Lk Erie Algae Blooms Case Study

THE WICKED PROBLEM: LAKE ERIE ALGAE BLOOMS 1
The Wicked Problem of the Lake Erie Water Supply:
A Case Study of Algae Bloom Growth
Jeffrey B. Schorsch
Valparaiso University

The Wicked Problem of the Lake Erie Water Supply:
A Case Study of Algae Bloom Growth
INTRODUCTION
Lake Erie for a long time has been a fruitful source of freshwater and an economic
opportunity for the surrounding region. Coastal cities like Toledo, Cleveland, and Detroit have
all been examples of cities that have taken advantage of this resource. From an environmental
standpoint, it is plain to see this relationship is not mutually beneficial. With human development
comes environmental degradation. In the case of Lake Erie, this degradation has resulted in the
poisoning of the region’s water supply. Nutrient pollution from human activity finds its way into
the Lake Erie watershed eventually reaching the lake itself. This pollution annually fuels the
toxic algae blooms found today in the lake. Study after study has shown that these algae blooms
are nearly impossible to eliminate. This paper will discuss the issues believed to be causing this
wicked problem. Defined by Karr et al. (2015), a wicked problem is an issue where “no one
response is likely to present the ultimate solution” (pp. 6). Steps can be taken to lessen this
wicked problem of algae bloom growth; however these steps will prove useless to eradicate them
completely considering the unmanageable factors that perpetuate annual growth, and the
interconnected environmental, social, and economic factors preventing its management.
KEY TO UNDERSTANDING
There are two types of human pollution with regards to how they reach a water body:
point source and nonpoint source pollution (Karr et al., 2015). Point source pollution can be
much easier to identify compared to nonpoint source because it is visible and deliberate. Think of

a pipe running from a factory to a stream discharging waste through it directly into the stream;
this would be an example of point source pollution. It is simpler to identify and therefore can be
managed and regulated much more effectively. Nonpoint source pollution is waste that makes it
into water bodies but does not necessarily have a distinct point of origin. This waste includes
runoff from rain that washes away things like fertilizers on lawns and fields, and salt on roads.
This water runoff is carrying chemicals and nutrients from human development through the
watershed. A watershed is a region that supports its collection of water into stream systems that
eventually flow into a larger body of water (Karr et al., 2015). Consequently when this runoff
occurs in the watershed, the nutrients and chemicals pollute every stream system it enters and
collects into a larger water body where it can potentially manifest itself into a human related
problem.
There are few ways to counter nonpoint source pollution. The pollution occurs so
extensively and unnoticeably that managing its dispersal into the watershed must be addressed in
a large scale. Watershed management would be a solution because it does just that. It is devoted
to managing what happens around the rivers and streams (Karr et al., 2015). This area near
waterbodies is known as the riparian areas (Karr et al., 2015). Because of these areas’ proximity
to the water, polluted runoff will occur at higher rates. That is why management must be focused
here to start. Industrial sites tend to situate themselves around large water bodies because of its
economic advantage. Sites like these potentially cause contamination in the soils around it
making runoff into the nearby water particularly potent. Contaminated sites such as these are
known as brownfields (Karr et al., 2015). Concentrated Animal Feeding Facilities have also
become a growing issue as a form of nonpoint source pollution. Instead of having many farms

for animals, CAFFs have become an efficient alternative by reducing the number of farms and
increasing the number of animals in them (Karr et al., 2015). This leads to an unsanitary living
space for animals highly exposed to runoff. This runoff carries the feces of the animals which is
rich with nutrients.
The issue with nonpoint source pollution is that the effects to the environment it causes
are difficult to reverse due to three interconnected factors of human development. Problems are
not usually one-sided. In fact, problems must be addressed with the triple bottom line in mind.
The triple bottom line is the interconnected impacts of social, environmental, and economic
factors (Karr et al., 2015). These three factors often conflict with each other resulting in trade-
offs that will not entirely solve the problem of watershed clean up. This is known as a wicked
problem (Karr et al., 2015). These cases have no clear solution and often impede direct action to
address the growing issue. The wicked problems presented by nonpoint source pollution will be
addressed in the following case study. Lake Erie algae blooms are directly linked to this form of
nutrient pollution, yet it is almost, if not entirely, impossible to manage.
LAKE ERIE ALGAE BLOOM GROWTH
Harmful algae blooms (HABs) dominating the shoreline and surface waters of Lake Erie
are not a recent phenomenon. The lake has been infected with an abundance of HABs since the
late 1960s. A graph provided by Borre (2013) illustrates how long HABs have been present in
the lake and the leading causes for annual HAB growth. Nonpoint source pollution is by far the
leading factor contributing to the region’s infected water supply. Written in the spring of 2013,
Borre’s article is not updated with the summer-end effects of 2013 HAB growth. It was later

discovered that toxic algae infected the drinking water supply even after the final stages of water
treatment. For several days the region could not use the water supply until a solution was
reached. Granted, not all algae is toxic, but algae appearing each year that pose a concern are
blooms of cyanobacteria – a type of algae that is toxic to mammals (Borre, 2013). 2011 blooms,
the largest recorded, were studied extensively to find the root of their growth. Explosive HAB
growth occurred when algae overfed on nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2014). Nonpoint source pollution seemed to be the
culprit for this excessive volume of nutrients in the water. Borre discusses that researchers found
heavy spring rains caused massive runoff into the watershed and lake (2013). The studies focus
on the fertilizers that run off agricultural fields because they contain nutrients that are a food
source for algae.
Agricultural runoff has always been a consistent issue since the late 60s. Nitrogen and
phosphorus leakage into the watershed from fertilizers on fields is responsible for the
contaminated waters of Lake Erie. Management policies in place around the world have little
impact on the leakage originating from agriculture (Yi-Cheng et al., 2013). Agricultural nonpoint
source pollution is almost impossible to avoid which is why policies have never been too
effective at preventing it. Fertilizer runoff has been an issue for years; however certain practices
around Lake Erie have evolved over the course of the decade contributing to an increase in
nutrient runoff. Two big changes in the region are in the form of concentrated animal feeding
facilities (CAFFs) and converting land to grow biofuel corn.

While the amount of livestock and the farms that house them have decreased across the
region, the amount of concentrated animal feeding facilities has drastically increased.
Intensifying the amount of livestock a facility holds increases the animal waste in this small
space. Economically CAFFs are efficient, but environmentally it can lead to disastrous runoff
(Ohio Lake Erie Commission, 2008). The nutrient rich animal waste in CAFFs is much more
vulnerable to water runoff because the waste occurs in higher quantities. Therefore managing the
waste and cleaning the facility is much more difficult. This leads to unsanitary living conditions
for the animals which are highly susceptible to water runoff. This form of agriculture, especially
CAFFs located in riparian areas of the watershed, feed the algae blooms as efficiently as it feeds
its livestock.
The other form of agriculture that has changed in the region is land conversion to
agriculture. The sustainable industry of biofuel created a growing market of consumers who use
this fuel for their vehicles. Corn, the crop biofuel is made of, needed to be grown in mass
quantities to fulfill the demand of the biofuel market it created. This caused the industry to
convert land in the region into arable land (Borre, 2013). Though not seen as an issue in 2011,
the industry has grown substantially since then and should be considered as a factor to algae
bloom growth. Crop fields have always been incredible sources of nutrients for the environment,
converting more land to agricultural use will only increase the amount of nutrient runoff in the
Lake Erie watershed. The CAFF and biofuel industries are the two fastest growing nonpoint
sources of pollution in the area. This may help explain in part the explosive growth of algae in
recent years. Though extensive, rural economic growth is not the only human development at
fault.

Brownfields seem to riddle the watershed along Lake Erie created by industries taking
advantage of the lakeshore and its waterways for economic benefit. These sites are responsible
for solid waste disposal and the nutrients from the waste eventually make their way into the
watershed (Ohio Lake Erie Commission, 2008). The Ohio Lake Erie Commission (2008) plans
to address this issue with its “Lake Erie Protection & Restoration Plan” but it provides no direct
solution to this problem besides stating that “brownfield sites must be remediated to remove or
contain contaminants” (pp. 28). The plan addresses these sites as a pollution threat to all facets of
nature; however brownfields also provide nutrients responsible for explosive HAB growth.
These sites, particularly older ones, have an excess of ammonia that makes its way into the
watershed through runoff that eventually undergoes nitrification in oxygen-rich waters. The
bacterium responsible for this process can potentially create a eutrophic environment that is
lacking in oxygen (Canton et al., 2010). In Lake Erie, HABs feed on the ammonium runoff, and
nitrogen created in this process, from brownfields located along the lake. Again, humans have
created a nearly unmanageable form of nutrient nonpoint source pollution. It is no wonder that
HABs continue to flourish annually in the waters of Lake Erie.
HAB growth has always been an issue to the wildlife because it creates eutrophic
environments uninhabitable by marine animals and causes hazardous living conditions to small
mammals along the shoreline. However, within recent years, it has now become dangerous to
humans. Harmful alga is infecting the region’s drinking water supply in unmanageable
proportions, and therefore solutions must be found. On the other hand, trade-offs presented by
economic, environmental, and social factors may prevent an ultimate solution from being
conceivable.

Agriculture is widely accepted as the most direct cause of nonpoint source nutrient
pollution. All plans created by Ohio to combat HAB growth in Lake Erie have started with
correcting the nutrient runoff that is produced by agriculture. These plans focus in on managing
the issue along riparian areas (Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force, 2013 & Ohio Lake Erie
Commission, 2008). Agricultural land uses create flat plains that are easily susceptible to
nutrient-carrying soil erosion and fertilizer runoff during spring and summer rains. Eventually
the runoff makes its way to Lake Erie carried through the watershed. One solution that seems to
stand out amongst the rest as the most effective is a riparian buffer. Not only is it the most
effective, but it is generally the only method to be seriously considered and utilized.
Even though buffers are a potential solution, this in no way means that they are widely
accepted and used by farmers or government agencies; they are only seen as the best possible
option as of now. These buffers come in many shapes and forms whether it is a belt of trees or
perennial plants, or both, they all share a common purpose. This purpose is to enhance the water
bodies it borders by defending the water from agricultural practices (Dosskey et al., 1997).
Dosskey et al. (1997) list the buffer’s many advantages from preventing soil erosion along the
bank to filtering nutrients to providing valuable wildlife habitats. Unfortunately, there never
seems to be an ultimate solution to runoff pollution because, while there are numerous
advantages, there are also many reasons as to why buffers prove to be ineffective. These buffers
illustrate perfectly the relationship between social, environmental, and economic factors in
perpetuating this wicked problem.

The Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force II Final Report (2013) lists several different
kinds of buffers that can be utilized in riparian areas. Though numerous, the report explains that
none of these buffers provide one perfect solution for this case. According to a study, some
buffers provide a 68% decrease in nutrient runoff, while some increase this runoff by 39% (Ohio
Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force, 2013). When it comes down to it, farmers who wish to
implement buffers will ultimately decide which buffer style to implement based on their own
interests. This may not always be beneficial for the lake. This is where economic interest may
trump the interest of the environment. Additionally, farmers do not always want to implement
buffers solely based off the idea of economic loss. Converting these riparian borders to natural
buffers creates a loss in agricultural land space and may even cost additional resources and
money to install (Drosskey et al., 1997). Despite these issues, riparian buffers can undoubtedly
cut down on nutrient runoff into the lake if used widespread and effectively. Nevertheless, even
the environment it is implemented to protect can prevent the buffer from being effective.
The solution of buffers along waterways relies on natural factors like the stability of trees
and the absorption of nutrients by the soil to correct this problem. First of all, these buffers are
only effective where rapid soil erosion is not present. Buffers do a great job to prevent soil
erosion; eventually however a rapid moving waterway will quickly cause bank erosion.
Therefore buffers are only effective along passive waterways and lakes (Drosskey et al., 1997). It
can be concluded that agricultural facilities along major rivers feeding into Lake Erie may lack
effective buffers. In addition, riparian buffers are a natural environmental solution meaning they
cannot be expected to completely reverse the pollution humans release into the region. The
natural environment can only negate so much human degradation. According to The Ohio Lake

THE WICKED PROBLEM: LAKE ERIE ALGAE BLOOMS
10
Erie Phosphorus Task Force II Final Report (2013), buffers only reduce nutrient runoff into the
watershed by 68%. Hypothetically, if 50% of agricultural fields and facilities in riparian areas of
the Lake Erie watershed were to adopt effective buffers, nutrient runoff into Lake Erie would
only see a maximum decline of 34%. This number would be massively significant to the
reduction of HAB growth, however one must consider that this number is hypothetical and, in
reality, miraculous. First of all, these buffers really only address agricultural runoff and do not
prevent nutrient pollution from brownfields, raw sewage, and urban storm water runoff.
Therefore 34% would still be too high. Moreover, 50% of agricultural land adopting effective
buffers along riparian areas is a longshot considering the economic motives mentioned
previously, and the drastic social factors perpetuated by the sheer size of Lake Erie.
Research on the social efforts of HAB growth and nonpoint source pollution has led to a
lack of available information. However, this lack of information has provided a clear picture as
to why social factors happen to be a double-edged sword to the prevention of HAB growth. Plans
that address HAB growth and nonpoint source nutrient pollution all happen to be efforts that
occur at state-level. Two major planning documents that address HAB growth (as well as other
environmental issues), “The Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force II Final Report” and the
“Lake Erie Protection & Restoration Plan 2008”, are both state-wide plans for Ohio. If more
sustainable farming regulations and practices are to be accomplished, cities must be responsible
for creating change. It is nearly impossible to manage an entire state watershed to prevent the
nutrient runoff that poisons it. If city planning documents outlined more responsible farming
practices as a solution to the problem, it could be enforced more efficiently. Yet even this

11
proposal would inhibit social change; mainly because Lake Erie and its watershed are massive.
Lake Erie borders two countries and hundreds of cities, plus the streams and rivers of the
watershed flow through hundreds more. It is almost an impractical feat for all of these cities,
from two separate nations, to work together cohesively and effectively to correct the explosive
annual HAB growth.
CONCLUSION
There are not many solutions as of now that can combat the annual toxic algae blooms
that infect Lake Erie. These blooms are harmful to local mammals and deprive shallow aquatic
habitats of oxygen. In fact, algae have temporarily infected the drinking water supply available to
the region making it hazardous to consume. Therefore, action must be taken to prevent the
annual growth of harmful algae to save this valuable water supply and its precious ecosystems.
The regions surrounding the lake, especially to the West in Ohio and Michigan, have developed
agriculturally-reliable economies that deposit nutrients into Lake Erie responsible for algae
growth. Other developments like brownfields and urban sewage also contribute to this problem.
The few solutions that are available do not provide a solid answer to the problem. Riparian
buffers are probably the most effective but are limited by factors that introduce significant trade-
offs. These interconnected social, environmental, and economic factors all contribute to the
wicked problem that makes Lake Erie algae blooms impossible to prevent.
I have neither given or received, nor have I tolerated others’ use of unauthorized aid.

12
References
Borre, L. (2013). Harmful Algae Blooms Plague Lake Erie Again. National Geographic. Karr,
Retrieved from http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/24/harmful-algae-blooms-
plague-lake-erie-again/
Canton, M., Anschutz, P., Naudet, V., Molnar, N., Mouret, A., Franceschi, M., & ... Poirier, D.
(2010). Impact of solid waste disposal on nutrient dynamics in a sandy catchment.
Journal Of Contaminant Hydrology, 116(1-4), 1-15.
Dosskey, M.G., Schultz, R.C., & Isenhart, T.M. (1997). Riparian Buffers for Agricultural Land.
Forestry Publications, Paper 9.
Karr, S., Interlandi, J., & Houtman, A. (2015). Environmental Science For a Changing World.
New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (2014, October 10). Why do harmful algal
blooms occur? Retrieved from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/why_habs.html
Ohio Lake Erie Commission, (2008). Lake Erie Protection & Restoration Plan 2008. Retrieved
from http://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Reports/2008LEPRplan.pdf
Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force II Final Report. (2013). Retrieved from
https://www.motherjones.com/files/task_force_report_october_2013.pdf
Yi-Cheng, F., Ben-Qing, R., & Ting, G. (2013). Watershed Agricultural Non-Point Source
Pollution Management. Polish Journal Of Environmental Studies, 22(2), 367-375.

Lk Erie Algae Blooms Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Lk Erie Algae Blooms Case Study

Similar to Lk Erie Algae Blooms Case Study (8)

Lk Erie Algae Blooms Case Study