Follow us on:
Going to the lake this weekend? Ontario’s Great Lakes Protection Act affects you.
back to the issue
Click a term to initiate a search.
topics
- Toxic Nation (45)
- Tar Sands (44)
- Blue Flag (29)
- Just Beautiful (26)
- Great Lakes (22)
- Clean Energy (17)
- Greenbelt (14)
- Lake Simcoe (14)
- Good Green Jobs (9)
- Banning Bisphenol A (2)
Jun
28
2012
Muskoka, the Kawarthas, Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe are all potentially affected by the Ontario government’s Great Lakes Protection Act, introduced this month.
If you are among the throngs of people heading to Ontario’s cottage country, you will have hours stuck in traffic to crave a cool swim and also ponder the importance of our Great Lakes. We count on clean water when we go swimming, sailing, and have a drink. And we trust that the forests and wetlands in the Great Lakes watershed will continue to support the wildlife we love and do their part to keep the water clean, too.
Muskoka, the Kawarthas, Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe–they are all part of the gigantic Great Lakes watershed. And they are all potentially affected by the Ontario government’s Great Lakes Protection Act, introduced this month.
What changes have you have noticed in your lake? The answers differ from lake to lake. In Georgian Bay people are worried about water levels, and lower water levels' effects on navigation, cotter pins, skegs, wetland habitat, and fishing. On lakes Simcoe, Ontario, and Erie people are worried about the impacts of zebra mussels, algae, and weeds (they are all related). On Lake Superior, mining impacts are top of mind.
Until August 7th, the province wants to hear what we all think about the Great Lakes Protection Act. This is the best opportunity to affect the direction the province is taking, and to influence what makes the cut this fall when the Act will be debated by all parties in the Ontario legislature.
If reading legislation isn’t your thing, I’ll give you a quick summary of the most important things about the Act, and what you can do. Or you can sign up for Green News, where we will keep you posted about our response to the Act, and actions you can take.
The Act
The broad purposes of the Act, we like. They are, generally, to protect and restore the ecological health of the Great Lakes and to encourage individual and community engagement in support of that goal. Its focus is on empowering people and restoring Great Lakes water, wetlands, beaches and coastlines.
In the long run, the best outcome could be aligning the work of ministries whose activities affect the Great Lakes. For example, the ministries responsible for housing, development, roads, and pipelines, should be helping, not hurting, the Great Lakes. I think we would all like to see greater efficiency and alignment of purposes across ministries, so we stop creating problems that are expensive to fix. The Act’s proposed Great Lakes Guardians Council might help break down these silos and improve coordination.
Almost all the changes we will see on the ground will be done through what are called Geographically Focussed Initiatives. These action plans can deal with a range of locally-identified and relevant issues, including, improving wetlands, forests, shoreline, coastal areas, sewage treatment, land use planning, monitoring and other issues. This is probably a good thing because it will give a range of smaller, cheaper projects to pursue, as well as resolving some of the tensions we’ve seen around local control and decision-making in Ontario.
The Strategy
In addition to the Act, the government has also unveiled a strategy that sets the direction for Ontario’s work on the Great Lakes, which is helpful for Canada-US agreements, Canada-Ontario agreements. It describes what the province will do to achieve its Great lakes goals and will be reviewed every nine years.
Through a new local community action program groups can apply for funds to do things like shoreline remediation work, improve beaches, or build trails, all of which will help with making better habitats for animals, and improving people’s quality of life.
While these are all steps in the right direction, public involvement, at all levels, will be the key to success. Let’s hope it does succeed—whether we use the Great Lakes to drink, for work, or for play. They provide drinking water to 80% of Ontarians; $234 million is injected into the Ontario economy from the fishing industry alone, and recreational fishing adds another $600 million. Tourists spent $12.3 billion in 2010 around the Great Lakes.
So, take a look, stay in the loop, and make a comment–after you’ve had a swim.
leave a comment
Jul
26
2012
What about radiation in the water?
Brian porter says:
Port Hope is toxic, run off from this area is radioactivve, what is being done to deal with this issue? When. Is some group going to step forward to champion this cause?
Aug
07
2012
Thank you for pointing this
cmalcolmson says:
Thank you for pointing this out. By championing green energy we aim to reduce our reliance on unsustainable and polluting forms of energy generation like nuclear and coal. We've been focused on improving Great Lakes water quality for some time, but right now we need to focus on what can be regulated under new provincial legislation, and it doesn't seem that radioactive run-off is in that category. I'll do some more research to learn what can be done about this.
Aug
01
2012
great lakes protection
ian a brookes says:
Not everyone who enjoys recreation, passive or active, on the Great Lakes, will agree with increased government regulation and reinforcement of it from groups such as ED. Many cottagers are just fine without intrusive regulation, mainly because it costs therm, but also because their idea of "their little piece of Paradise" may not conform to regulatory requirements.
What can ED do to bring such owners on-side? Maybe present reasonable scenarios of what happens when environmental regulations are not adhered to; present economic arguments for regulation: e.g, costs of enviro degradation caused by such non-adherence.
ED might link to nationa and international agencies concerned with such conflicts in the "large lake" context; Large Lakes Observatory at U Minnesota Duluth is one; EU Environment agency? Enviro action taken by newly reconstituted Balkan states, in the cause of public health and tourism.
Aug
02
2012
Degradation of the Great Lakes
Andrew Stewart says:
I think our Great Lakes deserve serious attention now, before further degradation sets in as a result of increasing water withdrawals for human use and climate change. Having just returned from Uzbekistan, where the inland Aral Sea has rapidly and mostly disappeared during the past 40 years through mismanagement, with disastrous consequences for soil, atmosphere, agriculture and the health of people living around the former sea, I think our own efforts to establish strong policy, backed by legislation, to protect the Great Lakes cannot begin soon enough. Every Ontarian needs to know the extent to which our quality of life depends on the quality of the Great Lakes and should get behind thbis effort. We also need to work closely with states across the international border that runs through the Great Lakes on this issue.
Aug
07
2012
Perhaps we are too sheltered
cmalcolmson says:
Perhaps we are too sheltered from these worst case scenarios, and take good water quality for granted.
Aug
06
2012
farming
Rachelle Chevalier says:
I would like to see discussions amongst affected and interoperating groups here and farmers. I believe farming has a great impact on the health of our lakes and solutions should be integrated.
Aug
07
2012
Farming has enormous impacts
cmalcolmson says:
Farming has enormous impacts on water quality in some places, and farmers can improve environmental conditions with better land stewardship. But they are precisely the group that most objects to more government regulations, or at least that's the position their representatives take in government consultations. So our governments tend to offer financial incentives to farmers to do land stewardship, minimize mandatory actions, and hope to keep them from revolting against regulations.
Under the proposed Great Lakes Protection Act, if agriculture is a major source of water pollution in a particular place(such as western Lake Erie), then a "local body" can put forward a "geographically focused initiative" with new rules that address that particular place's problems. I think this makes good sense!
Aug
07
2012
Farming/Asian Carp
Daisy says:
While checking the e-coli count @ Sauble Beach I came across an article where some people believe the problem lies in septic tank and sewer use. The e-coli levels are even higher in the sand at the water's edge. Yet I never see any speculation that because the cows have free use of the Sauble River and after a rain the run off goes into the lake, it could be one of the problems. After Walkerton why are communities still allowed not to fence off the river from their cattle? Seems basic to me. It doesn't have to be one or the other, could be both. The study to come out in October will no doubt cast blame, when it's obvious all activity by farmers and by the septic system should be made to upgrade. And how soon before we see Asian Carp in the lakes and rivers and tribuatories?
Aug
10
2012
RE: Farming/Asian Carp
ali says:
I'd love to take an early look at this article, if you'd be able to provide a link!
Comments
We would love to hear from you - leave a comment below, or reply to a previous comment. We have a comments policy