Windermere’s Bathing Water, Part 1 - Cyanobacteria
A quick note from Save Windermere
Our blogs are deliberately detailed to provide you with comprehensive insights into the complexities of our freshwater crisis, in the hope that you can form your own interpretations, make informed decisions about the issues affecting our lake and then become an advocate for change. We appreciate this makes them quite long, but we aim to present all available information as we receive it and without filters, as opposed to the relative opacity of the Environment Agency and the water industry. We have provided a summary of the key takeaways below in the Executive Summary, but we highly recommend reading the entire analysis to gain the fullest insights. If you enjoy our blogs, you can sign up to our newsletter here.
Executive Summary
Save Windermere contends that the EA’s monitoring of bathing water in Windermere is misleading and unreliable.
Despite being designated as Excellent since 2017, the bathing water classification provided by the Environment Agency (EA) fails to accurately reflect the overall presence and potential toxicity of blue-green algae (BGA) blooms in the lake.
The mismanagement of Windermere exacerbates algal blooms, leading to ecological harm and oxygen depletion. United Utilities is the major contributor to phosphorus input, fueling BGA growth in Windermere.
Cyanotoxins produced by BGA pose significant risks to wildlife, pets, livestock and humans.
The EA's reactive approach to monitoring BGA, we argue, is failing to meet legal standards set by the Bathing Water legislation. WHO recommendations stress the need for regular and proactive monitoring of cyanobacteria in bathing waters.
EA's sampling methodology for BGA lacks rigour and fails to adequately assess toxicity levels, leaving swimmers and wildlife vulnerable to the harmful effects of cyanotoxins.
Lack of communication and transparency from the EA undermines public safety efforts during algal bloom events and further exacerbates the risk, as evidenced by the inadequate response to the extensive BGA bloom in the summer of 2022.
In-depth analysis by independent internationally renowned algal expert reveals concerning levels of toxicity in Windermere's BGA blooms.
It is imperative that regulatory agencies adopt a more rigorous and proactive approach to monitoring cyanobacteria in Windermere. Additionally, we must address the root causes of nutrient-fueled BGA proliferation, to safeguard the long-term health of the lake ecosystem.
Introduction
In this two-part series we will explore swimming in Windermere. The ‘quality’ of the bathing water in Windermere is monitored by the Environment Agency (EA) but as this mini-series will demonstrate, the EA’s reporting on bathing water quality is often misleading and, in our opinion, should not be used as a reliable indicator when deciding whether it is safe to enter the water.
For context, a bathing water is an area of a river, lake or coastline where a sufficient number of people engage with the water, leading to the site being designated with bathing water status and thus the need for a ‘regular’ sampling schedule. To be designated as a bathing water does not reflect the overall ecological water quality of the location. Instead, it is a specific classification, which is supposed to provide individuals with confidence in the 'quality' of the bathing water, enabling them to make an 'informed' choice about whether to enter their favourite swimming spot. The classifications are Excellent, Good, Sufficient and Poor and are based only on the concentration of E. coli and intestinal enterococci. We will demonstrate in part 2 why this is completely insufficient.
Designated bathing waters exist thanks to the 2013 EU Bathing Water Directive. This was initially introduced by the European Union to ensure protection for bathers' health across EU member states. Given the substantial coastal tourism across the EU, the directive prioritises monitoring and managing the water quality of coastal bathing areas. The current UK legislation has been based on the EU Bathing Water Directive. European countries have been far more receptive to the concept, and some have designated hundreds of inland bathing water sites. For instance, France has 420 designated rivers, whereas currently in England, there are only 2 rivers that hold this classification. Moreover, in 2022 England’s bathing waters ranked 25th out of 30 EU countries for Excellent results – only two EU countries have a higher proportion of Poor classifications.
Windermere, a freshwater lake, has 4 designated bathing water sites. Despite this poor overall performance in England, we are repeatedly being told by United Utilities and the Environment Agency (as they attempt to put a positive spin on the current Windermere situation) that since 2017, all bathing water sites in Windermere have been classified as Excellent.
In part two of the series, we will explore what the monitoring of bathing water actually entails and interrogate the legislation as we present an alternative, independent review on bathing water in Windermere, but firstly we want to discuss the issue that turns Windermere green.
Cyanobacteria in Windermere
Arguably, one of the most likely risks posed to swimmers in Windermere is interaction with blue-green algae (BGA). BGA in Windermere is being fueled largely by the nutrient phosphorus in the lake. This is essentially a fertiliser for algal growth, and when climatic conditions are conducive, blooms proliferate and, as we saw in the summer of 2022, engulf Windermere. Windermere in its natural state would be classified as oligotrophic, meaning it should naturally be so low in nutrient that algal blooms would be incredibly unlikely or infrequent, or would not occur at all. What we are seeing happen to Windermere is due to anthropogenic input into the lake’s sensitive ecosystem, with the impacts exacerbated by climate change.
These blooms have a devastating ecological impact when they are in high abundance, particularly when they reach the end of their life cycle, sink to the bottom of the lake, and begin to decompose. This process absorbs dissolved oxygen from the water column, and when large enough, can cause mass fish kills. This oxygen depletion at the lower reaches, particularly if it becomes anoxic, of the lake can release trapped nutrients within the sediment which further exacerbates the growth of the algae.
Due to the inadequate management or, as we would contend, mismanagement of the lake, this situation is going to get worse because nutrient levels have not been reduced enough to ensure the lake’s adaptability to climate change. Long-term data shows us that the lake is warming, algal bloom biomass is worsening (primarily in the north basin), and dissolved oxygen in the lake is plummeting. As a result of this, and as more people begin to engage with the lake for recreation, particularly in the summer months, there is a higher probability that they will encounter BGA and, most concerning and the main focus of this blog, harmful algal blooms (HAB).
United Utilities’ assets are both historically and currently the single largest input of phosphorus, which is fueling the BGA growth in Windermere. In a 2013 report, United Utilities stated:
“The analysis of the data shows by removing all United Utilities discharges there still will be algal blooms, but their severity will be greatly reduced to the point where they may not actually be visible.”
There are other contributing factors to the presence of BGA in the lake, notably non-mains infrastructure and agriculture; however, due to the sheer volume of soluble reactive phosphorus that is placed into the lake by United Utilities, most concerningly in the summer months when visitor numbers are high, they are, by their own admission, the main contributing factor, discharging from 16 point sources in the catchment. This input equates to up to 13 million litres a day of treated effluent from sites with numerical permits and over 18,000 hours of untreated sewage discharged since 2020. Both the treated and untreated inputs contain phosphorus in a volume that far surpasses any other direct input.
What makes BGA dangerous?
Fig. 1: Internal correspondence from the EA obtained via EIR, stating that BGA cells generally can be harmful about 50% of the time.
BGA can be toxic, but it’s important to note that not all BGA blooms are toxic, as it is only certain species that produce the toxins at a certain stage in their life cycle. In internal correspondence from the EA, they seem to work on the premise that BGA cells “can be harmful 50% of the time” (Fig. 1).
BGA is a big problem for both us and the freshwater ecology of Windermere.
The toxin metabolites produced by several cyanobacterial species are called cyanotoxins. They range from cytotoxins, neurotoxins, hepatotoxins, dermatoxins, to irritating toxins.
These toxins have been associated with animal sickness and mortality all over the world (Lim et al., 2020) and they pose significant risks to pets, livestock and wildlife, with reported cases of disease and death (Backer et al., 2013; Vidal et al., 2017; Trevino-Garrison et al., 2015). Notably, cyanotoxins have been implicated in mass fish deaths, with exposure resulting in histopathological changes, growth inhibition and compromised immune function (Skafi et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2014; Svirčev et al., 2019). As mentioned earlier, even non-toxic algae can disrupt aquatic ecosystems by reducing dissolved oxygen and blocking fish gills, further contributing to fish mortality (Davidson, 2014). Moreover, cyanobacteria-related toxins have been implicated in significant wildlife fatalities, including the death of 330 African elephants in Botswana, highlighting the far-reaching ecological impact of these blooms (Wang et al., 2021b; Backer et al., 2013). [source]
These findings indicate the lethal nature of cyanobacterial blooms for wildlife and livestock but, in rarer circumstances, they can also be fatal to humans. This is an unarguable point. People have died from ingesting BGA - “Worldwide, there have been several reports of illnesses or even deaths associated with human exposure to cyanotoxins after swimming or bathing in contaminated water (Nguyen et al., 2021).” Most commonly, they can affect human health through direct ingestion, skin contact or inhalation, resulting in symptoms such as hives, conjunctivitis, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, blistered mouths, rashes, abdominal pain, fevers, and eye, ear and skin irritation. In more chronic cases, they can lead to conditions like bronchitis, asthma, allergies, rhinitis and dermatitis.
This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive monitoring and management of cyanobacterial blooms to safeguard both human health and the environment.
Monitoring of Cyanobacteria in Windermere
Curiously, when it comes to bathing water classification, despite the risk it poses to human health, BGA is not used as a parameter to classify a bathing water.
So how often does the EA monitor for cyanobacterial blooms on Windermere? You would expect, particularly in the summer months, in areas where BGA is a known and recurring issue, that a regular monitoring scheme would be in place. If you look at the bathing water legislation, it seems to suggest that this is the required statutory approach.
“Where any bathing water profile indicates a potential for cyanobacterial proliferation, the appropriate agency must undertake appropriate monitoring at the bathing water at the frequency necessary to allow adequate management measures to be put in place in accordance with regulation “
Schedule 4. Part 2.8 of the UK Bathing Water legislation (retrieved from here)
1. When the bathing water profile indicates a potential for cyanobacterial proliferation, appropriate monitoring shall be carried out to enable timely identification of health risks.
2. When cyanobacterial proliferation occurs and a health risk has been identified or presumed, adequate management measures shall be taken immediately to prevent exposure, including information to the public.
Article 8 of the European Bathing Water legislation (retrieved from here)
However, we were shocked to discover that the EA takes a reactive approach and only samples blooms if they are observed by the EA officers whilst undertaking their usual bathing water sampling or if they are reported by members of the public. This has been confirmed via EIR request.
EIR Request: Please can you confirm what appropriate monitoring is in place for BGA blooms at the 4 Windermere bathing water sites? Is this monitoring primarily reactive, triggered by reported blooms, or is it a component of a regular monitoring program?
EA Response: Monitoring for algal blooms is reactive. However, when the samplers are out taking bathing water samples and they spot an algal bloom, or what looks like an algal bloom, they will take a sample and bring it back to us in the labs for analysis.
The reactive approach adopted by the Environment Agency (EA) is woefully inadequate and fails to effectively inform the public about the presence or toxicity of BGA in Windermere. Despite legal requirements mandating “appropriate monitoring” in areas with the “potential” for BGA proliferation, such as Windermere, the EA's approach falls short of meeting these legislative standards/ duties. This inadequacy is compounded by the fact that harmful toxins produced by algal blooms can persist in the water before, during, and after visual confirmation. With phytoplankton noted at over a quarter of visits to some of Windermere’s bathing water sites between 2019-2022, it's evident that significant health risks exist and are not being adequately addressed through monitoring measures.
EA Sampling Methodology
So when the EA does spot these algal blooms or if they are reported, how rigorous is the sampling undertaken?
The World Health Organisation (WHO) takes BGA exposure very seriously. They offer a range of guidance, including the suggestion of daily or weekly proactive monitoring during the bathing water season in areas where BGA is likely to occur:
“While verification monitoring for toxic cyanobacteria should also occur regularly, sampling and analyses may be reduced to seasons in which they are known to occur (see above) or human exposure is likely (e.g., the bathing season). Particularly for the monitoring of bathing sites at which cyanobacteria are known or likely to occur, a high frequency of sampling (i.e., daily or weekly) may be necessary for relatively short periods during the peak bathing season.”
They also highlight the need for a pre planned approach which will enable robust results, suggesting that anything else may not provide meaningful data.
“In face of the rapid variability of blooms, particularly of scum situations, sampling as soon as possible during or after the event is key to meaningful data collection: chances for capturing the agents that caused the effects dwindle as time progresses from hours to days. This is most likely to be possible and to provide robust results if sampling is prepared and preplanned.”
Finally, they recommend well documented procedures and methods with data made accessible and held for evaluation:
“Documentation should include not only the sampling procedure and analytical methods, but also the considerations behind any deviation from commonly applied schemes. Further, meaningful data storage in an accessible database is the prerequisite for reliable evaluation of long-term trends.”
In light of these recommendations, we wanted to further understand the methodology used by the EA and explore the data available in relation to BGA on Windermere.So we submitted an EIR request to the Environment Agency:
EIR Request: Please can you confirm, once the EA has been alerted to a BGA bloom, what sampling is done and what methodology is used to take these samples?
EA Response: If the Environment Agency has been notified of a potential bloom via our incident hotline, someone will go out and take a sample then bring it back to our labs for analysis. If it is at a site where we have already confirmed a bloom in recent weeks, photographic evidence will suffice. We are sometimes notified of algal blooms via the UKCEH Bloomin Algae App, when we are notified this way, we don’t go to take samples, as the bloom is confirmed by UKCEH. Once again, we notify the riparian owner and the relevant authorities when we receive notifications of algal blooms by this method.
We were only supplied the above answer and an excel spreadsheet (attached) for the years 2017-2022 which shows incidences where blooms have been confirmed by the Agency. There does not seem to be any further information recorded regarding BGA in Windermere. This concerns us, and we would assume that the WHO would not agree with this procedure.
Keeping the Public Safe - the Summer of 2022
So, given that we now know that BGA is prolific in Windermere, has the potential to be toxic to us and our pets, and should, in theory, be monitored by the EA, what steps are the Agency taking to keep the public safe and warn them of these risks?
In the summer of 2022, we witnessed one of the largest BGA blooms ever seen on Windermere, encompassing the entire north basin of the lake. At that time, Save Windermere believed that there should have been a temporary ban on people entering the water, particularly during the period when the bloom was at its peak on the 13th of August. Due to the severity of this algal bloom, we thought it would be interesting to see what action had been taken by the EA to ensure the safety of the public…
The EA confirmed on the 11th of August on Twitter that there was a bloom present in the North basin of the lake. Whilst it is not their responsibility to place signage when a suspected or confirmed bloom is identified, the EA is responsible for informing the riparian owners about bloom events and must provide them with information regarding blue-green algae. Unfortunately, when we asked, the EA told us these communications with riparian owners are not retained, we are heavily sceptical as to whether it is true or not.
EIR Request: Please can I have the evidence of all the communication with third parties surrounding the prolific BGA bloom event that occurred on or around the 13th of August last year.
EA Response: We always notify riparian owners by e-mail as this is the fastest method of communication. We do not keep records of these emails, so have therefore attached copies of sample emails.
So did any signage go up? Finally, on the 16th August, 5 days after the bloom was identified and well after the peak event, signs were put up in places like Waterhead where people are frequently entering the water.
However, we don’t believe the risk to human health was being adequately communicated. There is one statement within this signage which is factually incorrect, that being that “no-one is known to have died” from blue green algal toxicity. This is simply not true. Worldwide, there have been “several reports of illnesses or even deaths associated with human exposure to cyanotoxins after swimming or bathing in contaminated water” (Nguyen et al., 2021).
As we saw earlier, death in wildlife, pets and livestock is more widely documented, but surely the Environment Agency is aware that these toxins can be fatal to humans too? This information is misleading and plays down the risk that it poses to swimmers.
Given this daunting fact and because of the extent of cyanobacteria on Windermere, particularly in the summer, one would expect the EA to sample algal blooms for toxins. This is heavily emphasised as a necessity by the WHO. However, in the extensive BGA bloom in the summer of 2022, which stretched for miles, the EA, as far as we know from information provided to us, did not analyse a single sample for toxicity. Nor did they analyse a single sample for toxicity in 2023, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018 or 2017. Based on our EIR request below, it seems that 2016 may have been the last time that the toxicity of BGA on Windermere was analysed by the Environment Agency.
EIR Request: Please can you also confirm what specific toxin analysis has been done for BGA samples taken from Windermere from 2017-2022?
EA Response: All the analysis information published from our work with CEFAS on toxicity can be found at the link below. If any toxicity testing has been done on Windermere, you will find the information within the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/1/39
An Independent Expert Analysis
We were so concerned about the bloom in 2022 that we took a sample ourselves on the 16th of August and sent it to an independent ecology firm to tell us more about what was happening in Windermere at the exact moment that this bloom occurred.
Dr Nick Everall, the Director of ecology firm Aquascience Consultancy Limited, ex-Principal Biologist at Severn Trent Water, internationally recognised algologist and an expert witness, analysed the sample. The summary report is copied below which indicates the potential toxicity of the 2022 bloom on Windermere and explains its potential impact:
"The levels recorded in the sample you sent exceeded both EA and WHO guidelines for levels of Anabaena (and Microcystis), where thresholds are set such that if the bloom were toxic there would be enough toxin to pose a risk to humans and other animals (e.g. dogs and cattle). Not all blooms are toxic but studies in the 80’s-90’s have shown that ~70% of tested blooms were. Testing for toxins costs around £400/sample and one would have to test daily as toxicity of blooms can switch back and forth within 24-hours. Precautionary Risk Assessment principles are applied based upon levels of the algae in cells/ml (WHO) and colonies/filaments/gyres/ml (EA). UK EA thresholds for signing a water body to warn public users are less than the WHO, probably because they sample standing waters very infrequently. The sample from Windermere failed both standards for Anabaena and Microcystis.
The levels recorded may or may not be typical of the whole water body and more samples would be required to verify that. Nonetheless, the area associated with the sample at least should be signed to warn public users.
On a weight for weight basis the neuro and hepatotoxins potentially produced are as toxic as cobra venom.
For humans, unless drinking the water directly, the effects are likely to be diarrhoea and vomiting and skin rashes caused by a third group of compounds produced by blue-green algae called pepto-polysacharrides. If humans ingest enough algal laden water then hospitalisation and death can occur. A group of TA’s who drank directly from a blue-green algal lake in Staffs were hospitalised and some members of their party died. People on dialysis in Brazil, where water supply was not well treated, have also died and there are many more international records. Dogs and cattle frequently die from ingesting blue-green algal scums e.g. dogs cleaning their coats after swimming.
Root causes of blue-green algal blooms are often phosphorus levels in combination with raised water temperatures. Although some blue-greens, not Windermere identified ones this time, are fairly cold temperature tolerant and bloom under ice! They do not require nitrogen as they can fix this at the water-air interface a bit like terrestrial peas do from the air.
Two consecutive (days-weeks apart) samples that show levels well below signing threshold are required before thinking about removing signs and should be based in combination with local expert knowledge on algal assemblages.”
Dr. Nick Everall FIFM C Env Reg UK Expert Witness (ex-Principal Biologist, Severn Trent Water)
Our Conclusion
In conclusion, the examination of BGA in Windermere reveals significant gaps in both the monitoring of bathing water quality and the communication of risks to the public. Despite being designated as Excellent since 2017, the bathing water classification provided by the Environment Agency (EA) fails to accurately reflect the presence and potential toxicity of blue-green algae (BGA) blooms in the lake and it is not considered in this classification. This discrepancy underscores the need for a more transparent and proactive approach to monitoring and reporting, one that prioritises public safety over bureaucratic checkboxes.
The reactive monitoring strategy employed by the EA, coupled with the absence of regular toxin analysis during BGA blooms, leaves swimmers and wildlife vulnerable to the harmful effects of cyanotoxins. The lack of comprehensive data and communication further exacerbates the risk, as evidenced by the inadequate response to the extensive BGA bloom in the summer of 2022.
Moving forward, it is imperative that regulatory agencies adopt a more rigorous and proactive approach to monitoring cyanobacteria in Windermere. This includes implementing regular sampling protocols, conducting timely toxin analysis, and improving communication strategies to ensure that the public is informed of potential health risks. Additionally, stakeholders must address the root causes of BGA proliferation, such as nutrient pollution from sewage pollution, to safeguard the long-term health of the lake ecosystem.
Ultimately, the well-being of both humans and the environment hinges on proactive measures to address the challenges posed by BGA blooms in Windermere. By prioritising transparency, accountability and public safety, regulatory agencies can work towards ensuring that Windermere remains a safe and enjoyable destination for all. Save Windermere calls for a complete end to all sewage discharging into the lake as the only way to ensure the long term protection and adaptability to climate change.
