Toxic to Our Health, Toxic to Our Business: the Continuous Battle Against Lake Champlain's Algae Blooms

What do you do when one of your state’s biggest attractions has fallen victim to spontaneous bursts of toxicity? What can be done when your state’s most accessible site for swimming, fishing, sailing, and vacationing has become the toilet bowl for agricultural, urban, and suburban runoff? Fortunately, like many polluted reputations, Lake Champlain’s is misunderstood. While the lake has been burdened with sporadic blooms of cyanobacteria, also known as blue green algae, we, as its only available saviors, are burdened with sifting through the problem’s numerous sources, deciding which deserves our time and money the most. Unfortunately, like the solutions to many problems, Lake Champlain’s is a double-edged sword.

I began my research close, first speaking with Douglas Facey, Professor of Biology at St. Michael’s College. Facey mainly studies the fish of Lake Champlain and humbly claims no expertise on the situation, but sat me down and outlined the lake’s predicament so thoroughly that it was clear he’d spent years and years immersed in it. 

The problem begins with phosphorus. Phosphorus runoff, mostly from agricultural sources, but also urban and suburban sources, creates and feeds algae blooms in the lake. These algae blooms are formally referred to as cyanobacteria, most commonly known as blue green algae. 

Unfortunately, agricultural sources contribute the most runoff simply because it's easiest for them: all it takes is a mood-change from Mother Nature. As rainfall stirs soil into a soupy mess, nutrients are dug up, rushing into the lake through streams of runoff. Urban land development is also a contributor, though their contribution is far more conscious. "Sometimes people are too anxious to point the finger at the farmers," Facey said, "but the reality is, every time you put in a new road or a shopping center, you increase the rate at which the water is going to rush off that land." From there, "it surges into the local rivers and streams and creeks, there's a lot of turbulence, and there's a lot of phosphorus that's just literally tied up with particles of soil and sand."

But no matter where the runoff comes from, Mother Nature has the final say once it's in the lake. During the summer, preexisting blooms are often fed and expanded by the heat. Depending on how much rain falls, when it falls, and what the temperature of the air is, algae blooms are created and fed at different times, and different locations throughout the lake. In other words, this is not always a problem, and when it is, it’s not everywhere. However, that’s no excuse to ignore the problem.

Lake Champlain is heavily relied on by summer business such as lake-side cottages, as well as summer activities like sailing, fishing, and swimming. The issue for them is simple and clear: would you be inclined to dip a single toe in neon gunk-infested water? Would you even want to look at neon gunk-infested water, for that matter? It’s an eyesore, and a toxic eyesore to boot.  

 Suspicious color at the dock. (photo by Claire Cavanaugh)

Aesthetics aside, blue green algae may also be producing harmful toxins at any given time. At these times, swimming could generate rashes and irritation, and pets that may be drinking the water could get sick, or even die."That's when the newspapers finally pay attention," said Declan McCabe, Biology Department Chair and Associate Professor at St. Michael's College.

At this point, Vermonters have been not only aware, but also combative of this issue for decades. So, why haven’t we seen any results?

Examining the big picture, solutions seem hopeless.
They're complex. Denise Smith, Executive Director of Friends of Northern Lake Champlain, could only say "wow! Tough questions," in response to my initial inquiries that I previously assumed were simple and straightforward. In addition to their layers of complexity, as Facey mentioned, most solutions to halting phosphorus runoff are long-term and expensive. McCabe, unfortunately, could only confirm this. However, he could also offer some more hopeful, everyday type of solutions that your everyday, ordinary Vermont resident could take part in.

Over the summer break, McCabe runs St. Michael's' branch of the Vermont EPSCoR, a water-sampling program, with student interns. "We have auto-samplers that are set up around the lake, but mostly around the rivers," said McCabe. "What happens is as soon as there's a storm and water starts to rise in the river, it triggers the auto-sampler. And the auto-sampler will take samples at regular intervals over the course of the storm." Once the auto-samplers have done their duty, McCabe and the interns capture the "contaminants" for further examination in their lab at St. Michael's' Cheray Science Hall.

 

Dried out-samples.

 

Different samples containing different levels of phosphorus (furthest to the right with the most phosphorus, most likely from an agricultural source.)

 Refrigerated water samples.

In addition to examining the problem with the summer intern program, McCabe said that St. Michael's, along with the state, have built a retention pond near multiple paved surfaces on campus, in order to trap the runoff from flowing into streams, and later into the lake. 

At this point, it seems as if the only hope for stopping further runoff into the lake is to carry out processes such as these. McCabe suggests, "we can continue to build our infrastructure in terms of retention ponds, and reducing the amount of runoff." In terms of solutions closer to home, he says, "reduce impervious surfaces, make rain gardens, rain barrels, anything to keep the roof water and the driveway water out of the street. Get it onto your garden instead. Let it soak into the landscape and reduce that erosive potential."

All of these would aid in preventing phosphorus runoff into the lake. However, incoming runoff isn't the entirety of the problem. "There's a deep, thick legacy of phosphorus in the lake that is on the bottom," said McCabe, "and it recirculates, and it doesn't tend to leave the system easily." So before we thicken that legacy even further, we need to prevent incoming runoff. In McCabe's view of things, "you're choosing between a permanent problem and a long-term problem. So I think you should choose the long-term problem." 

It seems simple at first glance: redirect the rain in your very own backyard. Stop the incoming runoff. Then deal with the damage that's already been done.

 But can we enforce that in enough homes to make an impact?

As we've seen in the endless efforts to reduce our carbon footprint, it can be a difficult and often frustrating task to convince every last person to do their part, even if that part is far smaller and simpler than we may assume. 

Higher authority, on the other hand, have taken steps to enforce certain regulations on the runoff's biggest source: local farms. Back in May, Governor Peter Shumlin announced a revised version of his Lake Champlain clean-up plan to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Amongst brief, vague mentions of wastewater plants, Shumlin is quite specific in targeting farms. The Lake Champlain Committee reports on their official site, "the draft plan calls for additional permitting and inspections across a variety of sectors. The state would increase farm inspections and revise accepted agricultural practices to be more protective of water quality." As for the rest of the runoff's sources, "EPA has yet to inform the state of the specific target pollution reduction goals for each watershed. That information is expected to be released by the end of the year."

Until then, it seems as if local farms will be taking the majority of the hits.  

"The state brought us a letter last spring in regards to our manure pit running over," said Johanna Paradee, a farm-resident in St. Alban's, Vermont. "They had run warning after warning in the papers and the news for farmers not to spread, because the land had not unthawed...[but] the manure would run into the Missisquoi River, the most polluted tributary of Lake Champlain, which borders a large piece of our property." 

According to Paradee, Vermont students are brought up to be conscientious. "We are educated from a young age on the Champlain Valley water basin and all the action we can do to prevent the pollution. Tributaries, buffer strip policies, foreign plant invasions, and in-the-field community service are all a part of our schooling," she said. But sometimes, background knowledge isn't enough. There's only so much that they can do to abide by that warning while effectively maintaining their farm.

"Time is huge on the farm," Paradee emphasizes. "To keep things safe and orderly for both farm-workers and livestock, we would have to go twenty-four-seven, three hundred and sixty five...you never find a farmer awake without a few cups of coffee." All the while, they "run a 200 milking cow farm, with additional heifers, calves, and dry cows between six men, two being part-time. There's never enough time in the day to get done crop work, barn-tending, and maintenance that are necessary to keep the farm afloat." And while Paradee's farm received only a warning, the time required to "respond to the letter and deal with the state agency" was valuable time lost. 

"Some day, small and medium farms will not exist," Paradee notes dismally. "We strive hard to get by, but without support, it is unclear where the Vermont Dairy Industry is headed."

As of now, it seems pretty unclear where Lake Champlain's future is headed as well. Amidst a sea of vague solutions, it's difficult to predict which would dig us out of this hole we've created. 
After considering Paradee's input, I have to wonder if it's even possible. It seems very likely that Vermont will always be dealing with runoff and pollution to some degree. The question is, what degree would we be willing to live with? What will we sacrifice in the process? All in all, are we even being realistic in our attempts towards a complete cleansing of Lake Champlain?

"I don't think it's unrealistic to try," said Facey. "I think we have to try."

And try we will.



To stay updated on bloom status, check out:

Vermont Department of Health

To connect with the latest campaigns, check out:

Lake Champlain International on Facebook

Interview #3

Johanna Paradee, farm resident in St. Alban’s, VT

CC: Could you explain how your farm/surrounding farms have been affected by the attempted prevention of phosphorus runoff into Lake Champlain?

JP: Specifically speaking the state brought us a letter last spring in regards to our manure pit running over. They had run warning after warning in the papers and the news for farmers not to spread because the land had not unthawed. Since the land had not unthawed if the weather changed and a rain occurred (or in some places including our farm the snow melted) the manure would run into the Missisquoi river, the most polluted tributary of Lake Champlain, which borders a large piece our property. We chose to abide by the warning because it would also save damage to our fields from the shifts in frost from warming and cooling that had occurred last spring. Soon, due to the readily snow fall at night and warming days, a trickle of manure ran from our pit into the brook below (which then runs down into the river). A neighbor, who's not very neighborly, called the state and they came. 

 As students growing up in Vermont we are educated from a young age on the Champlain Valley water basin and all the action we can do to prevent the pollution. Tributaries, Buffer strip policies, foreign plant invasions, and in the field community service are all apart of our schooling. However, it comes down to more than that when they're telling you to do one thing and then reprimand you for another. While we simply got a warning, no fines, the hassle to respond to the letter and deal with the state agency took time. And while the time may seem miniscual to many we run a 200 milking cow farm, with additional heifers, calves and dry cows between 6 men, 2 being part time, theres never enough time in the day to get done crop work, barn tending, and maintenance that are necessary to keep the farm afloat. 

CC: What regulations have been pushed onto your farm/surrounding farms?

JP: We report to the government that we are a 200 cow farm, half are milked in one brothers farm, and the other half across the road in the other brothers. Originally owned by the father all cropland is shared as well as equipment. We are considered a medium sized farm so we do not need to abide by the rules of being away from tributaries, or ordered to create buffer zones between our properties. However, we have often been apart of studies to fund these activities like planting various tree species that are not considered to be species and would grow there naturally if our ancestors had not cut them down to prevent erosion along the tributary that runs through land lease named Tyler Branch, running into the river just west of our property. 

CC: Is there concern throughout your town about potential future regulations?

JP: Some day small and medium farms will not exist. We strive hard to get by but without support it is unclear where the Vermont Dairy industry is headed. Before this time it is suggested that all regulations will apply to us, adding more stress to many poor farms, and possibly becoming the quitting point for many families. 

CC: Do these regulations affect the day-to-day functions of the farm?

JP: Time. Time is huge on the farm. To keep things safe and orderly for both farmworkers and livestock we would have to go go go 24/7/365. You never find a farmer wide awake, you never find a farmer wide awake without a few cups of coffee, but you will often find a farmer who will talk about the new rules and regulations. As someone who plans to fight like hell for the farm life, but who spent summer after summer on the shores of the Mississquoi Bay, the bridge between the conservationist and the farmers needs to be built. Farmers aren't opposed to protecting their land they just need to be able to use their voices to speak of why the boneheaded ways of the city men are failing time and again. 

 ​Like our land on Tyler Branch, we planted 1,200 trees, 4 years ago, and there isn't a single one yet. Creating roots in the soil was a good idea, but before the roots had a chance at holding the soil the sandy river bank cut back into the fields, swallowing the trees. If additional stonework, and trust me farmers are always looking to get rid of stone, had been done to the branch bank the trees could have matured. Naturally forests spread, creating a buffer zone, and we maintain our woods for both future maple production and firewood. Time will be needed, there will be assistance required from both sides, but if communication existed things could someday work. Not one person will have the answer, but back to the time issue, when meetings on such topics and grant writing is done it seems to be when most folks get out of work, and farmers head to the barn for their second milking. 

Interview #2

Declan McCabe, Biology Department Chair and Associate Professor

10/27/14 in Cheray Science Hall

CC: Could you explain the work you’ve done involving the water quality of Lake Champlain?

DM: Absolutely. So, we’re interested in how our use of the landscape affects the quality of the water that’s going into the streams. So for example, North Campus has a whole lot of paved surfaces. And because of those paved surfaces, it impacts the amount of phosphorus going in, and other contaminants. So St. Mike’s together with the state built a retention pond up there to catch many of those contaminants. And we can see the affects there. So my main work is to look at, in general, the affects of land use on water quality, and how that affects the insects in the lake and then the streams.

CC: Is it students that you’re working with over the summer?

DM: Yeah, we hire student interns. And they get paid $5000 for the summer. So that’s not too shabby! So, they work in the lab downstairs, they do a lot of work in field sites around the place. So we have auto-samplers that are set up around the lakes, well, some on the lake, but mostly in the rivers. What happens is as soon as there’s a storm and water starts to rise in the river, it triggers the auto-sampler. And the auto-sampler will take samples at regular intervals over the course of the storm. So the floodwater in the stream will usually rise steeply, and then peak, and then tail off gradually as all the rainwater finds its way into the streams and eventually to the lake. And that’s when most of the contaminants move downstream. So that’s what we’re interested in capturing. The primary thing we’re interested in looking at is phosphorus. Because it’s phosphorus that impacts the lake directly. It causes the harmful algal blooms that produce toxins, and produce fish kills, and has even killed a couple of dogs on occasion. That’s when the newspapers finally pay attention. But the problem is much bigger and much older than that.

CC: Would they have to drink a lot to die?

DM: No, the toxins that they get from a blue green algal bloom- it doesn’t take a whole lot. So it happens on occasion.

CC: And it’s not producing toxins all the time, just some of the time?

DM: No. There’s specific blue green algae that occur during the big algal blooms that produce the toxins. That’s why they call it a harmful bloom as distinct from an algal bloom.

CC: How do you see people being affected personally by this issue?

DM: Some of the issues are, you know, in terms of the economy of Vermont, the lake is one of our biggest assets. And when people notice that the lake is bright green or bluish green, that’s not an attractive sight. And if more pictures like that circulate, as they will if the blooms continue, then you know it will have an impact on tourism. So that’s one impact. The other impact is just on people who like to use the like locally. Forget about the tourists, just consider the locals who want to stick in their sea kayak and go for a nice paddle. They don’t want to go through green soup.

CC: What do you see as some realistic goals for solving this problem?

DM: If we can continue to build our infrastructure in terms of retention pons, and reducing the amount of runoff- for example, St. Mike’s has done a really great job in capturing runoff and preventing it from going into streams. So, if you see a new paving surface going in on campus, you’ll see one of two things. It either will sheath of to the side, to the grass, or it will actually be a pervious surface made out of bricks so that the water can actually go through. So the college is trying to reduce the amount of pervious surfaces to reduce the runoff. There used to be a volleyball court over at the townhouses, one reason that that was a sand volleyball court is that we can dig it up periodically without damaging the landscaping. And underneath there’s a tank that captures all the runoff from the roofs and from the roads of the townhouses and the roads associated with the townhouses. Anytime you channel water to any body of water, it increases the erosion in that body of water. So you’re going to erode the banks, the riverbed, you’re going to move phosphorus downstream towards the lake, so any particle that is eroded off the landscape will typically contain phosphorus. And phosphorus is sticky and binds to particles, and it gets transported to the lake. So the big thing I would say is to reduce impervious surfaces, make rain gardens, rain barrels, anything to keep the roof water and the driveway water out of the street. Get it onto your garden instead. Let is soak into the landscape and reduce that erosive potential.

CC: How long before we start seeing results? Is this going to be a really long-term thing?

DM: It’s going to be really long term. And the problem is, if you could stop all phosphorus today, there’s a deep thick legacy of phosphorus in the lake that is on the bottom. And it recirculates. And it doesn’t tend to leave the system very easily. So when the temperatures get high enough, and the water is stagnant for long enough, you’ll actually tend to get phosphorus at least from the sediment into the water column. And it’s going to take a lot of years for that cycling to gradually get the phosphorus out of the system. But it’s a very slow process. The other problem is, every gain we make in terms of reducing phosphorus input, under the current conditions of climate change, the big affect in the Northeast is that we have additional rainfall, and bigger, more erosive storms. So you can just look at the numbers, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist by any means. The numbers of seriously out of the ordinary storms have increased over the last couple of decades. And every one of those storms brings more phosphorus to the lake because of erosion. Hurricane Irene is a great example.  So there you go, it’s a long-term problem. A lot of phosphorus moved in a very short period of time. At some point you have to stop putting the phosphorus in. If you don’t do that, then it’s a permanent problem. So you’re choosing between a permanent problem and a long-term problem. So I think you should choose the long-term problem.

CC: How do you think farms will be affected these solutions?

DM: A farmer doesn’t ever want to put too much phosphorus on the land. Farmer education has been huge; farmers have paid a big part in reducing phosphorus spread onto the land. The bigger problem, though, is large dairy operations that have nowhere to put the excess manure, and that ends up being spread on the land. And that’s when a farmer will actually put too much phosphorus on the land. Because you’ve got to put that manure somewhere. And that’s an expensive problem to deal with in any other way. So the cheapest solution is to spread it on the land, and the more expensive solution, in big farming operations farther south, is they make them install a sewage plant. The sewage plants in Vermont have done a remarkable job in terms of producing phosphorus. When you flush at St. Mike’s, it goes through a pipe that goes over to South Burlington sewage plant, which was upgraded two years ago, that plant is excellent. The one in Essex Junction is even better. They really have done a good job of capturing the phosphorus and not releasing it from the sewage plants.

Intro Paragraph

What do you do when your state’s biggest attraction has fallen victim to spontaneous bursts of toxicity, at different times and places? What can be done when your state’s most accessible site for swimming, fishing, sailing, and vacationing has become the toilet bowl for agricultural, urban, and suburban runoff? Fortunately, like many polluted reputations, Lake Champlain’s is misunderstood. While the lake has been burdened with sporadic blooms of cyanobacteria, also known as blue green algae, we, as its only available saviors, are burdened with sifting through the problem’s numerous sources, deciding which deserves our time and money the most. Unfortunately, like the solutions to many problems, Lake Champlain’s solution is a double-edged sword. At this point, we’re forced to ask ourselves: who will get ahead and who will fall behind in our quest to cleanse Lake Champlain? This is a classic case of big man versus little guy: the big business versus the little farm.

Interview #1

Douglas Facey, PhD; Professor of Biology at St. Michael’s College

10/7/14 in 302B Cheray Hall, St. Michael’s College

CC: Could you explain your personal take and the work you’ve done involving the water quality of Lake Champlain?

DF: Well, in terms of work, I study mainly fishes in Lake Champlain. So I actually don’t do research specifically on the water quality. However, I’m aware of a lot of the issues on the Lake. I don’t have a research perspective. The concerns that I have are shared really by a lot of people, not particular to me, and that is that the issues that we have in Lake Champlain are issues that we have had for a very long time. There’ve been a lot of people who have been talking about this for a very long time, and although there have been some efforts made to try to improve the situation, we haven’t been very successful. I think you could make the case that a lot of what has been done…and a lot of money has been spent already…probably we’re better off than we would have been had we not done anything. But we haven’t seen improvement. We’ve seen maybe a slow-down in the rate at which it’s getting worse, which is better than nothing, but not very satisfactory. And there’s lots of reasons. A lot of people do point the finger towards agriculture for part of the issue. Because a lot of the ag[riculture] components and regulations are voluntary, and there’s not very strong enforcement. There is stronger enforcement on dealing with wastewater treatment and sewage treatment plants. They contribute proportionately. The whole issue for this here is nutrients. Mainly phosphorus that comes into the lake and helps feed the plant growth. And that’s what feeds the algae blooms. Nitrogen is a concern too, but mostly the focus right now is on phosphorus. Most of the phosphorus in the lake is coming from agricultural sources. A lot of it also comes from urban and suburban runoff, though. We have to be honest about that. Sometimes people are too anxious to point the finger at the farmers, but the reality is, every time you put in a new road or a new housing development or a shopping center, you increase the rate at which the water is going to rush off of that land. And it surges into the local rivers and streams and creeks, there’s a lot of turbulence, and there’s a lot of phosphorus that’s just literally tied up with particles of soil and sand. So erosion becomes part of the problem, so does agriculture because of fertilizers, whether it’s cow manure or other chemical fertilizers. So those are big components. The wastewater treatment facilities, they don’t contribute as much total phosphorus, but the type of phosphorus that they do contribute is what’s called dissolved phosphorus, which is very quickly absorbed by the plants. So even though it’s not a lot, what goes in is very quickly absorbed. A lot of the stuff that comes in from runoff is phosphorus bound up in soil particles, which physically gets into the system, but it doesn’t become available to the plants chemically immediately. It has to go through some biochemical process. So there’s a lot of back and forth about, you know, how do we best spend the money to get the best effects? Should we try to put more regulation on sewage treatment plants, which we’re already controlling most of their phosphorus, or should we try to target certain farms? And if you target farms, then should we treat all farms the same? Should we focus mainly on large farms? There are a lot of exemptions for small farms because they’re small operations and people don’t want to put them out of business. So, where is the farm? Is it literally right along the river? Or is it not so close? So it’s not that easy. There’s not enough money to completely fix everything. So you have to figure out what’the most effective way to spend the money.

CC: How are you affected personally by the water quality of Lake Champlain? Would you ever swim or fish in the water, knowing what you know?

DF: Oh I do swim and fish in Lake Champlain. I would never go in if there was an active algae bloom in play. You can look at the water, and if it’s green and yucky looking, then don’t go swimming. I’m very sensitive to the fact that we have these problems in Lake Champlain and nobody likes to see them there. I do get a little bit concerned, however. I think the view that some people have is that the entire lake is in terrible condition. And although things are not going well in certain parts of the lake, it’s not bad all over the lake all of the time. In fact, much of the lake is in pretty good shape. However, having said that, there are definitely signs in the last decade or more, that things are going in a bad direction. And even places in the lake that didn’t use to have algae blooms are starting to see them. And part of the reason for that, people believe, is associated with climate change. Because what’s happening with our climate here is we’re getting a larger number of very intense rainstorms. And when you get those rainstorms that come by where you get like three, four, maybe six inches of rain overnight, in a few hours, you get huge runoff. And that just tears up the ground and just a whole bunch of nutrients end up in there, instead of coming in more slowly. One of the interesting things that you see if you look at the way that phosphorus comes into the lake, is that certainly it comes through rivers and streams, but a lot of it comes in during a relatively small number of very intense storm events. A huge proportion of your phosphorus could come in over just maybe three or four or five storm events over the entire year. That could be half or more of your phosphorus load. Just because so much comes down so fast that it just floods everything. And that’s really really bad. We also get a lot in the spring, but that depends on how quickly the snow melts up in the mountains, and if agricultural fields get flooded as the storms come down. They can wash away a lot of soil and a lot of fertilizer that goes into the lake, and it just depends on a lot of things. But climate change is definitely a factor; because of the way it has changed our rain events. That’s making it more difficult to manage, so that the concepts and the models that people have been working with for the last twenty or thirty years, which are largely based on what things used to be like twenty or twenty-five years ago, it’s just not holding up anymore because our rainfall patterns have changed.

CC: Wow. So this is definitely a long-term project.

DF: Oh, absolutely. The other issue to add to it is that even if we were able to completely shut off the inflow of new phosphorus, which we can’t, but even if you could, there’s a lot built up in the sediment from the last thirty, forty, fifty years. So it’s already there. So, it’s going to continue to be released. So it’s a very, very long-term kind of project. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Because you have to try. And people are aware of it, it’s just a matter of how far they are willing to go, and how much are they willing to spend to try to get it under control sooner rather than later.

CC: So does that mean it’s unrealistic to think about now, immediately?

DF: No, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to try. I think we have to try. But I think we need to try harder. And that’s where some people say, well, if you crack down too hard, you put some people out of business, and that’s not a good thing. Well, that’s perhaps true, although you may be able to provide a lot of assistance. And there are a lot of programs to assist farms and other communities to try and control these things. There are federal programs, funding available, there’s assistance available, but it still costs money. And there’s not enough money to help enough people. A lot of people want to do the right thing, they know what the right thing to do is, and they could get some assistance in doing it. But the lake is for all of us. And if the lake goes down too badly, that affects other people’s businesses. Just as an example, the northern portion of Lake Champlain in Vermont is actually shared with Quebec. It’s called Missisquoi Bay; it’s a very shallow, relatively warm bay. That’s one of the places that has been most heavily hit, along with St. Alban’s Bay, in the last decade or so, with these blue green algae blooms. Most of Missisquoi Bay is actually in Canada, about roughly two-thirds of it. But the other third is in Vermont. On the Canadian side of Lake Champlain, there are a lot of summer resorts, and there’s one significant resort on the Vermont side. And there are a lot of cottages that are based on summer rentals and stuff, so there’s an entire industry, you know, a local economic factor, in that region of lower Quebec and northern Vermont, that depends on tourism on Missisquoi Bay. When the blue green algae kicks in, which is usually mid to late July, when it gets kind of warm, this year I think it hit in early August or a little bit earlier than that, you know tourism just drops off dramatically. I mean, who wants to go to a lakeside resort if the lake smells bad, and it looks bad, and you can’t go swimming? So there are economic factors if you don’t do things. There are economic factors on other people if you do things. So if you go to all the farmers and say, you have to stop doing this, you have to do things differently, it hurts them economically. If you don’t do that, then it hurts other people economically. So not doing anything is actually doing something.It’s just not good.

Sample Interview Questions

1.) Could you explain the personal view you take and the work you've done involving water quality of Lake Champlain?

2.) How long has this struggle for cleaner water been going on? Would you say this has always been an issue, or something that's been protested more recently?

3.) How are you affected personally by the water quality of Lake Champlain? Would you ever go in the water, knowing what you know?

4.) How do you see this struggle for cleaner water panning out in the future? Do you predict that goals will be reached in the near future, or is this a long term project?

5.) Do you see these goals as realistic ones?

6.) Would you say there is widespread support for the kind of work that you're doing?

RSS URLs

VTDigger, "State to Set Up Testing for Toxic Blue Green Algae in Lake Champlain"

Lake Champlain International Blogs

Seven Days Vermont, "Public Water Systems Watch for Toxic Algae in Lake Champlain"