Lake Erie Rehabilitated: Controlling Cultural Eutrophication 1960s-1990s

Chapter II: Eutrophication of Ontario Waters

while scientists from around the world were investigating the causes of cultural eutrophication, officials responsible for water pollution control had to deal with the problem in their various jurisdictions as best they could. In the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin, lying entirely within the province of Ontario, and elsewhere in Canada, eutrophication became a problem affecting hundreds of lakes from the late 1950s. The experience of the Ontario Water Resources Commission (OWRC), created in 1956, in addressing the problem in the Canadian portion of Lake Erie and elsewhere in Ontario waters for over a dozen years from its emergence is illustrative.1 The OWRC reported that, during the summer of 1958, and apparently for the first time, “Complaints concerning the effect of algae on shorelines were numerous.”2 Some of the complaints came from members of the Federation of Property Owners Association which served the interests of summer residents, mostly Americans, who owned property on the Canadian shore of Lake Erie extending from Fort Erie west for some thirty-six miles. The residents complained about the filamentous alga Cladophora, which grows attached to submerged solid surfaces, such as rocks or pipes, Eutrophication of Ontario Waters 28 C H A P T E R I I being washed up on beaches where it decomposed, producing “an intensely disagreeable odor .l.l. so obnoxious” that contiguous beach property could not be used for residential, recreational, or business purposes. Swimming, boating, and fishing were adversely affected, and motels and camps were unable to attract guests. Residents were said to be confused and exasperated.3 Cladophora was also causing serious nuisances along the shores of Lake Ontario. The Biology Branch of one of the OWRC’s five divisions, the Division of Laboratories and Research, began to investigate both the extent of the algal problem and means to control it. In November 1958, “in view of the seriousness of the problem,” a conference was held at the provincial Parliament Buildings in Toronto for the benefit of municipalities and individuals affected by it. Papers were presented on the nature of Cladophora and the causes and control of its growth, and subsequently a booklet on these subjects was prepared and distributed.4 Chemicals were apparently the first means used in attempting to control Cladophora. By 1962, “many chemicals had been field tested” by the Biology Branch.5 Some had shown promise, although they varied in their effectiveness. To determine why they varied, a laboratory procedure was devised to test a chemical’s effectiveness at different concentrations, over different times, and at different temperatures. The procedure also facilitated the screening of additional chemicals and the comparison of their effectiveness with that of known algicides without the need to conduct expensive and time-consuming field tests. Although the Biology Branch found one algicide, which it did not identify, to be effective against Cladophora, it concluded that the cost of using the chemical to control the alga “was rather high and until some cheaper chemical became available it likely would not be economical to treat the affected area.” Seeking an alternative means of control, the Biology Branch investigated the feasibility of mechanical collection and disposal of Cladophora. As this approach appeared to offer a practical solution for controlling Cladophora in many, though not all, areas, the branch proposed a research study to devise suitable machinery.6 The incipient resort to the use of chemicals to control aquatic plant growth is reflected in one of several amendments made to the Ontario Eutrophication of Ontario Waters 2 Water Resources Commission Act in 1962. The addition of any substance to the water of any well, lake, river, pond, spring, stream, reservoir, or other watercourse for the purpose of killing or affecting plants, fish, or other living matter without a permit issued by the commission was prohibited.7 The Biology Department was responsible for issuing the permits, and, during the first year, it issued 139. It is unclear how many of these were for the control of Cladophora. Also by 1962, problems with other algae were adding to the work of the Biology Branch, which noted the increasing demand for routine algal counts.8 During the ensuing year, the branch, understanding that the quality of water is reflected in the numbers and species of algae found in it, prepared a detailed manual on algae identification...