La deteriorada infraestructura del oleoducto de 71 años representa un riesgo para la cuenca del Bad River que podría enfrentar un derrame. Esta es una permanente amenaza para el agua potable de la que dependen 40 millones de personas en la región, incluyendo a los miembros de la tribu nativa americana Bad River Band del lago Superior Chippewa en Wisconsin y de la comunidad indígena Bay Mills en Michigan, cuyas tierras fueron invadidas por la petrolera violando sus derechos y soberanía.

En respuesta a la demanda interpuesta por la tribu Bad River Band en 2019, Enbridge, propuso construir un desvió del oleoducto de 66 kilómetros, alrededor de la reserva de la tribu nativa americana, en la región de los condados de Ashland y Iron. Miembros de la tribu nativa americana Bad River Band, junto con ambientalistas y más 150,000 ciudadanos, piden desmantelar por completo el oleoducto debido a los riesgos que este proyecto representa para el agua fresca, las tierras nativas americanas y los ecosistemas locales.

Si el proyecto se lleva a cabo, la construcción de un desvío del oleoducto impactará a cientos de arroyos debido a la excavación de zanjas, perforaciones y rellenos. Esto incluye a los pantanos Kakagon-Bad River, un complejo de humedales único que alberga el lecho natural de arroz silvestre más grande de la cuenca de los Grandes Lagos. Los miembros de Bad River Band han cosechado arroz silvestre durante siglos aquí. Estos humedales son el hábitat de aves migratorias y otras especies y, además, han sido reconocidos y designados como sitios Ramsar en virtud de la Convención de Ramsar, un acuerdo internacional que proporciona un marco para la conservación de los humedales.    

A pesar del amplio rechazo al proyecto propuesto por Enbridge, el Departamento de Recursos Naturales de Wisconsin aprobó un permiso para el desvió de la Línea 5. Esta decisión es un peligroso retroceso para el futuro de la economía de energía limpia y la seguridad de la vida silvestre y plantea serias preocupaciones para la integridad ecológica y cultural de la región.

El riesgo de una catástrofe ambiental aumenta cada día mientras este oleoducto sigue operativo. Un derrame tendría consecuencias irreversibles para la cuenca del río Bad River, la vida silvestre, las tribus nativas americanas y todas las comunidades que dependen del agua limpia de los Grandes Lagos. 

Aquí hay más información sobre la Línea 5 en español. Mira el documental Bad River de Mary Mazzio.

Lee este blog en inglés.

The Bad River basin is at risk of an oil spill due to this 71-year-old pipeline’s deteriorating infrastructure, creating an ongoing threat to the drinking water on which 40 million people in the region depend. The pipeline invades the lands of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa tribe in Wisconsin and the Bay Mills Indian community in Michigan, and violates their rights and sovereignty.

Proposed Diversion

In response to a lawsuit filed in 2019 by the Bad River Band tribe, Enbridge proposed building a 41-mile diversion of the pipeline around the tribe’s reservation in Ashland and Iron counties. Members of the Bad River Band tribe, along with environmental advocates and more than 150,000 citizens, have called for the entire pipeline to be dismantled, citing the risk this project poses to freshwater sources, Native American tribal lands, and local ecosystems.

The construction of a pipeline diversion will impact hundreds of streams due to trenching, drilling, and filling if the project is carried out. This includes the Kakagon-Bad River sloughs, a unique wetland complex that supports the largest natural wild rice bed in the Great Lakes basin. Members of the Bad River Band have harvested wild rice for centuries here. These internationally-recognized wetlands are the habitat for migratory birds and other species and have been designated as Ramsar sites under the Ramsar Convention—an intergovernmental convention on wetlands that provides a framework for wetland conservation.

Despite widespread rejection of Enbridge’s proposed project, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources approved the permit for the Line 5 diversion. This decision marks a dangerous step backward for the advancement of clean energy and wildlife conservation and raises serious concerns for the  health of the communities and ecosystems in this region.

With each passing day that this pipeline is operating, the risk of an environmental catastrophe increases. A spill would have irreversible consequences for the Bad River basin, wildlife, Native American tribes, and all communities that depend on clean water from the Great Lakes. 

• Watch Mary Mazzio’s documentary on the Bad River.

To read this blog in Spanish, click here.

Unfortunately, they’ve also been linked to serious health problems such as cancer, hormone imbalance, weakened immune systems, decreased vaccine response, and reproductive problems. These dangerous chemicals have also been found in high concentrations in contaminated sites across Michigan, impacting both rural and urban communities.  

The Power of the Great Lakes PFAS Action Network

The Great Lakes PFAS Action Network brings together communities impacted by PFAS contamination and joins them with environmental organizations like NWF to create a unified voice for strong, protective policies. This coalition has been advocating for crucial laws in Michigan’s 2023-2024 legislative session, and now we need your voice.

Priority Legislation

• House Bill 5241/Senate Bill 610: Enable those exposed to hazardous substances to bring claims against polluters to cover the costs of medical monitoring for Michiganders exposed to PFAS.

• House Bill 5244/Senate Bill 611: Set a fairer timeline for people to access justice when they have discovered PFAS contamination sites.

• House Bill 5657: Require the disclosure of PFAS in products and eliminate PFAS in household products, firefighting foam, and all nonessential uses.

• Senate Bill 327: Eliminate PFAS from food packaging.

These bills are a great start, but we can–and must–do more. Our state lawmakers can protect our health by introducing legislation that:

• Improves contamination notification procedures and access to clean water for private well owners

• Ensures PFAS blood testing is covered by health insurance

• Supports Michigan farmers impacted by PFAS contamination by creating a PFAS Farmer Relief Fund

• Ensures the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART) and the Citizen Advisory Workgroup (CAWG) remain adequately funded

Take Action Now: Tell your lawmaker to support comprehensive PFAS legislation to protect Michigan communities!

Urge your lawmaker to back key bills like HB 5241, SB610, HB 5244, SBl 611, HB 5657, and SB 327 to safeguard Michigan communities from PFAS. 

Ready to take action? Check out GLPAN’s Digital Action Toolkit, and join us for a webinar on introduced and proposed legislation in Michigan that would protect people, wildlife, and the environment from PFAS on Monday, September 23, 12-1pm ET.  Email Cathy Martin at martinc@nwf.org for more information. 

Looking beyond Michigan

Although Michigan’s legislative session is ongoing, many other Great Lakes states have wrapped up for the year. But don’t worry, NWF and GLPAN are working with partners across the region and will keep you updated on how to support policy changes in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

NOAA and partners predict a moderate to larger-than-moderate bloom this summer in western Lake Erie, with a severity around 5 on a 1-10 scale and a possible range between 4.5–6.

This forecast is based on the levels of phosphorus and river flow in the Maumee River from March 1 to July 31. Weather conditions in July through September can influence the toxicity and location of the bloom with peak blooms starting in August and continuing into September. Calm weather can lead to the development of scum on the water surface. Toxins can become highly concentrated in surface scum.

Ohio experienced a very rainy early spring in 2024, which means more phosphorus was washed into Lake Erie, influencing the forecasted severity for this summer’s blooms.  Even with drier weather later in the season, the phosphorus from early spring remains, contributing to the expected bloom size in August and September.  

Last month, NWF and its partners released a white paper titled “Strategies to Achieve Phosphorus Reduction Targets for Lake Erie.”  The paper highlights recent water quality data reports and the lack of significant reductions in phosphorus levels. The paper acknowledges the hard work of many partners and the value of current programs aimed at reducing phosphorus. The authors support these efforts while acknowledging more action is needed to meet phosphorus reduction goals.  

The authors of the white paper call for public agencies to honor their previous commitments to adaptive management, which means adjusting strategies based on new information. For example, scientists are learning that small areas within agricultural fields with high phosphorus levels can disproportionately contribute to higher amounts of phosphorus runoff.   There are opportunities to redesign existing programs to target these areas more effectively without the need for increases in funding. Additionally, agricultural retailers, who work directly with farmers, can play a crucial role in providing technical support and services to reduce phosphorus runoff more quickly.

The white paper offers several recommendations, including revising incentives for farmers to accelerate adoption of conservation practices and support adoption of multiple practices in one location. With climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of spring storms, it is also essential to use techniques that hold back the water to slow down and reduce phosphorus runoff into the lake.  The paper urges everyone involved to think creatively and collaborate to tackle nutrient pollution in Lake Erie. It’s time to adjust our course and find new solutions to achieve our phosphorus reduction goals.

What is a Harmful Algal Bloom?

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are excessive growths of cyanobacteria or algae in water that can produce dangerous toxins or cause other harmful effects. In the Great Lakes, especially in Lake Erie, these blooms often involve cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae. Cyanobacteria can produce toxins like microcystins, which are harmful substances that can affect both humans and animals.

The Plight of Lake Erie: Pollution and Algal Blooms

Lake Erie, the shallowest and warmest of the Great Lakes, has become increasingly prone to HABs. This is due to several factors, including runoff from farms that carries fertilizers rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, which feed the blooms. Climate change, causing warmer water and heavier rainfall, also plays a role by creating more favorable conditions for blooms and increasing the runoff. Urban runoff and outdated wastewater treatment systems contribute to the problem as well.

What do Harmful Algal Blooms Look Like?

In Lake Erie, HABs usually appear as green, paint-like scum on the water’s surface. The color can range from bright green to deep turquoise, and in severe cases, the blooms can cover large areas of the lake, creating both a striking yet concerning sight.

When Did Blooms Start in Lake Erie?

Algal blooms in Lake Erie have been an issue since the 1960s and 1970s when the lake was heavily polluted. Because the lake is the shallowest and warmest of all the Great Lakes, it has been the most susceptible to blooms over the decades. Efforts to clean up the lake led to improvements, but the problem returned in the mid-1990s. With climate change creating more severe weather, warmer lake conditions, and increased rainfall causing higher nutrient runoff, the concerns persist.

Is Drinking Water Impacted by Harmful Algal Blooms?

Because Lake Erie is a crucial source of drinking water for millions of people, harmful algal blooms can affect the water supply. For example, in 2014, the city of Toledo, Ohio, issued a “do not drink” advisory for two days because of microcystin contamination. This incident highlights the need for constant monitoring and managing of water quality to ensure it remains safe to drink. 

What’s the Forecast for Summer 2024?

Given the ongoing issues with nutrient runoff and changing climate patterns, there is a valid concern about the potential for significant algal blooms in the summer of 2024. We’ve also had a very rainy spring. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began releasing weekly forecasts in May, which are helpful indicators of how severe the blooms might be, and they now suggest that this year’s bloom will be “moderate to larger-than-moderate.”

However, there are always extenuating situations that will impact the severity and intensity of the harmful algal bloom each season. With the concern that this season’s bloom will be fairly severe, continuous vigilance and proactive measures are necessary to reduce the risks and protect both the environment and public health.

What are the Solutions to Harmful Algal Blooms?

While there has been progress in understanding and addressing the problem with HABs, ongoing efforts and innovative solutions are essential to protect Lake Erie and ensure safe drinking water for millions of people. From nutrient management to wastewater treatment improvements, there is research and innovation on the horizon that will create new technologies for better treatment and earlier detection. 

The National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center will be releasing an action plan in the summer of 2024. The plan urges everyone involved to think outside the box and come up with new ways to tackle nutrient pollution in Lake Erie. It’s all about finding creative solutions and working together to make a real difference. Suggestions include rewarding our agricultural retailers for promoting conservation practices, focusing efforts on areas with the highest phosphorus levels, and updating funding strategies to make them more effective. The bottom line is that we need to be flexible and collaborative to protect Lake Erie’s future.

Explosive Risk

Moving highly volatile substances like propane and crude oil through pipelines always carries a risk of explosion. Enbridge has tried to convince us that burying Line 5 deep beneath the Lakes will mitigate this risk. In fact, it makes it worse. 

Geological engineer and tunnel expert Brian O’Mara has expressed irritation with Enbridge’s dismissal of the real risks. He also identified multiple potential explosion scenarios associated with the proposed tunnel. These include the risk of explosive methane entering the tunnel during construction and afterward due to groundwater pressure.

Moreover, the design of the tunnel itself poses risks, as highlighted by pipeline safety expert Richard Kuprewicz, who testified that Enbridge was downplaying the risk of explosion, saying, “When transporting these substances through a pipeline enclosed in a tunnel, the risk of an explosion is enhanced which in turn enhances the probability that the secondary containment vessel will fail.” In other words, enclosing explosive materials in a cement tube doesn’t make it less of a gamble; it makes it riskier.

Oversight Gaps

What’s alarming is the lack of comprehensive oversight in the approval process. No single agency has full accountability, leaving room for critical flaws to go unchecked. Enbridge’s track record further exacerbates concerns. Instances of pipeline ruptures, operational negligence, and environmental mishaps underscore the company’s unreliability.

Despite these red flags, Enbridge continues to push forward with its plans, driven by financial incentives. The existing Line 5 pipeline remains operational, posing ongoing risks to the environment and surrounding communities.

Safer Paths Forward

In 2024, the last thing we should be talking about is how to prop up fossil fuel investments. Michigan has committed to a 100% clean energy standard by 2040, making the tunnel project a relic of a bygone era. We know that the Lakehead System, combined with existing rail and truck options, can easily handle the excess capacity from Line 5. Relying on these alternatives would not only address the immediate safety concerns but also align with our clean energy goals. 

With this tunnel plan, Enbridge is myopically gazing in the rearview mirror while the rest of us know that we can and must do better, embracing sustainable solutions that move us forward, not backward.

Working together with our state affiliates and other partners over the past year, the National Wildlife Federations Great Lakes Regional Center have witnessed significant progress in protecting and restoring our Great Lakes, but much more needs to be done. Even with the historic increased federal funding these last two years that has allowed states and the federal government to address some key issues, including water infrastructure and the cleanup of contaminated sites, we still have too many communities without access to clean water and increasing loss of wildlife habitat. Invasive species continue to threaten our waters and wildlife, excessive nutrient runoff continues to negatively affect our water quality, and toxic forever chemicals like PFAS continue to impact our communities and drinking water. 

In our 2024 Great Lakes Federal Policy Priorities, we’ve identified the top five opportunities for Congress and the Administration to address these challenges. For the upcoming year, Congress and the administration must pass a budget that provides states with adequate federal resources to repair our aging water infrastructure; pass a strong Farm Bill that enhances private land conservation and reduce the flow of nutrient pollution into the lakes; maintain efforts to combat the spread of invasive species like invasive carp; and provide funding and reauthorization for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to continue support cleaning up our waters for people and wildlife.

Each year, National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center develops a comprehensive federal Great Lakes policy agenda. Our top five priorities for Congress and the Administration are:

PROTECT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE

SAFEGUARD OUR DRINKING WATER

RESTORE REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES

PROTECT PUBLIC LANDS AND WILDLIFE

ADVANCE CLIMATE SOLUTIONS AND RESILIENCY

The priorities above are non-partisan and enjoy broad support from a diverse set of communities throughout the Great Lakes. Our role at NWF is to help keep these Great Lakes protected for our kids, their kids, and future generations. Therefore, we urge our region’s Congressional leaders to demonstrate their support for the Great Lakes, our region’s water resources, and the people, businesses, and wildlife that depend on them.

The most notorious is the invasive carp. Look up invasive carp on YouTube and you will quickly understand why we want to keep them out of the Great Lakes. After many years of working towards finalizing the Brandon Road project to stop their spread, unfortunately we have hit a major snag that could further delay our progress and ultimately allow carp to swim closer to our Great Lakes. How did we get here?

Brandon Road Project

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has identified retrofitting the Brandon Road Lock and Dam near Joliet, IL, with a series of control measures aimed at preventing the upstream movement of invasive carp. The U.S. Congress authorized the project with a cost share of 90% federal and 10% non-federal funding. Illinois and Michigan are contributing the non-federal funding. The design phase of the project is almost complete and the first construction contracts along with breaking ground on the project are currently expected in 2024.

Funding Status of Brandon Road Project Partnership Agreement

Split between the U.S. Congress, the USACE, Illinois and Michigan, there is enough money available to fund the remaining federal portion of the design phase and the first year of construction at Brandon Road. However, none of this funding is available for the USACE to use for project construction until Illinois signs a construction partnership agreement with the USACE. Once these funds run out, work will come to a halt. Any further delays will push back the construction start date.

The primary delay in signing the partnership agreement is due to the potential for hazardous materials contamination on the lands owned by Midwest Generation. Midwest Generation owns approximately 42 acres adjacent to the Brandon Road project and 3.6 acres of these lands are needed as a staging area for project construction. Analysis by staff from MI, IL, and USACE show that the risk of contamination is low. There are certainly solutions to mitigate this low risk by capping the soil among other remedies. There is a way to a “yes” on this project, however, Illinois and the Corps are at a standstill. 

Pressure needed to finalize the Project

We need all voices to raise the urgency of this. You can help by calling/emailing your Member of Congress to ask them to continue to pressure the state of Illinois and the USACE to unblock the log jam and advance this critical project by encouraging them to sign the construction partnership agreement for Brandon Road. If Illinois does not sign this agreement, carp could make it into the Great Lakes. Now is the time for action. We are at the goal line: let’s finish the project.

Michigan currently has one of the highest number of PFAS-contaminated locations in the nation, and there are a couple of reasons for this. For one, the region’s history as an industrial powerhouse certainly plays a role. But the Great Lakes states have also been on the forefront of the search for PFAS; unfortunately, when you look for PFAS in the soil, water, and wildlife, we’ve learned that you find it. The region has been a model for studying PFAS, identifying contaminated sites, and passing legislation and policy to address it.

Many state-level victories to remove and remediate PFAS contamination have been achieved through the leadership, vision, and expertise of impacted communities in partnership with organizations that provide resources, advocacy capacity, and technical support. National Wildlife Federation is a founding member of one such collaboration in the region: the Great Lakes PFAS Action Network (GLPAN). Members of impacted communities work with us and our partners at the Ecology Center, and Michigan League of Conservation Voters to develop policy priorities, engage with lawmakers, and offer community organizing resources around PFAS contamination prevention, cleanup, and accountability. 

There remains much work to be done, but by addressing some of the most pressing and urgent issues, the Great Lakes region serves as a shining example of how collaboration with communities, stakeholders, and policymakers can benefit the environment, people, and wildlife.

From bans on PFAS to reparations to the impacted community members, Great Lakes States are leading the way to repair this issue at the state level.

Comprehensive Policy Wins: PFAS Bans

In the past three years we have seen some of the most innovative policies come out of the region to address PFAS. Those include PFAS purchasing bans, such as the first-in-the-nation, state-level procurement policy in Michigan under Governor Gretchen Whitmer that directs the state to avoid purchasing products containing PFAS when alternatives are available.

Other states, such as New York and Illinois have banned the incineration of PFAS. And Minnesota leads the way with the strongest ban on PFAS in products, which passed this year. The law bans the sale of products with intentionally-added PFAS beginning in 2025, restricts all unnecessary PFAS uses by 2032, and establishes reporting and disclosure requirements for products containing PFAS beginning in 2026. 

Michigan is expected to follow suit this legislative session; a bill package addressing multiple uses and impacts of PFAS is anticipated in the House, which is expected to include similar legislation to ‘turn off the tap’ on PFAS and limit their production and use in the first place. 

In addition to these comprehensive bills some states in the region like Illinois and Michigan are also pursuing legislation that targets specific uses, such as bans on intentionally added PFAS in food packaging and cosmetics and amending procurement policies to ban the purchase of certain products with intentionally added PFAS by state agencies.

Policy to Address Firefighting Foam and Gear

The need for bans on products containing PFAS is not limited to household and consumer goods, but extends to commercial, safety, and defense uses. Firefighting foam, specifically Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), is a major source of PFAS contamination as PFAS chemicals are used to suppress fires. Firefighting foam is a component of Minnesota’s comprehensive PFAS ban, which prohibits the sale, distribution, and use of Class B firefighting foam containing PFAS. Illinois also enacted similar legislation. 

Similarly, legislation enacted in Michigan prohibits the use of fire fighting foam in training practices. In an effort to protect surrounding resources from the effects of AFFF after their use, Illinois and Michigan also enacted policies to tackle the disposal and storage of PFAS by creating a take-back program for fire departments disposing of foam containing PFAS. 

In addition to AFFF, firefighting gear also contains high levels of PFAS. Because of their exposure to elevated levels of PFAS, firefighters have served as leaders in pushing policy that would limit the use of PFAS in foam and gear. In Indiana, a bill was passed that requires gear purchased by fire departments to be labeled whether or not it contains PFAS, as well as a bill that will establish a biomonitoring program to analyze blood samples of current and former firefighters.

Policy to Hold Polluters Accountable

Putting the onus on community members to remedy their own PFAS contamination won’t work. Polluters must be held accountable to prevent contamination in the first place. To that end, the region has seen several bill packages introduced that would hold polluters accountable. These potential policies address health impacts and access to clean water, while demanding accountability, reparations, and safeguards for PFAS use.

The Michigan legislature will take up a polluter accountability bill package this session to adjust the Statute of Limitations for civil actions, enabling those exposed to higher levels of hazardous substances to sue, even without diagnosis of an illness. While these bills extend beyond just PFAS contamination, if passed, they would create and strengthen avenues for individuals impacted by PFAS to pursue legal action against polluters. 

Meanwhile, additional policies are being explored and crafted to support impacted communities, including GLPAN priorities to require insurance companies to cover the costs of blood testing for communities exposed to elevated levels of PFAS; ensure access to alternative sources of clean water if a community experiences PFAS contamination in their drinking water; and provide a financial safety net for farmers who lost income or assets to PFAS contamination.

Policy to Protect America’s Farmers

Farmers in many states have been severely impacted by PFAS. Around the Great Lakes states, farmers who have used biosolids also known as sewage sludge as fertilizer on their farms may have inadvertently contaminated their land with high levels of PFAS. Unfortunately, the use of sludge is marketed as an affordable source of fertilizer for farmers, but the real cost has resulted in the loss of cropland, livestock, and income when their land, crops, and/or livestock are found to be contaminated with PFAS. In response, community members, including farmers in GLPAN, are calling for funding for farmers who suffer as a result of PFAS contamination.

Collaborative work between state lawmakers, impacted community members, and environmental and public health organizations has advanced critical policy to limit the presence of PFAS in our homes, protect water quality from contamination, and strengthen accountability from polluters. Federal action is unlikely to take place in Congress in the near future; with that in mind, it’s imperative that states take action on their own to address PFAS contamination. The Great Lakes are a great example.

Algal blooms vary with spring and summer weather patterns: large amounts of rainfall in the spring result in larger blooms, while summer wind and currents can concentrate blooms of any size, leading to increased toxicity. The primary driver is phosphorus, an important nutrient in growing crops. But too much of a good thing has been disastrous for Lake Erie. While phosphorus is critical for crop production, it also feeds the algae that can become toxic. As the shallowest of all of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie is the most susceptible to environmental change of any kind.

Over the past twenty years, much has been invested in understanding not only the science behind what’s driving the blooms but also strategies to reduce them. Scientists and engineers have developed monitoring and treatment technologies needed to protect drinking water for millions of people who rely on Lake Erie. Further research has investigated the runoff from those spring rains, monitoring everything from how and why the nutrient phosphorus leaks off of farm fields to what happens once it reaches the lake. The research and science communities have come together to ask the right questions, collaborating on the best and most expeditious responses. Our public agencies have also responded with the development of tools for measurement and public access to information. Collectively, these groups have developed plans—“recipes”—to control phosphorus runoff, the most important ingredient in the toxic algal soup.

Phosphorus and Farmlands

Phosphorus runoff happens when it “leaks” off agricultural fields. The Maumee River Basin in northwest Ohio (and smaller areas of Indiana and Michigan) delivers the majority of phosphorus to Lake Erie. And the Maumee River Basin is more than 80% agricultural land. But the reasons for why phosphorus leaks are complex are not all fields leak phosphorus, and not all fields leak phosphorus in the same ways. The exact remedy is unique to the individual farm, essentially requiring a unique recipe for each farm operation. Scientists and public agencies agree: keep the nutrients and sediment on the fields, don’t let it runoff into nearby waterways, and we can expect a reduction in blooms.

But we aren’t quite seeing those results yet. While some years we experience smaller blooms, that is simply a consequence of rainfall. When scientists adjust for variable rainfall from year to year, the concentration of phosphorus in the water has not changed.

Patience and Practicality

The solution might be time. Some experts say we simply need to give it time: the conservation practices we’ve implemented will eventually slow down phosphorus runoff. But other scientific analyses indicate that we need to dramatically increase the scale and pace of conservation practices to make a difference, given the specific needs of individual farms and the buildup of phosphorus in the soils.

A current project is evaluating the role of phosphorus that has built up in the soil profile for decades, often referred to as legacy or simply ‘old’ phosphorus. These areas are not widespread and are usually zones within fields and not the entirety of a given field. The higher the level of phosphorus in the soil, the greater the risk of phosphorus leaking off that field. For these specific areas, a more targeted approach is needed. By identifying these specific areas and treating them first, we can accelerate progress toward reduction. Additionally, new technology like phosphorus filters capture off-field runoff at the source, protecting watersheds.

Widespread Won’t Work

As convenient as it would be, unfortunately, one size doesn’t fit all when it comes to phosphorus and harmful algal blooms. Widespread approaches with current programs are simply not enough to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering Lake Erie. We’re going to need to get much more granular with our policies and programs, essentially changing the recipe by adding more steps and new ingredients to find the leakiest fields and the specific mixes to get a better outcome.

In 2023, the State of Ohio, the State of Michigan, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are initiating an update to the Domestic Action Plan for Lake Erie, a plan required under the binational agreement with Canada, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. To date, the Plan has relied on current programs, including the highly valued H2Ohio program to fulfill its commitment to phosphorus reduction. But we need more. Legislatures budget funds for public agencies, limiting what they can include in their plans. But this updated recipe will need the advocacy of NWF and its partners to call out and call in the targeted tactics needed to meet the goals for Lake Erie. That will take understanding the complexity of the science, and an acceptance of the reality that myriad policy changes will need to coalesce in order to deliver a restored Lake Erie.

But for now, before we go boating on Lake Erie, we check the bulletins issued by NOAA that are a useful guide to where weather patterns have driven the algal blooms so that we can steer clear. As the most susceptible of the Great Lakes to environmental change, we know that once we get the recipe right, we can expect a beautiful Great Lake full of clean water and healthy fish.