Introduction
The Northeast and Midwest Congressional and Senate alliances work together through the House and Senate Great Lakes Task Forces to enhance the economic and environmental health of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Working Groups were established in the mid-1980s and collaborated to promote laws and initiatives that strengthen the Great Lakes. For more than 30 years, the bipartisan coalitions of the Northeast and Midwest have protected the 18-state region’s economic competitiveness, environmental quality, and energy interests (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019).
The Great Lakes Task Forces members collaborate to increase support for important regional initiatives that enhance the Great Lakes Basin’s environmental quality and promote economic growth. The task forces organize meetings, hearings, and briefings for members and staff. They also work together to pursue legislative and appropriations agendas and oversee agency operations. These tasks are carried out through teamwork and serve as an effective intergovernmental governance model.
Description of Great American Lakes
North America is the lacustrine continent, with two percent of its surface comprised of lakes. Moreover, it is no accident that the Great American LakesâUpper Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, Great Bear, and Great Slave Lakeâare situated on its territory (The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, 2022). There are around 250 lakes in the world, 9 of which are larger than 500 square kilometers, and half are in the United States (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019).
Large tectonic lakes like these can be found on the surface of the oldest land shields. The glacier has also created relief, which has continually covered this area. Ontario, the smallest of the Great Lakes, is 9,000 square kilometers in size (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019).
Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake on land. It truly is an inland sea of fresh water. Early European explorers first used the term. Except for Lake Erie, which has a maximum depth of 64 meters, the lakes range from 200 to 400 meters (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019). Indian tribes who lived on their coastlines gave Lakes Huron and Erie their names.
Sources of Environmental Contamination of the Lakes
Environmental contamination has become a major concern. The atmosphere, seas, and surface waterways are all contaminated. Pollution has also impacted the Great American Lakes, particularly in places with significant industry, intense agriculture, and dense populations (Rose, 1999). Erie, Ontario, and the southern half of Lake Michigan are among them.
The Detroit River alone dumps 7.5 million cubic meters of effluent daily into Lake Erie (DeMaria et al., 2022). Every year, the lake receives 46 million tonnes of solids, 4 million tonnes of chlorides, 27,000 tonnes of phosphates, and 16 tonnes of nitrogen products. These lakes are already so contaminated that their condition will take at least 500 years to improve (DeMaria et al., 2022). Since their sluggish water exchange, lakes pollute more quickly than rivers.
Heat also causes physical contamination of the lake water. Furthermore, it causes a drop in dissolved oxygen in water, delays the process of self-purification, stimulates the fast growth of algae, and ultimately leads to a degradation in water quality. The deterioration of lake water quality due to human activities prompted individuals to seek measures to enhance lake health (The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, 2022).
In this regard, the history of the Great American Lakes is instructive. Their position has improved due to the efforts, but it is too early to speak of a favorable ecological state. Nevertheless, keep it in mind every day and take care of the lakes. Lakes, after all, are a natural aspect of the landscape, a living cellular nature. Moreover, what a sight these lakes are. Furthermore, how quickly would the colors of nature fade if these lakes vanished?
History of Clean Lakes Task Force Activity
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The Great Lakes of North America contain the most fresh water. The United States and Canada agreed on the Great Lakes water quality in 1972 (Anderson et al., 2021). This agreement aims to restore and sustain the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem’s bodies of water. The United States and Canada are committed to making their best efforts to build programs, techniques, and technologies necessary to better understand the Great Lakes Basin ecology and eliminate or decrease pollution discharge into the Great Lakes environment to the greatest degree practicable. This agreement shows a wide commitment to maintaining the Great Lakes basin’s health.
One-fifth of the world’s freshwater surface area is contained in the five Great Lakes. In terms of surface area and volume, this places them among the top 15 biggest lakes in the world (Hartig et al., 2020). These lakes provide a source of drinking water for 23.5 million people (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019). Both the US and Canadian populations rely significantly on these lakes, not just for drinking water but also for leisure, food supply, and transportation.
Water quality is typically excellent in the upper Great Lakes system’s open water bodies, which include Upper, Michigan, and Huron Lakes. Only a few degraded sites and riparian habitats are exceptions, particularly in metropolitan areas. Lake Huron’s water quality has improved in recent years due to improved water quality in Saginaw Bay.
Furthermore, Lake Erie’s water quality has greatly improved during the last two decades. Pesticides, nutrient suspensions, and their impacts on living creatures were the primary targets of Great Lakes-related initiatives in 2000 (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019). The key worry then became the sustainability of Great Lakes fisheries, especially the impacts of non-native species invasion. To date, hazardous toxic chemical discharges documented by the Toxic Release Inventory System have been reduced for the fourth year.
Toxic compounds that persist in bioaccumulation, such as mercury and dioxins that accumulate in fish tissue, continue to be a problem in the American Great Lakes basin. It is presently thought that contamination by these persistent, bioaccumulative hazardous chemicals is caused mostly by local pollutants from previous discharges and atmospheric deposition. Furthermore, the erosion of coastal marshes and shorelines has increased.
Wetlands and shorelines in the Great Lakes region were only a component of a system that existed two centuries ago. According to reports, 80 percent of coastal wetlands have been lost (Anderson et al., 2021). The loss of these areas changes the ecological and chemical makeup of the streams that flow through them and into the Great Lakes. Heavy land wetting, dredging, drainage, dam construction, pollution, and water level regulation have all contributed to the degradation of the Great Lakes’ water quality and the decline of fish and wildlife populations that rely on the condition of the Great Lakes region’s coastal areas and estuaries.
The Bible says, “I have brought you into a fertile land to eat fruit and rich food. But you have come and defiled my land, and have made my inheritance an abomination” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Jeremiah 2:7). Protecting the environment and correcting the mistakes of humanity can help people redeem their genes.
The Clean Lakes Programme
Section 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act established the Clean Lakes Programme, which provides states with financial and technical support to repair publicly owned lakes. The major federal program prioritizes lakes – their monitoring, conservation, and management – at the national level. A range of human causes has resulted in considerable water quality degradation in hundreds of North American lakes during the last century. Recognizing the water quality issues confronting our nation’s lakes, Congress included the Clean Lakes Programme in the Act’s 1972 modifications (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019).
Section 314 includes numerous state evaluation and reporting criteria, a national demonstration program, and an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding program to help states with project implementation and program duties.
The Clean Lakes Programme has received around $145 million in government funds since 1976 (Marsden & Siefkes, 2019). The program’s financing authority expires in 1990. In recent years, the EPA has not requested funds for the Clean Lakes program, which has not been appropriated since FY 1995. In May 1996, the EPA suggested that states use Section 319 funding (for nonpoint source control) to finance qualified Clean Lakes program initiatives (Rotman et al., 2021). Section 319 was used to award some of the Clean Lakes Programme money.
Recently, the EPA has suggested that states use a portion of Section 319 monies for Section 314 operations. Several public and private lake water quality management organizations have advocated for enhanced Section 314 funding (Bitterman & Koliba, 2020). Lake restoration techniques have greatly advanced over the last two decades. They are widely regarded as a vital component of attaining the Clean Water Act’s objective of restoring the nation’s “fishable and swimmable waterways,” including 41 million acres of freshwater lakes. Furthermore, there is rising worry about the negative impact of acid rain and acid mine drainage on the country’s lakes.
The funding required to treat the nation’s largest and most nationally significant lakes may surpass what a single state can supply. The Section 314 program requires separate, substantial, and regular financing to address the demands of state lake programs. The state runs lake programs. Many people regard the Clean Lakes Programme as a fantastic opportunity for watershed-based, community-driven initiatives and activities.
The program has been well-received by local “grassroots” organizations and residents since its start. Section 314 allows for much-needed collaboration between federal, state, and municipal governments. Unlike Section 319, the program focuses on pollution prevention and remediation. According to the Bible, “The earth is exhausted and fainted, the world faints and faints, the fainting of the earth is lifted. The earth is defiled by its people; they have broken laws, statutes, and the eternal covenant.
Therefore, the curse is swallowing the earth, and His people must bear their guilt. Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and very few remain” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Isaiah 24:4-6). The Clean Lakes program aims to address environmental problems, which will improve the state of the land by a small percentage. Furthermore, the program’s focus is broad enough to assist communities in addressing a wide range of issues, including nonpoint source runoff, air deposition, coastal deterioration, and mercury poisoning.
Collaborative Network and Intergovernmental Management
Public Administration Networks
The network approach to public administration is a response to the changing environment in which public affairs are managed and a reflection of disagreements between representatives of various management ideologies. The ecology of public administration has altered dramatically over the last several decades, necessitating the search for alternative governance models other than market and hierarchical administrative ones. The increased pluralization of social structures, the complexity of relationships between different groups of people, the high level of public needs and expectations, and the large scale of uncertainty and risk – these and other factors have led to a rethinking of traditional managerial approaches, particularly those in which the peculiarities of the public sphere were minimized, such as in new public management, which was given the label of neoterism.
Description of Political Network Theory
First, political network theory reconstructs the link between government and modern society. Rather than seeking to eliminate societal complexity to achieve efficient governance, it welcomes it as an essential precondition for governance building. More importantly, collaborative networks bring the government closer to society. Political networks are mid-level ideas; they highlight the interaction between governance systems and social and corporate relationships rather than the relationship between society and the state.
Second, collaborative network theory reestablishes the linkages between management and politics. The new public administration announced its disinterest in politics (Agranoff, 2017). On the other hand, the political networks’ approach to public administration demonstrates an interest in the political scene.
It is worth noting that the problem of governance efficacy is addressed in the idea of collaborative networks through the goal-process relationship rather than the goal-means relationship (Morton et al., 2008). Although qualitative parameters of this satisfaction frequently evaluate the effectiveness of networks serving the satisfaction of any public needs, these networks can also be evaluated by transaction costs, costs of negotiations, integration, and coordination of their activities. In truth, efficiency rather than efficacy is being discussed here.
Benefits of Collaborative Networks and Governance Efficacy
Public managers are frequently asked to collaborate across boundaries to achieve organizational goals in the modern networked world. Often, the nature of the policy challenge is so wide that public administrators are forced to work with cross-sector organizations (Bryson et al., 2015). This is especially true in health, education, and environmental policy, where large-scale collaborative action by many sectors and interest groups is required to solve public problems (Agranoff, 2017).
Collaborative networks are good for solving environmental concerns, as the Clean Lakes Congress demonstrated. This is because the environment is not just about one organization or nation; humanity is to blame for the predicament. Organizations join networks when they cannot fix an issue or affect the situation.
Political networks are more successful in building relationships between the state and diverse interest groups than the market or hierarchy because they lower bargaining costs owing to network participants’ trust. The potential of trust emerges in political networks, interactions in which trust is embodied due to the numerous social order reasons linked with establishing a network of the kind of political community (Kauffman, 2015). Trust is formed as a function of social construction during the networking process. Second, the internal circumstances of interaction between members of political networks determine their efficacy.
When the network is integrated, network efficiency is maximized. Still, only when the integration is centered on the power key agent. This form generally facilitates integration and coordination. It will also be greatest when the State’s financial control procedures are direct rather than fragmented or indirect.
Network efficiency is most probable in conditions with abundant resources and least likely in environments with limited resources (Kauffman, 2015). However, a resource surplus will not result in an efficient network, and a resource scarcity will not result in an inefficient network (other aspects are more important). Network efficiency will be best in conditions of overall network stability, while stability is not a need for efficiency.
Application of the Concepts to Cleaning the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes contain one-fifth of the world’s fresh surface water, supplying drinking water to over 30 million Americans and Canadians, supporting a $6 trillion regional economy, and providing habitat for diverse fish and species (Rotman et al., 2021). Sustainable investment is critical to removing hazardous Concern Zones, eliminating the threat of invasive species, restoring ecosystems, lowering harmful algal blooms, and managing other Great Lakes concerns through the collaboration between the United States and Canada. Joint networks that states utilize to achieve a common aim define mutual interests and possibilities. The application of this paradigm assists them in successfully solving the problem, resulting in qualitative intergovernmental management.
Conclusion
Collaborative networks have certain features that set them apart from other management activities in terms of public demands and interests. First, networks are a public affairs management system that connects the state and civil society. This structure may be seen experimentally and conceptually as various governmental, corporate, and social organizations and institutions connected by certain shared interests.
Second, a network is developed to develop agreements for the exchange of resources among its members. This means that network members have a vested interest in one another. The distribution of resources may be unequal, but regardless of the degree of concentration and certain dominance of a number of network actors, the latter are obliged to interact, and resource dependency exists between network actors.
Third, similar cooperative interests are a key feature of a collaborative network. Many studies emphasize this trait because it separates this regulatory structure from the market, where each member is primarily concerned with their interests. Fourth, regarding political decision-making, network members are not organized in a hierarchical structure in which any organization has an advantage regarding power position. In terms of being able to make a shared decision on an issue of interest, all network members are equal, and there are horizontal rather than vertical interactions.
The United States has consistently devoted significant resources to maintaining the health and water quality of the Great Lakes, primarily through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, providing an excellent example of how collaborative networks work effectively as a model of intergovernmental governance. The favorable findings and overall increase in the Great Lakes’ ecological health can prove the model’s success. Other governments should gradually follow this innovation in interstate governance since it aids in qualitatively resolving global concerns.
References
Agranoff, R. (2017). Crossing boundaries for intergovernmental management. Georgetown University Press.
Anderson, H. S., Johengen, T. H., Godwin, C. M., Purcell, H., Alsip, P. J., Ruberg, S. A., & Mason, L. A. (2021). Continuous in situ nutrient analyzers pinpoint the onset and rate of internal P loading under anoxia in Lake Erieâs Central Basin. ACS ES&T Water, 1(4), 774-781. Web.
Bitterman, P., & Koliba, C. J. (2020). Modeling alternative collaborative governance network designs: An agent-based model of water governance in the Lake Champlain Basin, Vermont. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 636-655. Web.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing crossâsector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647-663. Web.
DeMaria, A., Mullett, N., & Hartig, J. H. (2022). 5 Rouge River Restoration. Rouge River Revived: How People Are Bringing Their River Back to Life, 61.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Hartig, J. H., Krantzberg, G., & Alsip, P. (2020). Thirty-five years of restoring Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Gradual progress, hopeful future. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 46(3), 429-442. Web.
Kauffman, G. J. (2015). Governance, policy, and economics of intergovernmental river basin management. Water Resources Management, 29, 5689-5712. Web.
Marsden, J. E., & Siefkes, M. J. (2019). Control of invasive sea lamprey in the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, and Finger Lakes of New York. Lampreys: Biology, Conservation and Control, 2, 411-479. Web.
Morton, L. W., Chen, Y. C., & Morse, R. S. (2008). Small town civic structure and interlocal collaboration for public services. City & Community, 7(1), 45-60. Web.
Rose, P. (1999). Lake Allatoona phase I diagnostic-Feasibility study report 1992-1997. AL Burruss.
Rotman, R. M., Hollis, A. A., & Trauth, K. M. (2021). Realigning the Clean Water Act: comprehensive treatment of nonpoint source pollution. Ecology LQ, 48, 115.
The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center. (2022). Water & Governance [Video]. YouTube. Web.