The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements

From AquaPedia Case Study Database
Revision as of 13:02, 8 May 2014 by Mdeas (Talk | contribs)


Jump to: navigation, search
{{#var: location map}}


Case Description
Loading map...
Geolocation: 42° 4' 0.7867", -81° 20' 23.789"
Total Population 3535,000,000 millionmillion
Total Area 244,106 km"km" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property. km2
Climate Descriptors Continental (Köppen D-type)
Predominent Land Use Descriptors agricultural- cropland and pasture, conservation lands, urban- high density
Important Uses of Water Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Fisheries - farmed, Industry - consumptive use, Recreation or Tourism

Summary

The Great Lakes and their associated basins share a complex border that must incorporate multiple jurisdictions and players. At the federal level, the lakes border Canada and the United States. Within the United States there are eight U.S. States within the watershed, and at the municipal level there are many cities including Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, and Buffalo. In Canada the lakes impact two provinces and serve 32% of the population. Adding even another layer, the Great Lakes are home to various tribal groups and first nations. Finally, business, agriculture, and environmental groups all have a stake in the management of the Great Lakes.

The 1909 Borders Treaty established a binational structure for shared water management between Canada and the United States.  This treaty established the International Joint Commission (IJC), which is made up of representatives from each nation.  While the treaty and subsequent agreements clearly designated that the IJC has authority to manage water levels within the Great Lakes, it is much less clear on the subject of water quality. Due to this ambiguity, Canada and the United States have entered into a number of Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements (GLWQA) since the 1970s that try to better define this relationship and create a structure for effective management.  In the early years these agreements did not take into account the complexity and multi-level nature of stakeholders who must be involved in implementing the obligations of these agreements.  However, recent changes to the language in the agreement and efforts to be more inclusive by the IJC evidences an increasing realization that more stakeholder engagement is necessary for either nation to reach its objectives.



Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework

Issues and Stakeholders

Participants in Water Management:



1) Environmental Protection Agency: Represents the United States in Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements (GLWQA). Sets national minimum water quality standards. Helps provide funding for water quality obligations in addition to those designated by Congress. 2) Environment Canada: Represents Canada in GLWQA. Provides funding assistance to Provinces. 3) International Joint Commission (IJC): Consists of 3 commissioners appointed by United States government and 3 commissioners appointed by Canadian government. Oversees the implementation process of the GLWQA. Reviews and monitors the health of the Great Lakes. Provides recommendations to the United States and Canadian Governments. Receives public feedback and organizes stakeholder engagement processes. a. Water Quality Advisory Board: Includes federal, provincial, state, tribal, and municipal representation. Also includes members representing agriculture and business interests, and environmental non-governmental groups from each country. Serves as principle advisor to the commission. Makes periodic reports and recommendations to the IJC regarding water quality in the Great Lakes. b. Great Lakes Regional Office: Made up of a binational staff of primarily scientists. Carries out scientific and technical investigations into Great Lakes Water Quality. Oversees Areas of Concern and Lakewide Management Plans. Also provides administrative services for the IJC 4) 8 U.S. Bordering States: Includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. State governments are in charge of implementing actions to meet federal obligations. States are particularly concerned with preventing unfunded mandates. Some states would like to participate in policy and agenda setting. 5) Quebec and Ontario: These provinces are in charge of implementing actions to meet federal requirements. There is a formal compact between the Canadian Government and Ontario, which stipulated that Ontario will be in charge of program design and implementation but will receive necessary funds from federal government. Cities are particularly concerned with preventing unfunded mandates. 6) U.S. Municipal Governments: Cities are in charge of implementing actions to meet federal and state requirements. Mayors from municipalities in both Canada and the Great Lakes are organized through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative since 2003 to better coordinate city interests and meet requirements. Cities are particularly concerned with preventing unfunded mandates. 7) Tribal Governments: Tribal governments and first nations are increasingly interested in seeking recognition as an interested party in the management of the Great Lakes. While they appear to be on loosely organized, some tribal groups depend on the Great Lakes for important economic and cultural needs. 8) Agricultural Groups: While urban areas were the traditional targets for pollution controls, increasingly scientists are realizing that phosphates are entering the Great Lakes from fertilizers used by those in agriculture. Therefore, agricultural groups are becoming increasingly concerned about impending regulations. 9) Business Interests: Business groups are primarily concerned with minimizing regulations, especially for those involved in the chemical industries. Instead, they would prefer the government to take on the burden of meeting their voluntary commitments.

10) Environmental Groups: Environmental groups are concerned with improving water quality, protecting fish habitats, and addressing climate change.

Participants in Water Management:




Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight

What is an ASI?

Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.

Learn more

ASI:Analysis of the Water Diplomacy Framework

(read the full article... )

(last edit: 18 May 2014)