Home

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement?

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is a formal agreement between the governments of the United States and Canada that establishes goals and objectives for protecting and restoring the water quality of the Great Lakes. It was first signed in 1972 under the Nixon and Trudeau administrations. It was revised in 1978 and 1987, but there have been no revisions since.
 
2. What does it pledge the U.S. and Canada to do?
 
Under the Agreement the two countries pledged to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the Lakes; prohibit “the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts”; and to virtually eliminate “the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances.” 
 
3. Is it a treaty?
 
No. The Agreement was established under the auspices of the Boundary Waters Treaty, which provides for cooperatively managing the river and lake systems that transcend the U.S./Canada border. The Boundary Waters Treaty is 100 years old this year.
 
4. Why is it important for Prime Minister Harper and President Obama to provide commitments regarding revitalizing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement?
 
The Agreement is structured to place compliance within the parties, i.e., the two nations that signed it. Thus, the strength of the Agreement is only as good as the commitments, leadership and actions from both nations’ national governments. These commitments have fallen short of reaching the goals and objectives under the Agreement in recent years. Renewed commitment from the very top levels of government is essential to reinvigorate and update this framework for bi-national strategies and cooperation.
 
5. Why does the Agreement need to be updated?
 
While many of its fundamentals are very sound, the world, including Great Lakes environment, has changed dramatically over the last 22 years. Water quality and the integrity of the Great Lake ecosystem are being compromised by old threats and a wave of new ones. While the Agreement addresses conventional sources of water pollution and many toxic chemicals, it does not address issues like:
  • the new wave of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes foodweb such as PBDEs, or pharmaceutical compounds;
  • the water quality impacts of overlapping stresses, such as the combined effect of invasive species and warmer water (from climate change) exacerbating the return of dead zones, which is driving other damage to water quality and wildlife;
  • changes in flows, levels and pollution distribution from increasing intense storm events, and the impacts on sewer overflows and human health;
  • the widespread return of avian botulism and related bird deaths.
 
6. How has the Agreement benefited the Great Lakes, the U.S. and Canada?
  • Many credit the 1972 Agreement for helping drive a new generation of water pollution control in both nations. For example, the U.S. Clean Water Act was signed into law that year, and aggressive new controls on phosphorus pollution and a massive investment in modern sewage treatment helped revive Lake Erie and other areas choked with algae blooms and pollution.
  • The 1978 Agreement focused attention on toxic chemicals that were accumulating in the Great Lakes food web, and embraced the concept of managing for the health of the ecosystem. In this era many of the “chlorinated pesticides” including DDT, were banned from use in both nations. PCBs—one of the most widespread contaminants in the Great Lakes were also banned from further use.
  • The 1987 Protocols (additions to the 1978 Agreement) identified 42 highly contaminated harbors and other toxic hotspots, (diplomatically called “Areas of Concern”) and called for their clean up and restoration to standards that protected human health and the environment. They also called for monitoring and controls on airborne sources of toxic pollution to the lakes, including mercury, and other measures to strengthen water quality protections.
 
These investments improved conditions for human health and wildlife, stimulated building booms in wastewater infrastructure, fostered a recreational fishing renaissance in Lake Erie, and built scientific capacity in freshwater ecology and related fields that has solved problems around the world.  
 
7. Why has compliance fallen short?
 
While the goals of the Agreement are bold, its success depends on equally bold leadership from both nations. This requires:
  • A clear delineation of roles and responsibilities of federal agencies, state and provincial governments and other jurisdictions;
  • Funding and resources committed to research, monitoring, clean-up programs, and enforcement of domestic environmental quality programs;
  • Robust public involvement;
  • Sound science.
 
Unfortunately roles and responsibilities remain unclear, funding for cleanup and enforcement at the necessary scale has been lacking; scientific capacity has been eroded over the last 8 years, and public involvement has not been a priority, we are faced with the sad record of stalled harbor clean-ups and the loss of leading edge research and a mounting list of new threats for which we have no bi-national strategy.
 
 
8. What are key issues for the Great Lakes as we consider revising the Agreement?   
  • Inconsistent domestic enforcement and compliance with the Agreement.
  • The ineffectiveness of the Great Lakes governance structures and systems, which are complicated by multiple jurisdictions and agencies and the lack of clear roles and responsibilities among them.
  • Lessening of bi-national cooperation in jointly planning and protecting the Great Lakes.
  • Lack of preparedness for the implications of climate change for the entire Great Lakes system, and freshwater resources worldwide.
  • Erosion of scientific capacity and the loss of the leading edge in protecting the Great Lakes from emerging threats.
 
9. In the U.S., what’s the relationship between the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative Initiative and the Agreement?
 
The Great Lakes Regional Collaborative was initiated by the Bush Administration to develop a domestic agenda for federal action on the Great Lakes within the U.S. Many of its objectives complement those within the Agreement. However, they are not formally linked nor does the Collaborative have any connection to Canadian programs. To truly protect and restore the Great Lakes it is essential that Canada and the United States work in tandem.
 
10. Didn’t President Obama make pledges during the campaign to support Great Lakes restoration? 
 
Yes. President Obama’s 5-point campaign pledge was to commit $5 billion in federal support to a Great Lakes trust fund, implement a zero tolerance policy for invasive species, enhance Great Lakes leadership, aggressively eliminate the presence of toxic chemicals, and avoidance of water diversions. This provides an indication of the new Administration’s potential to provide fresh leadership for the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is one of the mechanisms that President Obama can use to help in providing this leadership and getting Canadian commitment. By revitalizing the Agreement this year, the administration has the chance to set a positive tone for the action on the full pledge.
 
11. Why is it so important that Canada and the United States work together?
 
So long as each country works in isolation, efforts to restore the Great Lakes will never maximize their efficiency. When the United States and Canada worked together to reduce the phosphorous discharges that were killing life in the Lakes, the action was swift and the ecosystem recovered very quickly. The benefit of similar cooperation can also be seen in efforts to stop acid rain and mend the hole in the ozone. Invasive species, chemical pollution and algae blooms have no national boundaries in the Great Lakes. Each nation’s actions affect the other, and thus good neighbors must coordinate their responses to the threats. The lakes are one system embraced by two nations, and require a unified strategy and collaborative approach.

 

  • ""