Utility Practices and Perspectives on Monitoring and Source Control of Cyanobacterial Blooms

Thirty‐five utilities across the United States (54%), Australia (26%), and Canada (20%) were surveyed to identify their experiences with early warning monitoring and source control of cyanobacteria. All utilities experience pelagic blooms, but only 20% monitor for benthic cyanobacteria. Most utilities (86%) have early warning monitoring programs. However, monitoring frequencies and long analytical turnaround times negatively impacted the effective use of monitoring data for rapid bloom detection and prompt implementation of reactive measures to control blooms/bloom‐related issues. Thus, a tiered monitoring approach is recommended: Tier 1–event detection, Tier 2–cyanobacteria confirmation, and Tier 3–metabolite confirmation. Most utilities (68%) implement source control strategies for cyanobacteria, with algaecides and aeration being the most frequently used (36%). Utilities relied on manufacturer recommendations to design source control strategies, although site‐specific optimization is needed based on water quality/bloom conditions. Control strategies were restricted by source geometry, limited optimization, metabolite generation, and environmental impacts. Successful source control of cyanobacteria was further negatively impacted by external nutrient loading. Therefore, source control strategies should be implemented jointly with external nutrient control initiatives.