Governments C-104 7.12 Summary C-109
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LIVING WITH THELAKES: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ANNEX C INTERESTS, POLICIES AND DECISION MAKING: PROSPECTS FOR MANAGING THE WATER LEVELS ISSUE IN THE GREAT LAKES - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN PREPARED BY FUNCTIONAL GROUP 3 FOR THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM International Joint Commission Water Levels Reference Study JUNE, 1989 PHASE 1 REPORT OUTLINE IJC FLUCTUATING WATER LEVELS STUDY ............................. MAIN REPORT ANNEX A - PAST AND FUTURE WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS ANNEX B - ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, PROCESSES AND IMPACTS: AN ECOSYSTEM PERSPECTIVE ON THE GREAT LAKES - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER SYSTEM ANNEX C - INTERESTS, POLICIES AND DECISION MAKING: PROSPECTS FOR MANAGING THE WATER LEVELS ISSUE IN THE GREAT LAKES - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN ANNEX D - THE GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER LEVELS MANAGEMENT ANNEX E - POTENTIAL ACTIONS TO DEAL WITH THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF FLUCTUATING WATER LEVELS ANNEX F - EVALUATION INSTRUMENT ANNEX G - PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM !Jhis docurtlent reflects contributionsfm a larye mrmber of people, incl~dirrg members of E3, individuals affiliated elsewherein the Reference Study and with cooperating agencies,and members of the pblic at larye. An inventory of FG3 participants is providedin Appm3ix 5, and the mrmercxls contacts and information souz1=es employed in this exercise are documented in Alrpendix 4. wegratefully acknadpdse these substantive materials, observations, criticisms and suggestions, many of which were -lied within tight time constraints and under other conditions which were far from ideal. Section 7 of this Report is laqelybased on the working documents prepared by joint U.S. - Canada teams, listed in Appedx 4. 'Ihe canpilation of these documents and the interpretations thisin Annex included extensive involvement with representatives of variaus interests. Sections5 and 9 draw heavily upon the work of Mike Donahue. Various sections of the Annex benefitted from critiques by individuals outside FG3, notably Reid Kruetzwiser, Roden, Fear1 McKeen, Doug Brown, Rabert sparso, Bruce Mitchell, and Ruth Elgett. 'Ihe canpilation of the manuscriptwas gretly assistedby Madeleine Ward. We sincerely thank all those who contributed to this Annex. Of course, the document, including its approach, interpretations, conclusions and errors, remains fully the responsibility of the authors. The authorsare: C-i ANWCC section A- A- c- i ExExxlTIvE su”ARy c- v c- 1 1. INI’ROIXJCTION c- 3 2. MANAGEMENTaXImT C- 6 2.1 Introduction C- 6 2.2 Physical Setting C- 6 2.3 Socio-Econcanic Setting C- 14 2.4 Governance Setting C- 15 2.5 Decision Making Setting C- 16 2.6 Implications ForThis Report C- 17 3. ’IHE- c- 19 4. MEASURFS c- 22 4.1 Classification and Types of Measures c- 22 4.2 who ~mplementsthe ”S? C- 24 4.3 who pays for the Meamres? C- 25 5. POLICY”ES0FGO~RELATEDTO~ LAI<ELEVELSIssuE C- 29 Introduction C- 5.1 Introduction 29 5.2 Locus of Authority for policy Making C- 31 5.3 General policy Themes c- 33 5.4 specific policyRelated to the Lake Lwels Issue C- 37 5.5 summary c- 47 6. ”POSITIONS c- 49 6.1 Intmduction c- 49 6.2 me Basis for Interests’ Decisionsto mte and Use the Lakes C- 50 6.3 The Formation of Expectations C- 52 6.4 Interests petition Gcrvenrments c- 53 c-ii section 7. p(x;ITIONS OF C- 56 7.1 Introduction C- 56 7.2 Riparian c- 57 7.3 t;snri.mnmental Interest Graup C- 67 7.4 Electric Fmer C- 72 7.5 Transportation C- 78 7.6 Cumnemial/Industrial C- 82 7.7 Rerreation C- 88 7.8 (Xmnnemial Fi- c- 94 7.9 Agriculture c- 97 7.10 Native Nations c-100 7.11 Governments C-104 7.12 Summary c-109 8. m UN” C-113 8.1 Introduc;.tion C-113 8.2 physical Environment C-113 8.3 Econcpnic Activity C-114 8.4 Government policy C-115 8.5 Planning in the Future C-115 9. “ZATIONANDTHE DECISION MAKING FRomss C-117 9.1 The Role of Govermnent organizations C-117 9.2 mentory of Government organizations C-118 9.3 The Issue of ccsnplexity C-124 9.4 ‘Ihe current DecisionMaking Process C-127 9.5 Enham=ed Decision Making capacity C-129 10. FINDINGS E4 -0Ns C-138 10.1 Summary of Fhdi~qs C-138 10.2 Recanaoenaations C-140 APPENDICES 1. RIPARIAN SURVEY 2. GLI36sARY 5. UST OF PARTICIPAKI’S IN FG3 c-iii pase C-4-1 Levels of Guvenrmentto Implement Actions C- 24 IXST OF F'I- c-2-1 Great Lakes - St. Lawrem=e Navigation System c- 7 c-2-2 Iake Erie water Levelsand Precipitation c- 11 C-2-3 F'requency of Occnurence of Levels c- 13 C-4-1 who Pays? C- 27 C-7-1 Distribution of population C- 58 C-7-2 Electricdl Wer Lines and Generating Stations c- 73 c-7-3 Profile of GreatLak.5 - St. Lawrence Navigation system c- 79 c-7-4 Fsnployment and Industrial Structure C- 83 c-7-5 Recreation C- 89 C-7-6 Landuse C- 98 c-7-7 Distribution of Native Nations c-102 C-iv ?heb~purposeofthe~CWaterIlrwels~ferenoeStudtyistoexaminethe l3?clKTingprablenrs posed by fluctuating water levelsin the Great Lakes - st. Lawren=eRiverBasinandtoassistgov~in~idingwhatmi~tbedone to deal with the issue. lmis report rep- a distinct mntrihtion to the achievnent of thatprrpose, by rseking to better ur&r&md the social, econauic and political dimensions theof issue and the on-going challengeto govemnents. It focuses on interests' -, their views ofthe prablexns anl solutions, and hcw these relate to the msponsibilities of governments. ?he intent is to identify the key el- of the political challengeto govemnents; in particular, the reasons why interests petition governments for action, and what government msponse, if any, is &led for. n-reSe concerns andpositiansof~arecctrparedtothestatedhtesof gov-, together with the cxlrrerrt Imw1- about fluctuating water levels and associated ecological prooesses. The findings fmthis approach vide a basis for identifying actions governnmts of which can address the maMgemerrt issues associatea with flucbuating water levels. Within the Great Lakes - st. ~awrmoeRiver -in there are multiple interests who have made decisionsto use the lakes in anticipation of receivingcertain benefits. The interests have been categorized into the following classes: riparians (ssloreline pmperty awners), envirormwtal groups, electric power, transportation, camemidl and ixlustrial arnpanies, recreationists, oarnrercial fishing,and agricultural in-, native nations,and agencies of governumts. When interests' apectations abaut gains and axts associated with their use of the lakes are not met, they often petition governmmtsfor action. At ather times, interests may wivethat sare action by govemnents can inprwe orworn their situation, evm if they have not aqerienced c~11seqllc?11ces fran their decision to use the lakes. As a result, these interests may petitiongovernments to adopt or reject measures that will affect their welfare. Governments beuxe particularly sensitizedto the issue when interests petition for action. me analysis shows that the experiences,factual and values of theinterestsvarygreatlybuthanrongandwithinhterestclasses. 'Ihis situation makes it -y difficult to establish a basis for evaluating the merit ofinbmsts' petitions and the apprupriateness of governnmt actions. -y, -y, the appmach taken in this investigation has been to distill existing policy themes or guim principles of government,and use them to guidetheanalysisratherthantoestablishentirelynewj~on gaverrnaent responsibility. Investigations meal that disoernibleand c~rmon-ies in policy exist between the goverments of the two countries. The policy themes pertinent to the water levelsmamgamk issue have been identified as follaws: o Gwerrnnents seek to pmmmte @*informed@* decision making by interests. o Gcnrenmnents seek to praaote I@respansible@@ decisionmaking by c-v ~Gavenmrentsseektoassummsiliencyofintereststoadapttonaturalhazards. oGcnrerrnnentsseektopromnotethedevelopentoftheecc#lcmy,subjectto the mtives of laplgterm envimrrmental protection o seek to pmmate, and expect to have, an llopenlt pl- process, givh miltiple interests acoess to decision making processes. These policy thenres prwvi.de the famdation for interpretingthe positions of the irrterests, and for isolatirgthose h&ances where goverment action is warranted, based upon policy. aLe agpmach used to hteqret the positions of in light of the policies and I.esposlsibilities ofgov- has saqht to umk&and the decision pruoess interests go thmqh, either miously or subconsciously, when~ingtousethel~andrelatedland~,andhckJand~~ such use results in -1s for government action. This study has identified four areas where petitioning relatesmy to the established responsibiliQ of fed& governments. aLese are when the in-' position seems to be related to: o surprise due to hadequate information, o lack of resiliencyto mturdl hazards, o benefit -, The analysis of why the htexesb take their positions an3 haw their concans and motivations relateto the policies ofgovernments meals that marry of the htemsts were llsurprisedtl by some eldof the Great Lakes system, such as the levels, the degree of floodingor mion, or the failure ofgavermnents to do sarrething abart these things. 'Ibis llsuxpri.sett is mlevantto govemmnts because of their carnci.tment to llinfoxmedand responsibleI1 decision nraking. Also a cmcern to guv- is lack of zesiliencyby interests to the co6t6 of naM hazazds, when this lack of resiliency reflectsa failure in pronrating informed investment decisions orwhen it threatens an econcanic sector or creates widespread hardship: Sane petitions by interests seem to seek a shifting of wets associated mth an investmmt to others, in particular the envimnmnt or the general taxpayer. "t policies dismmge&shiftingandseektoprotecttheenvironment. otherirrterests suppart measures that wuld enhance their invesbmts. This is sane- gwerrnaents might appmve of, kut nut if it modification of the physical system at plblicexpense or at& to the envimment. Investigations fand that measulps to regulate- levels and flaws (Type 1) mive the met attention fmm interests, with support CQning strongly fropn riparian grmpe and with qqositionp- in envhmwntal interests. aKxse not seeking Type 1 petition for the status quo or more localized respmes. Genesally, there is limited -1- of, and little widespread arpport for measures which airecuy restrict(~ype 3) or idmctly influeme (Type 4) the uses of land and water.