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.

Documents

Lk Erie Algae Blooms Case Study