spreading manure on frozen or snow-covered ground where it will not sink in;[172]
• maintaining cover crops;[173]
• inspecting, maintaining and upgrading septic systems;[174]
• containing stored manure in secure structures;[175]
• recovering nutrients from wastewater;[176] and
• maintaining buffer zones and other structures in riparian areas to control runoff and erosion.[177]

In the urban context, one witness succinctly described the non-point source problem:

Hard surfaces and other forms of development like parking lots and roofs and so forth don't allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. The water is conveyed very quickly, it picks up pollutants, and reaches receiving waters without treatment. We need to slow that water down, we need to hold it back and allow it to travel through the landscape more slowly and release or deposit some of those nutrients like phosphorus, for example, and E. coli and other materials before they reach receiving waters.[178]

As explained by another witness, “the way you treat stormwater is that you treat it at the source to try to reduce the impact, you treat it as it's being conveyed to the tributaries, and you deal with it at end of pipe.”[179] Best management practices cited in this regard include:

• changing attitudes towards property “from straight mowed lawns”;[180]
• having more natural areas or at least porous surfaces rather than hard surfaces for more natural water infiltration;[181]
• constructing stormwater ponds or wetlands;[182]
• if space is constrained, constructing underground water storage systems;[183]
• disconnecting downspouts from the sewer system;[184]
• “introducing leaky pipes instead of the conventional plastic or concrete pipes for stormwater runoff”;[185] and
• maintaining roadside ditches rather than installing sidewalks and underground storm sewers.[186]

End-of-pipe water treatment is generally improved by adding infrastructure. However, one witness explained to the Committee that a best practice to follow before large investments are made in infrastructure is to optimize existing treatment facilities to “work… the plants to their fullest possible capacity” to “maximize the extraction of nutrients and harmful things from the sewage stream.”[187]

A final best practice discussed by a number of witnesses applies to rural regions and urban centres alike: restoring wetlands and constructing more wetland acres around all the Great Lakes, which could have a significant beneficial impact on water quality.[188] One means of possibly achieving this end is through habitat banking, under which wetland loss is allowed if habitat is created or enhanced elsewhere to compensate. While there was some support for this concept,[189] one witness thought that habitat banking could be perceived as “simply licensing somebody to destroy something.”[190]

Witnesses agreed that best practices such as those mentioned above have been scientifically proven to be effective.[191] Further, witnesses testified that voluntary and incentive-based stewardship programs effectively encourage the adoption of best practices by “pull[ing] everybody together” to contribute time and resources.[192]

Yet, despite initiatives to educate the public and support the adoption of best practices, Great Lakes water quality in many areas is still unsatisfactory. This discrepancy was explained by the extent to which best practices have been adopted. As expressed by one witness: “It really is a sense of scale. What we really need across the Great Lakes is a program of implementation of best management practices. The greater the scale, the greater the uptake within the watershed, the more improvements you'll see.”[193] One witness was in agreement that scaling up best practices could be achieved by “setting up a large-scale ecological goods and services program across Canada.”[194] Numerous other witnesses expressed the idea that more funding for incentive and education programs would increase the implementation of best practices.[195]

While there was widespread agreement that voluntary and incentive-based stewardship programs are necessary, some witnesses also suggested that, in certain circumstances, regulation may be an appropriate complementary means of tackling non-point sources of pollution.

Several witnesses urged caution in attempting to regulate a solution to non-point source pollution. One witness emphasized that there is no guarantee that regulations would be effective in all areas. In particular, uncertainty remains surrounding the extent to which some water quality problems in the Great Lakes are the result of a changing food web because of invasive species rather than excessive inputs of non-point source phosphorus. While it is widely accepted that reductions of phosphorus inputs into Lake Erie are necessary, scientists are less sure that reductions would be effective for Lake Huron, for instance.[196] Furthermore, regulations may “interfere… with farmers making a living and with what consumers want to purchase and do with their homes,”[197] which naturally results in resistance to regulations.

Nonetheless, there may be limited circumstances in which new regulatory measures could be effective and generally accepted. Witnesses suggested that consideration could be given to regulating the following practices:

• spreading manure or any other fertilizer containing phosphorus on frozen ground or ground that is covered by snow;[198]
• maintaining crop cover to prevent erosion and phosphorus delivery in the spring;[199]
• routine inspecting of septic systems, or inspecting septic systems at the time of title transfer, if there is a sale of property;[200]
• including phosphorus in certain consumer products, which could be addressed through amendments to the Concentration of Phosphorus in Certain Cleaning Products Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;[201] and
• using synthetic fertilizers for agricultural purposes at times of the year when crops cannot take up nutrients.[202]

However, not all regulatory measures need be structured in a classic command and control model. As one witness pointed out, “the regulatory policy category also includes tools that focus on training, certification, and cross-compliance between programs, all of which are effective, as well as more publicly palatable.”[203] An example of regulation providing for cross-compliance among programs is a situation where a landowner is required to complete an environmental farm plan before being eligible to participate in an incentive program.[204] Another example of a complementary use of regulations and incentives might be to provide financial incentives to meet a regulated target.[205]

Best Practices in Management: Preventive, Adaptive and Holistic Management

A. Preventive and Adaptive Management

Perhaps the most simple and commonly cited “lesson learned” from 40 years of remediating water quality problems in the Great Lakes is that it is less expensive and more expedient to prevent pollution in the first place than to try to clean it up after the fact. As advised by one witness who testified about best practices in remediation: “First and foremost, don't pollute your environment is probably a good start.”[206] Implicit in pollution prevention is adaptive management, which means constantly evaluating and improving the efficacy of a management approach in response to changing conditions or other factors.[207]

While the days of lax regulation and disposing of pollutants directly into rivers and lakes are gone, opportunities abound to prevent further pollution to Great Lakes’ waters through adaptive management. Witnesses identified four issues for which planners and authorities need to be preparing in order to prevent further and large-scale degradation of Great Lakes water quality.

The first issue is future population growth. As mentioned earlier, over 80% of Ontario’s population growth — a projected increase of 3.7 million people — is expected to occur in the Golden Horseshoe area around Lake Ontario between now and 2031.[208] The further urbanization of this area and other areas within the Great Lakes Basin will result in more potential sources of pollution as well as loss of natural ground cover to paved and other hard surfaces through which water cannot infiltrate.[209]

On a global scale, the Earth’s population is expected to grow to 8 billion people by 2030 and to 9 billion people by 2050.[210] One witness warned that Canada, being one of the world’s leading exporters of agricultural products, will be expected literally to “feed… the world — produce… goods and services that other countries have difficulty producing because they don’t have the benefit of these water resources — [which] is likely to be the larger pressure and opportunity or benefit for Canada in terms of population increase.”[211]

Several witnesses discussed the need to “develop preventative measures before the stresses to the Great Lakes [due to population growth] manifest.”[212] They called on authorities to be proactive rather than reactive, which “makes sense; it’s less expensive.”[213] The correlative of this requirement is an opportunity for Ontario and Canada to take advantage of the Great Lakes water resources to feed the world’s growing population, which requires careful planning to carry out in a sustainable manner.[214]

A second issue witnesses identified as requiring preventive and adaptive management is the threat posed by the possible introduction of new invasive species.[215] Trying to control invasive species once they make their way into the Great Lakes system is an expensive proposition at best. For example, a representative from Fisheries and Oceans Canada testified that that Department has been collaborating with the United States through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for more than 50 years to deliver “the world’s largest ongoing invasive species control program suppressing sea lamprey in the Great Lakes,” which is needed to protect fisheries valued at $1.2 billion.[216] Although the program “comes at a considerable cost,”[217] it is regarded as successful because it has resulted in a 90% reduction in the sea lamprey population since the early 1960s.[218] Not all invasive species can be controlled at any cost, however.[219]

Another, more recent invasive species that has taken root in the Great Lakes Basin is phragmites, or common reed, which is an aggressive perennial grass. One witness described phragmites as turning “wetlands into monocultures where they don’t function effectively as a habitat or from a water quality or a flood control standpoint.”[220]

As mentioned previously, zebra and quagga mussels are posing significant problems in the Great Lakes. Monitoring in Lake Ontario in 2008 showed an estimated 9.7 trillion of such dreissenid mussels in the nearshore areas of the lake, with “the ability to filter the volume of the nearshore water in roughly one to seven days.”[221] Currently, there is no management strategy to deal with these mussels.[222]

While it is too late to prevent the introduction of sea lamprey, phragmites and zebra and quagga mussels to the Great Lakes system, there is still time to take measures to prevent other invasive species, such as Asian carp, from reaching the lakes. Numerous witnesses characterized Asian carp as posing an extremely serious threat to the ecology of the Great Lakes.[223]

Since Asian carp are approaching the Great Lakes system from the Mississippi Basin in the south, the United States has a primary responsibility to prevent the introduction.[224] However, Canada’s interests are also at stake in preventing these fish from entering the Great Lakes, and Canada should continue to be involved in preventing their introduction. A representative from Fisheries and Oceans Canada told the Committee that the department is “currently drafting national aquatic invasive species regulations, with a goal of preventing the introduction and establishment of high-risk aquatic invasive species.”[225] Further, the Committee learned that a new Asian carp research lab will soon be opening at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters.[226]

A third issue some witnesses discussed as requiring preventive and adaptive management is new toxic chemicals being found in the Great Lakes. The Committee heard that under the chemical management plan, Environment Canada is “constantly assessing new chemicals and trying to prevent the release of harmful chemicals into the environment.”[227] Yet, certain toxic chemicals are still finding their way into the Great Lakes system. For example, mercury levels in the Great Lakes “are holding steady.”[228] A significant source of the mercury is air deposition from coal-fired thermal power plants in the United States, “and a measurable source is from China.”[229]

Other harmful chemicals in the Great Lakes are coming from local sources. Witnesses testified about the feminization of fish as a result of environmental estrogen exposure at some contaminated sites, such as the St. Clair River. Evidence of such an effect is that egg yolk proteins, typical of female fish, are found in male fish blood that has been exposed to environmental estrogens coming from industrial sites and from residential waste water treatment plants.[230] Various witnesses listed additional chemicals being found in the lakes, including brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated acids, antidepressants, antibiotics, and endocrine-disrupting substances.[231]

Several witnesses recommended the adoption of a more preventive approach to keep chemicals such as those listed above out of the Great Lakes.[232] They testified that current efforts to reduce the release of such chemicals should be increased.[233]

The fourth and final issue that witnesses raised as requiring preventive and adaptive management is climate change. Climate change is affecting wildlife species, both native and invasive, as well as human uses of the water, including for drinking, fishing, shipping and recreation.[234] Further, climate change is frustrating current efforts to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.[235]

Witnesses called both for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. In terms of mitigation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require further commitments — not just from all levels of government, but on a global scale as well.[236] Adaptation is necessarily a more local goal.

Adapting to climate change involves multiple facets. For example, as one witness explained, “in warmer temperatures certain fish species will not be able to spawn and will die out. We need to be ahead of the game and looking out for those fish interests.”[237] He suggested looking to the United States and learning from their habitat management practices, “because their temperatures today will be Canada’s temperatures tomorrow.”[238]

Another witness suggested that there is a need to develop the ability to retain water in Lake Huron — the only Canadian Great Lake for which there currently is no such ability — in order to better manage impacts of climate change.[239] As well, agricultural practices will have to adjust to changing weather patterns,[240] and communities and cities will need to build resilience to changing conditions.[241] Specifically, one witness called on the federal government to support communities in dealing with the increased flooding and droughts associated with climate change.[242]

More broadly, as stated by one witness: “every decision we make in terms of water will need to consider what will be happening in terms of climate change.”[243]

B. A Holistic Management Approach

In addition to the need to manage Great Lakes water quality in a preventive and adaptive manner, numerous witnesses throughout the study testified that it is difficult to manage water quality issues in isolation. They suggested that, beyond controlling point sources and pollution hotspots, the complex nature of the remaining water quality problems requires management at a more systemic, or holistic level.[244]

A good example of the need for holistic management centres on the phosphorus problem. Total phosphorus inputs have been reduced since the 1970s and, for a number of years, algal bloom problems were under control if not completely solved. But algal blooms have returned despite continued lower average inputs because of the influence of new agricultural practices, the presence of invasive mussels, low water levels and population growth.

The Great Lakes Basin is a “working, developed landscape”[245] supporting diverse human activities that can affect water quality in interrelated ways. As a result, numerous witnesses pointed to a need to manage human activities in the basin as a whole. As expressed by one witness:

What we really need to do is start managing the Great Lakes as ecosystems and manage them more holistically, including managing the fishery as well as the water quality at the same time, and the land use. It really takes a much more complex approach to the problem than just more or less phosphorus than what we are currently allowing in.[246]

Complicating matters is the fact that the Great Lakes straddle the international border, implicating two national governments in their management. There are institutions in place to facilitate binational cooperation in Great Lakes’ management, but witnesses noted that the mandates of these institutions are not broad enough to enable them to facilitate the management of fisheries, water quality and other water issues in an integrated manner. One witness suggested that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International Joint Commission, binational organizations mandated with fisheries management and water quality management respectively, should work more closely together.[247] In addition, it was noted that the importance of these two institutions should be recognized by the Canadian government fully funding the fishery commission[248] and appointing a third Canadian commissioner to the International Joint Commission.[249]