Nothing beats a road trip after a long hiatus from travel. Covering ground by car gives me an opportunity to reconnect with places around the Great Lakes that I have not been to in years. At the end of September, I drove from Chicago to Niagara Falls, Ontario, for the triennial Great Lakes Public Forum – more on that in a moment.  

In three days, I saw and sometimes touched two Great Lakes (Michigan and Ontario), one really excellent lake (St. Clair), three mighty rivers (St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara), and of course, the majestic Niagara Falls. 500 miles from end to end, and every drop of the water is shared. I missed Lake Erie only because I ran out of time for another detour.  

Seeing all this connected water in just a few days reminded me how urgent it is for us all to expand the vision of what it means to restore our Great Lakes. While we are making great strides in cleaning up the sins of the past, the lakes are changing before our eyes. Many communities still won’t enjoy the benefits of living so close to such immense fresh water even if we achieve current restoration goals. 

The trip would be worthwhile even with no destination, but I was bound to and from the Great Lakes Public Forum. The Forum happens every three years as a follow-up to the triennial “State of the Great Lakes” report issued by the United States and Canada. The report and the Forum are requirements under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the two countries. This year the Agreement celebrated its 50^th anniversary. Many of the attendees are government officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, and the state and provincial levels. The idea is that the governments review and discuss the findings with advocates, scientists, and, more generally, the people of the Great Lakes. I want to share a bit of what I saw and heard because it tells part of the story of what’s needed for a restored and protected Great Lakes in the future. 

Credit where it’s due. We are making admirable progress toward cleaning up the Great Lakes “Areas of Concern,” which are highly contaminated waters designated in 1987. In the U.S, much of the pollution in these “AOCs” lingered until the creation of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Congress appropriated an additional $1 billion in 2021 to fast-track cleanup of most of these sites by 2030. Advocates in Canada continue to seek a larger federal investment in Great Lakes restoration. Beach health continues to improve with reductions in chronic sewage overflows and increases in cleaning up stormwater with natural solutions and better infrastructure design, operations, and management. 

Not all the news is good. Invasive species already in the Great Lakes continue to devastate the ecology and economy of the region, requiring ongoing vigilance and spending. Nutrient pollution hotspots, largely fed by agriculture, plague large watersheds like Green Bay, Saginaw Bay, and Lake Erie. Algal blooms are showing up in cold Lake Superior. Our waters and lands are showing the impacts of a changing climate. While some fish consumption advisories are improving, emerging pollutants like PFAS and plastics are less “emerging” and more “present.”  

Disconnects abound. Sometimes government agencies are having one conversation while advocates are demanding another. Take drinking water.  The report gives Great Lakes drinking water a “good” or “green” score because the lakes can serve as a reliable source of drinking water when treated. But for someone who gets their water from Lake Erie, where the intakes have alert systems to detect the presence of toxic algae, that doesn’t feel right. And hundreds of communities that rely on lake water but distribute it through lead pipes don’t see their drinking water as “good.”  

Algal blooms and nutrient pollution is another searing hot example. While most of the presentations focused on understanding blooms and the investment being made in voluntary cleanups, questions from the audience were much more pointed. Are you going to regulate farms and animal feedlots to reduce pollution? Why are people bearing the cost and health burden of this pollution when we know what the problem is and what would solve it? Are people in those communities going to have a say in deciding how cleanup happens? And over and over – why is this taking so long? 

Many people, myself included, want answers from our elected officials who have the power to change policy and get more forceful in cleaning up farms and ensuring safe drinking water. It was clear those answers were not in that room. There were not many U.S. advocates in the room either, and I think that’s partially because people know the Forum is not where critical water decisions are made. 

Reflecting the people of the Great Lakes. Indigenous voices and advocates had a strong presence at the event. Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare gave opening comments on day two, describing the personal and tragic impacts on families that lack of access to clean water is having on Ontario First Nations communities. It echoed stories I have listened to from residents in American Great Lakes cities. After Chief Hare’s remarks, he sat with U.S. EPA Region 5 Administrator Debra Shore and Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault for an armchair conversation. Having seats at the table for more voices at high government decision-making levels is vital for sovereign Indigenous nations and all people and communities directly impacted by pollution. The U.S. has a long way to go to demonstrate that our governments are listening and taking the advice and direction of communities on the front lines of Great Lakes challenges. 

What’s next? Water is water, and we need it to be safe and plentiful in all its forms for all forms of life. But it’s clear that current policies and practices rooted in decades of history are not keeping up with our changing climate or addressing the reality that many lower-income communities and communities of color still do not enjoy the benefits of a safe and clean Great Lakes. We need a “whole system” approach to restoring and protecting the Great Lakes. One that is rooted in the science of the lakes as they are today and will be in the future. An approach that shows how decisions are made with the people impacted by those decisions fully at the table. One that makes sure the lakes and their waters are there for all life, when and how we need them.  

The Great Lakes should not leave anyone behind. That’s why the Alliance and I are building these ideas and principles into the critical programs that make a change on the ground. It’s a long road, and I’m glad you are on it with me.  

The post The Great Lakes Should Not Leave Anyone Behind appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Fluctuating lake levels and intense storms are getting more extreme and more frequent due to climate change. The threat these storms pose to Great Lakes shoreline communities — including damage to roads, marinas, water systems and coastal properties — is enormous. The Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study will look at areas around the region that are particularly vulnerable to water level changes and offer recommendations for ways these coastal communities can manage and adapt to changes brought on by the climate crisis. As the project moves forward in collaboration with Great Lakes states, the Corps should prioritize natural shorelines, enhanced coastal buffers like wetlands, and offshore reefs to dissipate wave energy as ways for communities to manage changes in lake levels.

Truly resilient shorelines won’t be built parcel by parcel, but miles at a time. Investing in the Great Lakes’ coasts needs to be a top priority for Congress, and this study is a critical step to identify the places most in need. The coasts are some of the most economically and ecologically important parts of the lakes, and we are looking forward to working with the Corps and the states to restore and protect our shores at the scale the Great Lakes deserve.

###

Media contact: Please connect with our media team at TeamGreatLakes@mrss.com.

The post Alliance Applauds Agreement to Move Forward with Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Note: This blog is part of a periodic series of updates from Don Jodrey, the Alliance’s Director of Federal Government Relations, with his view on Great Lakes policy from Washington, DC.

New legislation passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President in July, represents a major step forward for the U.S. to address the climate change threat. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contains a $369 billion investment in climate related spending and will transform America’s energy policy and put the U.S. on track to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. Through a series of tax incentives and direct spending, the Act invests in renewable energy and energy efficiency, including clean energy technology, solar panels and offshore wind; boosts electric vehicle markets; supports coastal resilience; and invests in communities most impacted by pollution.

But what does the Inflation Reduction Act and its climate change provisions mean for the Great Lakes and how do the programs it supports benefit our communities? Several provisions are beneficial to Great Lakes states, including $3.3 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to support coastal communities throughout the country, including in the Great Lakes, to prepare and build climate resilience to respond to major weather and climate events. For the last several years, communities around the Great Lakes have suffered from unpredictable fluctuations in lake levels and more frequent and intense precipitation and flooding. The NOAA funding will allow states, Tribes, and local governments to address these challenges.

The Act includes funding for nature-based solutions for climate change with $20 billion to support climate-smart agriculture, including the popular Environmental Quality Incentive Program. The program encourages farmers to plant cover crops, better manage water resources, and conserve grasslands. The Act also includes $5 billion for healthy forest conservation. Healthy forests, restored and undisturbed wetlands, and undisturbed prairies all pull carbon out of the atmosphere and complement other climate change measures.

The Act also invests in communities most impacted by pollution, including low-income communities and communities of color. In addition to accelerating clean energy investments in affordable housing and air quality monitoring, the Act includes $3 billion in environment and climate justice block grants to support enhanced community engagement.

Climate change is a serious threat to the Great Lakes, and the impacts are being felt today. The Inflation Reduction Act will help Great Lakes communities be more resilient to face this challenge.

The post Helping Great Lakes Communities Manage Climate Change Impacts appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Alex, based in Detroit, came to the Alliance in 2019 with a professional background in urban planning and community development. In her role as Community Planning Manager, Alex collaborates with leaders from local community organizations, city officials, and planning initiatives to advance green infrastructure and equitable community development goals.

Resources

Buffalo Niagra Waterkeeper

Friends of the Chicago River

Friends of the Rouge

Case Study
Green Stormwater Infrastructure in the Right-of-Way: 5 Case Studies

The post Alexandra Novak – Green Infrastructure appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

As Alliance for the Great Lakes president and CEO, Joel Brammeier oversees all aspects of the organization, leads a team of professionals across five locations, along with a base of more than 15,000 volunteers around the region dedicated to protecting clean water and building a sustainable future for the Great Lakes. Since joining the Alliance in 2001, Joel has become a leading voice on invasive species and water protection issues across the Great Lakes region. He has testified before Congress on invasive species solutions and advises state governors and Canadian provincial premiers on the implementation of the Great Lakes Compact, a binational agreement that ensures Great Lakes water stays in the basin.

Resources

The Great Lakes Region Is Not a ‘Climate Haven’ (Op-Ed)

Army Corps launching 8-state Great Lakes coastal resilience study

The post Joel Brammeier – Climate Change appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

We may be spared from many threats facing other regions, but the climate change threats facing the lakes are no less concerning.

“Our region is often referred to as a ‘climate refuge,’ a place where people from rapidly warming parts of the U.S. will seek shelter. We should prepare for this by acknowledging the problems climate change has already caused and the unpredictable future the region faces,” said Joel Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes President & CEO. “The Great Lakes region must plan now for climate change. The changes we make today can make the Great Lakes a healthy place for people who live here now and for future generations.”

Climate change can feel overwhelming. But we see hope for the future. We’ve identified the biggest climate change challenges facing the Great Lakes and actionable ideas that will ensure healthy lakes for future generations.

Volatile Water Levels

Climate Impact: The Great Lakes naturally swing between lows and highs over several decades. They have gone from record low water levels to record high levels within about a decade, a stunningly fast swing. These rapid transitions between extreme highs and lows represent a new cycle for the lakes. Scientists agree that the sharp shifts in water levels are related to climate change. Severe high water levels cause serious problems for waterfront properties and infrastructure like roads, marinas, and water systems. Extreme low levels cause problems for water intakes, shipping, and recreational infrastructure like marinas.

What we can do now: The main factors that affect water levels are rainfall and evaporation. We can’t control precipitation or ice cover, but we can be prepared to deal with fluctuating water levels. Natural shorelines, including dunes and wetlands, can weather these extremes. State and federal governments should plan now for how to invest in restoring our shorelines on a large scale. Communities can focus on ensuring construction does not harm natural shorelines while also adapting water systems and roads to weather this volatility.

Extreme Weather

Climate Impact: A warming climate will increase extreme weather events, including intense rains and severe drought. The Great Lakes region is already experiencing this impact. For example, last June, up to 7 inches of rain fell in less than 24 hours in the Detroit metro area, flooding thousands of homes and businesses and costing tens of millions of dollars in damage. Storm events like this are becoming more frequent. Often the impacts from these storms are not felt equitably. In Chicago, for instance, a study found that 87% of flood damage insurance claims were paid in communities of color.

What we can do now: Great Lakes communities can begin investing today to repair or replace failing wastewater systems. Federal and state agencies must ensure that these projects are climate-resilient, using green (natural) infrastructure that mimics nature’s ability to absorb water. And communities most impacted must have a seat at the table when project decisions are made to ensure equitable climate-resilient development.

Native Species at Risk

Climate Impact: Warming air temperatures are warming the lakes, threatening cold water species, and creating new habitat for non-native species. Lake Superior, notorious for its cold water, is warming faster than many large lakes around the world. The lake’s cold water has historically kept out many invasive species that thrive in other parts of the Great Lakes.

What we can do now: Numerous state and federal agencies manage fisheries and habitat restoration projects across the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative sets the agenda for federal spending and must be updated to ensure restoration efforts are climate-resilient.

Intensifying Harmful Algal Blooms

Climate Impact: The massive harmful algal bloom that covers western Lake Erie each summer threatens drinking water supplies and puts the region’s economy at risk, hampering tourism and recreational use. Warmer water fuels algal growth and extreme rains flush more nutrient pollution, the primary fuel for algae, off farm fields into waterways. Algal blooms are showing up in parts of the lakes, like Lake Superior, that have never experienced this problem.

What we can do now: The cause of the worst algal blooms is nutrient pollution flowing off agricultural lands. Farming practices and regulations must change to reduce nutrient pollution and prevent harmful algal blooms. Downstream communities that bear the brunt of water contamination and increased water treatment costs must be at the table when decisions are being made about solving this problem.

The post 4 Ways Climate Change Is Challenging the Great Lakes appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

For our 50th anniversary, we commissioned author and journalist Kari Lydersen to look at the Great Lakes and clean water issues that have shaped our region. Read the rest of the series here.

A warning rallies the region

In 1998, an obscure Canadian consulting company announced its intention to ship 158 million gallons of Lake Superior water to Asia.

Though that specific plan seemed unlikely to materialize, it was a warning that in a world increasingly plagued by droughts and warming temperatures, fresh clean Great Lakes water is an invaluable and potentially very lucrative commodity.

“There had been a fear for decades that with global water scarcity, sooner or later thirsty industry and people would come calling on the Great Lakes to their peril, to send Great Lakes water all over the continent or all over the world potentially,” says Peter Annin, author of The Great Lakes Water Wars.

“That really rallied the region to create a legal water management paradigm to keep Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes watershed. It wasn’t that 158 million gallons would harm Lake Superior, it would be virtually immeasurable. But it would have set a legal precedent. If you can send Great Lakes water to Asia, where can’t you send it?”

An epic battle begins

Thus was launched an epic battle to keep Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin. The Alliance (then the Lake Michigan Federation) and other lakes advocates began working tirelessly to persuade lawmakers and officials of the imminent threat, and craft policy to prevent diversions of Great Lakes water.

Alliance Vice President for Policy Molly Flanagan remembered that “there was this sense of scarcity in other parts of the country and fear in the Great Lakes region that those places might start to look to the Great Lakes as a source of water. In reality it would be astronomically expensive, but even the specter of that was enough to unify the region to say, ‘This is a really important resource for our communities, our economies, our way of life, and we’re keeping it here.’”

The effort required participation and ratification by all eight Great Lakes states and the federal government, including passage by Congress. Each state had to pass its own implementing legislation.

Flanagan, at the time working for the National Wildlife Federation, spearheaded collaboration with industry, farmers and other stakeholders to shepherd passage of the legislation in each state.

“In retrospect it was as challenging as you can imagine going into eight states and telling them they have to pass a piece of legislation exactly as written, and no they can’t change any word, no they can’t add or subtract anything,” Flanagan said. Despite the challenges, “the ratification of the Compact happened really rapidly, because there was a good understanding by each of the states that we really have a resource in the Great Lakes that’s worth protecting.”

Success: A shining example of bipartisanship

After ratification by each state, on Oct. 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Compact, which banned almost all diversions of water out of the basin. It also included a host of “remarkable,” in Annin’s words, sustainability and conservation measures.

The Compact was a shining example of bipartisanship, hashed out and adopted by both Republican- and Democrat-led states. Likewise after being signed by Bush, the provisions have been respected by subsequent administrations.

There were many thorny philosophical and practical questions. Could bottled water and beer be made in the Great Lakes — with Great Lakes Basin water — and sold outside the basin? How to deal with Chicago, which had been diverting millions or billions of gallons per day since the reversal of the Chicago River a century ago — by drawing drinking water from Lake Michigan and then sending treated wastewater out to the Mississippi River. What about municipalities that straddled the basin perimeter or lay just outside it?

Waukesha: Proving the Compact works

One such case presented a key legal and political challenge to the Compact. Waukesha, Wisconsin, just a mile and a half outside the basin near Milwaukee, is within a county that straddled the basin. Its water supply drawn from the ground was becoming increasingly contaminated with naturally occurring radium. The town wanted to be able to tap Lake Michigan water. Waukesha was eventually approved for an exception under the Compact, allowing it to use Lake Michigan water as long as it returns treated wastewater to the basin and meets stringent requirements for water conservation, efficiency and treatment.

Crafters of the Compact counted the resolution of the Waukesha matter as a victory, a logical and realistic solution that kept the Compact strong while providing a legal water supply to Waukesha if it plays by the rules.

The process that created the Great Lakes Compact also involved Canada, and U.S. governors work with Canadian premiers on protecting Great Lakes water and keeping it in the basin through an official agreement signed in 2005. The two Canadian provinces are also able to weigh in on any requests for diversions in the U.S.

Annin notes that the Compact is still seen “as a global model for international transboundary water management. And perhaps more miraculously, we had this bipartisan, multi-jurisdictional effort to protect one of the most important freshwater resources in the world on behalf of future generations, passed in the absence of a crisis. That doesn’t happen often.”

Climate change presents new challenges

When the Compact was signed, Great Lakes water levels were at nearly historic lows. Docks were left high and dry, barges were stranded in low rivers, and sport fishing and recreational boating were jeopardized as harbors drained. The appearance of the lakes receding before people’s eyes lent an even greater sense of urgency to the Compact.

Today, lake levels are high, in some lakes at record high levels. Last year neighborhoods around Lake Ontario were flooded, and shipping was jeopardized on the St. Lawrence Seaway flowing out of the Great Lakes. The lakefront running trail in Chicago is sometimes underwater. Lakefront properties are swamped with water or buffeted by waves causing massive erosion.

Fluctuation in lake levels is natural and ecologically healthy. But the fluctuations are expected to be more drastic — with higher highs and lower lows — and to happen more quickly because of climate change.

And lake levels are far from the only way that climate change is affecting the Great Lakes. Warming temperatures are likely to worsen harmful algal blooms, and increased heavy rains will likely increase the runoff of fertilizer from farms that feeds those blooms. Heavy rains will also likely cause more combined sewer overflows — overwhelming sewer systems and forcing municipalities to release untreated sewage into the lakes or tributaries. Warmer temperatures may favor some invasive species and harm important native species.

“In this era of big [lake level] swings and rapid change, it is all the more important and very fortunate to have something like the Great Lakes Compact in force so that in a period of high water, short-sighted officials don’t rush out and propose deals that end up looking terrible when we go back into a period of low water, which we always do,” Annin says. “We have more volatility, more uncertainty, so the importance of a stabilizing factor like the Compact is arguably more important than ever.”

The Compact as a model for addressing climate change

The Compact was an historic effort and symbol of bipartisan collaboration across jurisdictions. Hence it offers hope and best practices regarding how Great Lakes stakeholders can forge ahead to meet the challenges of climate change — both adapting to the inevitable and helping to curb climate change.

“How do we ensure we are as resilient as possible in the face of climate change?” asked Flanagan. “We’re seeing that exposed pretty starkly with high water levels and coastal erosion. We need to be thinking together about how to address these issues. It’s about taking a long view and looking at the resources as a whole instead of as individual pieces of property.”

Major infrastructure upgrades are needed to handle increasingly fluctuating lake levels and increasingly powerful storms — to protect shorelines and water systems from damage and to protect the lakes from increased pollution brought on by storms and flooding. It’s more important than ever to clean up legacy contamination, since storms could stir up contaminated sediment.

And with increased heat and economic and social stress related to climate change, Great Lakes communities will need to make sure the most vulnerable have access to the lakes themselves and to that most precious commodity: clean drinking water.

“The Compact is doing its job of keeping our Great Lakes water here where it belongs,” says Alliance President & CEO Joel Brammeier. “Our challenge remains to make sure everyone who lives here can enjoy that water safely — in their homes, their businesses and in the outdoors.”

The post The Great Lakes Compact and Climate Change appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

For our 50th anniversary, we commissioned author and journalist Kari Lydersen to look at the Great Lakes and clean water issues that have shaped our region. Read the rest of the series here.

Fighting point source pollution

In 2002, the Lake Michigan Federation sued the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) regarding untreated sewage that the district was discharging into rivers and Lake Michigan during heavy rainfalls.

Sewer overflows have been a chronic type of point source pollution in the Great Lakes and tributaries across the region, resulting – among other reasons – when rain over-whelms sewer systems that combine stormwater and sanitary sewage in pipes.

Point source pollution was the primary target of the Clean Water Act of 1972 — in addition to sewage, the chemicals and waste that factories, refineries and other industry once dumped into the water with abandon, causing the Cuyahoga River to infamously catch on fire.

Today MMSD has dramatically reduced sewer overflows, thanks to ambitious work building a deep tunnel to store overflow, reducing stormwater runoff through green infrastructure, and Clean Water Act oversight by the state of Wisconsin and local advocates.

The Alliance and MMSD are now both advancing the fight for a cleaner Great Lakes. And MMSD is a model for cities around the region that still struggle with CSOs.

Nonpoint source pollution rears its head

Drops in sewage overflows are a Clean Water Act success story, though they still persist as a major issue, especially with climate change and record-shattering rainfall overwhelming old Great Lakes sewer systems.

But the most problematic type of pollution now may be nonpoint source pollution in the form of runoff from agricultural fields into rivers and then the lakes, carrying nutrients from fertilizer that feed harmful algal blooms. These blooms can make water toxic to drink and touch, and lead to low-oxygen “dead zones.”

Agricultural runoff feeds harmful algal blooms

Algal blooms re-emerged in the 1990s as a serious Great Lakes problem after a respite achieved in the 1980s thanks to bans on high-phosphate laundry detergent adopted under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972. Founder Lee Botts led the Lake Michigan Federation in advocating strenuously for the bans, and Chicago under Mayor Richard M. Daley became the first city to institute a ban thanks to the Federation’s work.

But while such bans can address phosphorus from wastewater as a point source of pollution, there is currently no meaningful federal regulation of nonpoint source agricultural runoff.

The Clean Water Act doesn’t address it, and it’s not an easy thing to regulate since without one point of release, quantifying and proving the origin of pollution is complicated. But there are steps farmers and communities can take to drastically reduce runoff while providing other ecological and economic benefits. And regulations at the state and local level should mandate and increasingly incentivize best practices be used.

MMSD is also a leader in such efforts, working with farmers in the Milwaukee region and urban residents to reduce runoff. Among other things, the district has purchased more than 4,000 acres of undeveloped land for its Greenseams program, so that the land will remain as wetland and forest, providing buffers between farmland and waterways.

“The biggest key point is you have to look at this from a watershed perspective,” says MMSD executive director Kevin Shafer. “And we have to partner with farmers — they understand the water cycle as well as or better than anyone. They know that clean water helps them grow crops, feed cows.”

Dan Stoffel farms with his two brothers about 50 miles north of Milwaukee. Almost 30 years ago, he adopted no-till farming — meaning that he doesn’t plow under crop detritus at the end of the season but rather leaves it on the ground, which can mean much less fertilizer running off. Stoffel has also turned strips of his land into habitat for pollinators, growing beautiful native plants that block runoff from entering streams and rivers.

Stoffel says that while he likes helping the lakes and rivers, his main motivation is economic. “We’re trying to make a buck out here,” he says. “We’re finding that all these things dovetail into a profitable venture.”

Urban runoff pollutes the lakes

Urban runoff is also a damaging form of nonpoint source pollution, as water running off streets carries oil, chemicals, salt and debris into waterways and ultimately the lakes. MMSD partners with community residents and groups to help reduce runoff both directly into the rivers and into storm drains. Backed up combined sewers, along with polluting the rivers and lakes, also cause basement flooding that is devastating for many residents.

Shafer notes that older, lower-income neighborhoods tend to experience the worst flooding, so MMSD has prioritized creating partnerships and gaining residents’ trust in those communities — not always an easy task if people see the district as “big bad MMSD.”

Yvonne McCaskill is a retired Milwaukee schoolteacher and administrator who started a community group, the Century City Triangle Neighborhood Association, in North Milwaukee. Basement flooding was one of the big issues troubling residents, as in cities around the region.

So McCaskill began working with MMSD and the environmental group Clean Wisconsin to help residents install rain barrels and plant rain gardens with native plants that effectively soak up stormwater, keeping it out of sewers and the rivers. Clean Wisconsin Milwaukee Program Director and Staff Attorney Pam Ritger noted that over seven years the program has helped provide 53 rain gardens and 571 rain barrels, which are estimated to soak up 2.17 million gallons of rain a year.

“It’s wonderful to connect with communities and neighborhoods, to see how enthusiastic people are to be a part of solving the problem of polluted rivers and polluted lakes,” said Ritger, adding that there’s typically a celebration each summer for participants in the program, and many families come year after year.

McCaskill notes that partnerships between larger organizations and people in the com-munity are crucial, especially since larger policy groups may not understand the local needs and cultural context. For example, many of her neighbors are senior citizens who worried about the labor needed to install and maintain rain barrels. So she and her organization enlisted young people to install and maintain the barrels, and artists worked with locals to decorate them.

Just as reducing runoff has major economic benefits for farmers like Stoffel, working with other groups and agencies to reduce flooding and runoff in cities has to merge with efforts to increase civic participation and empower communities that have too long been marginalized.

“It’s not a one and done, we’re constantly having to respond to what’s going on in our environment,” McCaskill says. “Across the city these coalitions we’re building are really going to be important, and even more important for communities of color, because we have always been left behind. This is a great opportunity and a great time for communities of color to claim our spot.”

Sweeping change in the works for Lake Michigan’s Green Bay

Up the coast from Milwaukee in Green Bay, the stakes are high and sweeping change is in the works, thanks in part to work and collaborations fostered by the Alliance. Green Bay in Lake Michigan and the western basin of Lake Erie are arguably the parts of the Great Lakes most challenged by nutrient pollution, “shallow basins that have pretty large-scale problems” as Alliance senior policy manager Todd Brennan puts it.

In Green Bay and the Fox River that feeds it, much of the pollution emanates from manure from dairies; whereas in Lake Erie the main culprit is fertilizer running off agricultural fields into the Maumee River and its tributaries, with manure playing a significant role too.

One of the reasons tackling nonpoint source pollution is so challenging, Brennan ex-plains, is that the watersheds cut across numerous governmental jurisdictions. In the Green Bay area the Alliance has spearheaded collaborations between government, industry, farmers, and other community members including the Oneida Nation in planning and decision-making with a watershed-wide approach.

“The cities, farmers and businesses weren’t yet acting together, even though all of them were obligated to reduce pollution,” Brennan explained. “And there was a lot of opportunity and power in the different jurisdictions, cities, counties, and villages in the region coming together. Everyone had to come a deep understanding that we share the problem, and we are going to share in the solution.”

For five years the Alliance has hosted an annual farmer round table, where farmers come together for a day in a banquet hall and discuss their conservation practices and learn from each other. One of the Alliance’s partners in working with farmers is the Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance.

Jessica Schultz, executive director of that alliance, emphasizes that rather than the “doom and gloom and finger-pointing” that often characterize discussions of nonpoint source pollution, they aim to highlight positive work and possibilities. The Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance also helps county land conservation departments secure funds to deal with nutrient pollution.

“We need funding to help [farmers] change the way they are currently doing things, and we also need to make sure everyone who lives here takes ownership of the water,” Schultz said. “We need to provide people the support for change, and we need to build a culture where people want to continue that practice on their own.”

Brennan said it’s important to emphasize both annual actions — like tillage and cover crops — and permanent practices, like the Agricultural Runoff Treatment Systems that the Outagamie County Conservation Department instituted to treat farm field runoff somewhat like urban runoff: capturing, storing and harvesting the nutrients and sediment permanently. ““This is a game changer” Brennan said, “to make progress on our goals we need to get a chunk of reductions that we can count on and the permanent practices are the way to get that.”

Dan Diedrich is one of the Green Bay-area farmers helping to make a difference. His family has been farming there for more than a century; he runs a dairy and grows crops. Diedrich says concern for the environment has long been a family value, and he practices no-till farming as much as possible and has manure from the dairy injected into the ground so it won’t run off. He notes that purchasing equipment for such practices is costly and it can take time for the economic benefits of conservation to kick in. But he sees farmers increasingly moving in that direction.

“Clean water adds a lot to the lifestyle for the entire community,” he noted. “It means a more attractive place to live, which makes it easier to get and keep employees, which impacts every business.”

Lake Erie: a wakeup call and growing momentum

Most summers in recent times, Lake Erie’s western basin turns into a toxic pea-soup-colored broth. In 2014 the city of Toledo had to shut down its drinking water distribution systems and tell half a million people not to drink the water for three days because of toxic contamination from the algae — fueled by fertilizer runoff from farm fields.

That was a wakeup call.

“We’d spent so much time protecting our water supply from diversion in the 2000s. Then one day hundreds of thousands of people woke up and could no longer rely on the Great Lakes for their most basic need – drinking water,” said Alliance president and CEO Joel Brammeier. “There was plenty of water but no one could use it safely. That shocked the Great Lakes region.”

In June of 2015, thanks to strenuous advocacy by the Alliance and other partners, Ohio, Michigan and Ontario agreed to reduce phosphorus in Lake Erie by 40%. Last summer, at a meeting of the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine recommitted to the 40% goal, along with Michigan and Ontario again. The work of the Alliance and other stakeholders was crucial to this commitment.

The momentum was driven in part by people directly affected by the Toledo crisis, like Alexis Smith, restorative justice director at the organization Junction Coalition, who went door to door to make sure senior citizens in their community were informed not to drink the contaminated water. Smith notes that historic incidents like the one in Toledo rein-force feelings that their tap water cannot be trusted.

The Alliance and its community partners have continued to keep the pressure on the Ohio government, and last year DeWine created the H2Ohio program, a multi-million-dollar fund to improve Great Lakes water quality, with a particular focus on reducing agricultural runoff. Already about 2,000 Ohio farmers are signed up to receive incentives for adopting best practices in nutrient management, and the program also involves restoring thousands of acres of wetlands to act as buffers absorbing nutrient pollution before it reaches waterways.

“We are absolutely thrilled that Governor DeWine is so invested in the health of Lake Erie and the water quality of Ohio,” said Joy Mulinex, director of the Lake Erie Commission, a governmental body that makes policy recommendations and otherwise works with the governor on protecting the lake. “It’s going to take a number of years to see the fruits of all the work being done — algal blooms will still happen for the next couple of summers. But we’re hopeful we’ll see progress.”

Brammeier notes that in Wisconsin, where there is a clear and measurable path to reducing nutrient pollution across Green Bay, the work of the Alliance is possible partly because of an ambitious regulatory framework that includes a limit on the “total maxi-mum daily load” (or TMDL) of nutrients that can be released into Green Bay, and other mandatory pollution control measures.

In Ohio, the government has committed to creating a TMDL but so far there are not meaningful enforceable limits on nutrient pollution. The Alliance and its allies want such limits, which are critical for two reasons: to hold government accountable, and to communicate to everyone what the expectations are for reducing nutrient pollution and protecting clean drinking water.

Involving the voices and leadership of those most affected

Crystal Davis, the Alliance’s Cleveland-based vice-president for policy and strategic engagement, notes that the state can only truly tackle nutrient pollution if the process includes the voices and leadership of those most affected — the millions of residents of Toledo, Cleveland and other Lake Erie cities who see their drinking water and health at risk because of nutrient pollution.

Along with the health impacts of toxic algal blooms, economic consequences of cleanup are imposed on those who can least afford them. If cities need to spend more to clean and manage water fouled by nutrient pollution and toxic algae, those costs are ultimately passed on to ratepayers. And low-income and minority communities in Ohio and across the Great Lakes region are especially vulnerable to water shut-offs and shouldering the burden of high water bills or bottled water when they can’t trust their tap. The Alliance’s work includes working with residents to understand the full impact and ripple effects of issues like nutrient pollution, and make sure policymakers are aware and take action.

“People are suffering in silence, and we don’t know a lot of these stories until people feel comfortable enough to talk about it,” Davis noted.

Davis and her colleagues help people make their voices heard in various ways. They educate and activate community members young and old on the issues, fight for water service line replacement to reduce lead in tap water, and work to support legislation on safe and affordable water services for all.

Davis hosted an event in Akron called “Water, Women & Wellness Summit,” where women from all walks of life discussed their relationship with water. And she works with community groups on the ground that also focus on issues like police misconduct, youth empowerment and fair housing, exploring the way that water rights are interconnected.

“I’m not a traditional environmentalist. I don’t like going outside unless it’s a tropical beach,” says Davis. “For me to be passionate about this, it has to be not about habitat, but about people.”

Paul Botts — son of Lake Michigan Federation founder Lee Botts, and former board member of the Alliance — works with farmers on reducing nutrient pollution in his role as executive director of the Wetlands Initiative. He knows many stakeholders are leery of regulations targeting nonpoint source pollution, and that developing programs and mandates to address such a multi-faceted and sprawling problem is a huge challenge. But he reminds people that the victories against point source pollution — like the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement — involved balancing complicated and competing interests and bringing diverse stakeholders together.

“Farmers are not a monolith at all — there’s vast differences of opinion in row crop farming about this issue and what they’re up for doing,” Botts says. “There are generational differences, differences of place, that’s normal, that’s human beings, we have to work with it. It is complicated, it’s frustrating in some ways. But I am fundamentally optimistic.”

The post Pollution from Point Source to Nonpoint Source appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Cities across the country are investing in their water infrastructure systems with hopes of achieving triple bottom line benefits – for people, the environment, and economic return. In the face of a changing climate that brings more extreme wet weather, a combination of gray infrastructure (pipes and tunnels) and green stormwater infrastructure (plants and soil) is a recipe for resilience that many cities are trying to perfect.

Alliance for the Great Lakes, in partnership with the City of Detroit Department of Public Works, identified five cities that have had success implementing green and gray water infrastructure improvements in their cities, with a focus on the public rights-of-way (streets). Streets are ideal for green stormwater management practices because they are already designed to move water, and streets make up a vast majority – up to half – of impervious surfaces in cities.

Check out our case studies on green stormwater infrastructure in the right-of-way to learn more about how these five cities have created policies, programs, design guidelines, and more to help them achieve their triple bottom line goals.

• Case Study: Cleveland
• Case Study: Denver
• Case Study: Milwaukee
• Case Study: Minneapolis
• Case Study: Philadelphia

The post Green Stormwater Infrastructure in the Right-of-Way: 5 Case Studies appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

It’s natural for the Great Lakes to rise and fall over time, but the lakes are currently experiencing a period of record high water levels. The Midwest has experienced extreme rain and wet conditions over the past few years. And the pattern has continued, with water levels expected to stay high in the coming months.

According to data from the Army Corps of Engineers and reported by The Detroit News:

• The Great Lakes basin saw its wettest 60-month period in 120 years of record-keeping (ending Aug. 31, 2019).
• The Corps’ monthly water levels bulletin showed that the average levels for Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, St. Clair and Ontario in October all were about a foot higher than the same month in 2018.

Q: Weren’t Great Lakes water levels really low not long ago?

Between 1999 and 2014, the Upper Great Lakes (Lake Superior, Michigan and Huron) experienced the longest period of low water in recorded history.

In 2013 the water levels were so low, some residents around Lakes Michigan and Huron even worried that the lakes were “disappearing.” As described in National Geographic, agencies even studied the possibility of building dams or other structures to hold back more water in the lakes.

Within about a decade, the Great Lakes have gone from record low levels to record high levels, a stunningly fast swing. The lakes naturally swing between low and high water levels but typically over several decades. These rapid transitions between extreme high and low water levels now represent a new cycle for the lakes.

Scientists are in agreement that the sharp shifts in water levels are due to climate change. More specifically a warming climate will continue to cause extreme weather, including severe floods and droughts, which spells disaster for lakeside homeowners, towns and cities, tourism, and shipping.

For more, we recommend several helpful articles:

• Drew Gronewold’s (associate professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Michigan) and Richard B. Rood’s (professor of climate and space sciences and engineering at the University of Michigan) essay – Climate change is driving rapid shifts between high and low water levels on the Great Lakes – at The Conversation.
• Dan Egan’s (author of The Death and Life of the Great Lakes) 2013 coverage of low water levels from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
• Peter Annin’s (author of The Great Lakes Water Wars) 2020 op-ed in the New York Times

Q: What is the impact of currently high Great Lakes water levels?

Even though high lake levels are more apparent in the summer when people are out on the lake, they can actually do more damage in the fall and winter due to intense wind-driven storms that push huge waves up into the shoreline and increase the erosion.

The impact is being felt along lakefronts far and wide. Communities around the lakes are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes millions, to fight the erosion of roads and beaches and to protect national parks. Impacts include beaches that have been swallowed up, bluffs collapsing in western Michigan, stronger currents making swimming more dangerous, and closed water-damaged roads, parks, and bridges.

Our Great Lakes shorelines define our communities and are a vital part of our way of life around the region. While we want to protect our shorelines and our communities, healthy sustainable coasts are tied to our local economies and culture.

But, we can’t resort to knee-jerk, short-term solutions. We have to think – and plan – long-term knowing that the Great Lakes are dynamic systems that will continue to change.

Learn more in this interview with Alliance for the Great Lakes CEO Joel Brammeier on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight.

Q: Is there anything we can do to prevent damage from high water levels?

In some places, it makes sense to protect breakwalls or other infrastructure already in place. But generally, natural, “living” shorelines are a better long-term choice for the Great Lakes and our communities.

This approach relies on dunes, native plants, natural barrier reefs, and other nature-based solutions. All of these dampen wave action, provide habitat, and create a much needed buffer between the lakes’ damaging waves and homes, roads, and other infrastructure. Check out this helpful video for more information and a look at living shorelines.

In a recent Chicago Sun-Times editorial, Alliance for the Great Lakes CEO Joel Brammeier said: “Infrastructure has been built too close to the shoreline. We are not going back to having an early 19th century shoreline in Illinois, but we need to have solutions where the hardening is less invasive. Planning should mean planning for the next 100 years.”

For more, read an August 2019 editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times and a recent Indianapolis Star article on erosion by London Gibson and Sarah Bowman, or watch this segment from WTTW-TV on high water levels.

Q: Is there anything we can do to lower the level of the lakes?

Any kind of drainage or diversion won’t make much of an impact, and frankly, it’s a bit of a ridiculous idea.

First, it’s just not practical. While the idea sounds easy – just drain the water to somewhere else –  it would take a massive engineering feat. You would need to drain about 400 billion gallons from Lake Michigan to lower the water level just one inch.

And second, legally, it’s not an option. The Great Lakes states and provinces spent a decade between 1998-2008 creating a precedent-setting legal standard called the Great Lakes Compact and Agreement. This law bans all significant diversions of water beyond Great Lakes county borders. Any water withdrawal would need to be approved by representatives from all the states in the U.S. and Canada that border the lakes.

It’s important to remember – Great Lakes water levels rise and fall. It’s part of the natural cycle that makes the lakes so special. Over centuries these ever-changing cycles have created some of our most favorite places – Sleeping Bear Dunes, Niagara Falls, Pictured Rocks, Indiana Dunes, and more.

But, climate change is throwing the system out of whack. Scientists believe that water levels are likely to fall again on their own, though no one knows when, and the variable high and low extremes represent the new standard.

For more, take a look at this story on the rising and falling of water levels from WGN.

Q: Will Great Lakes water levels keep rising?

Water levels in the Great Lakes vary naturally over time and will recede eventually.

According to Drew Gronewold, associate professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Michigan, and Richard B. Rood, professor of climate and space sciences and engineering at the University of Michigan, “We believe rapid transitions between extreme high and low water levels in the Great Lakes represent the ‘new normal.’”

For more, read this article on the rising and falling of water levels from WGN, and Gronewold and Rood’s essay at The Conversation.

Q: How should property owners along the Great Lakes prepare for both extremes of rising and falling water levels?

In the short-term, building fortifications and walls may seem tempting, but it may not be a good long-term solution due to destruction of native wetlands, species, and habitats. These “solutions” also can cause serious, unintended damage to adjacent properties. Often, they just cause more problems over the long-term than they fix.

Currently, the cities of Quebec and New York’s responses offer a stark contrast. Quebec officials have encouraged flooded property owners to take buyouts to break the cycle of flood-bailout-rebuild, repeat, while New York has encouraged Lake Ontario property owners to armor their shorelines and hunker down.

In the long-term, some towns are establishing regulations to make sure property is built a safe distance away from the shoreline. St. Joseph, MI, established a 200-foot coastal setback to prevent new construction in areas threatened by flooding and erosion.

There’s also a need for more research. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study (GRCS) would provide the Great Lakes states with region-wide information to help plan for the long-term. Although the study is not currently funded by the federal government, states continue to push for it. Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and New York have already pledged to help fund the 25 percent non-federal share required to complete the study.

For more, read MLive’s article on the GRCS and Peter Annin’s New York Times op-ed.

The post Great Lakes Water Levels Q & A appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.