About Us   •   Public Education   •   Species at Risk   •   Projects   •   Other Activities   •   Membership

With so much happening these days, environmental issues tend to drop lower on the list of priorities. The problems are complicated, not easily understood and seem well beyond the reach of the average person to affect in any meaningful way. It is the job of science to provide the answers to these issues. Supposedly, government then uses the findings of good science to develop and implement policies, which protect the public interest so we can get on with our lives and not worry about things.

Of course, it depends on whose scientist one listens to. For every scientist that says one thing, it is usually possible to find another one who will disagree or at least declare that the findings are not conclusive and so on. Conservation science vs industrial science vs political science - it quickly becomes a nightmare. Sometimes though, all these scientific communities come together, decide on a plan of action, and implement it and when they do, we discover the other side of the story.

In the late sixties, Lake Erie was in serious trouble. The smallest of the Great Lakes system, it was the canary in the mine shaft for the health of the chain of lakes which contain the largest volume of fresh water on the planet. The fish were dying, algae and rotting seaweed were washing up on the shores. Most frightening was the dead zone that was growing in the bottom of the lake. So much oxygen was being depleted from the system that the bottom third of the lake's water would not support fish. If they swam into it they would suffocate.

In an unprecedented series of actions, government at all levels industry, the environmental community, and local citizens came together. The problem was diagnosed as being too much phosphate dumped into the lake from sewage treatment plants, farming and other sources. The scientific opinion was that a reduction in phosphate levels from the 30,000 tonnes per year being dumped into the system to 11,000 tonnes would solve the problem. Massive new treatment plants, regulation, voluntary compliance mechanisms, new technologies: All these combined to have a dramatic effect on Lake Erie. By the early eighties the target was reached and by the mid nineties, a victory was declared. Fish were back, the waters were clearer and the problem appeared to have been solved.

Or so it seemed. To everyone's dismay, latest studies show that not only is the dead zone still in Lake Erie, it is getting larger. The algae are back, including a new, more toxic strain. On top of that, avian botulism is killing flocks of birds and toxic buildup in fish and birds is increasing. Walleye populations are declining, tumours on fish are common and the populations of Zebra mussels inadvertently imported from the Black Sea in ship's ballasts are growing hugely.

There are many theories as to why the health of Lake Erie is again declining. Voluntary compliance reports may be underestimating the amounts of phosphorous being put on the land by agriculturists. Spending cuts by government have curtailed research. The change in the ecosystem brought about by the Zebra mussels is a possibility. The sewage treatment systems, while improved, still don't do some of the necessary things like separate sewage and storm drains, so that when it rains the overflow carries extra sewage into the lake.

Global warming may also be in the mix. Records show that the water supplies drawn from the lake have been increasing in temperature over the years. This may effect the way the dead zone operates, causing the phenomenon to last longer and become deeper.

Whatever the group of issues causing the problem, Lake Erie is in trouble. Like Humpty Dumpty, "all the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put him back together again". That is the thing about science: It is a learning craft, not a text book in which to look up answers. The Lake Erie experience shows all too clearly that even when all agree on "good science", it is not the fix we would like it to be.

This is even more true of one-sided science that does not take the holistic view; science that serves special interests such as those looking to support an agenda. So, the next time you read that decisions will be based on "sound science", beware. Ask whose science it is and be cautious. Lake Erie is dying and there is nothing science can do about it; we don't need a repeat of that scenario here.

- Dave Neads

For more on the Lake Erie story see The Globe and Mail Saturday, October 5, 2002 - (Print Edition, Page F1) "DEAD in the WATER" by MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

More articles in the series, The Other Side of The Story

Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society
Unit 201, 197 2nd Ave North Williams Lake, B.C., V2G 1Z5
Phone/Fax: 250 398-7929 • ccentre@ccconserv.org • Coordinator: Marg Evans

About Us   •   Public Education   •   Species at Risk   •   Projects   •   Other Activities   •   Membership

Original information in this web site may be reproduced in any form without permission on condition that it is accredited to the Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society, with a link back to this site or, in the case of printed material, a clear indication of the site URL. We would appreciate being notified of such use. Although care has been taken in preparing the information contained in this site, the CCCS does not and cannot guarantee its accuracy. Anyone using the information does so at their own risk and shall be deemed to indemnify CCCS from any and all injury or damage that might arise from such use.

---