Diversions and Consumptive Uses in the Great Lakes

Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses

A Report to the Governments of the United States and Canada under the 1977 Reference

January 1985 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Commissioners wish to acknowledge with gratitude the valuable contribution of the members of the International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Board, its committees and ad hoc groups. Without their dedication and assistance the Commis- sion’s inquiry would not have beenpossible. The Commissioners also wish to acknowledge thesupport and co-operation of the participating agencies in both countries. Finally, recognition is given to the Commission’s advisers and support staff in Ottawa and Wash- ington who were instrumental in producing this Report.

Pictures in this report were supplied through the courtesy of the Government of CanaddRegional Industrial Expansion and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii

PART ONE

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 The Reference The Study Definitions Public Consultation Organization

CHAPTER I1 THE GREATLAKES BASIN 5

CHAPTER I11 THE REFERENCE:DIVERSIONS 9 Existing Diversions 9 The Long Lac and Ogoki Diversions 10 History 10 Effects 13

The Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago 15 History 15 Effects 15

The Welland Canal 16 History 16 Effects 18

The New York State Barge Canal 20 History 20 Effects 20

Cumulative Effects of Existing Diversions 20

Other Existing Diversions 20

Conclusions 22

... 111 Page

Federal, State or Provincially Sponsored or Approved New 22 or Changed Diversions

TheStudy and Demonstration Program Authorized by United States PublicStates United Law 94-587 22

The Possibility for Improved Regulation of the Great Lakes During Extreme High and Low Levels 23

Reducing High Levels 23 Raising Low Levels 24 The Limitations of Economic Analysis 24 Conclusions 25

CHAPTERIVTHE REFERENCE: CONSUMPTIVE USES 27 Existing Consumptive Uses 27 Study Board Estimates 27 U.S. Geological Survey Estimate 28 Conclusions 30

Fbture Consumptive Uses 30 Study Board Estimates 30 Power and Manufacturing Projections Update 31 Power 31 Manufacturing 33

Summary of Consumptive Use Projections 34

Economic Evaluation of Projected Consumptive Uses 37

Conclusions 37

CHAPTER V RECOMMENDATIONS 39

PART TWO 41

INTRODUCTION 41

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 41

The Treaty 41 The History and the Practice 42

NEW DIVERSION PROPOSALS 43

iv Page

A NON-LINEAR FUTURE: ARE WE PREPARED? 44

Climatic Change 46 World Food Supply and Demand 46 Other Trends 46 Thinking Ahead 47

APPENDICES

APPENDIXA Textof Reference 49 APPENDIXBDirective tothe Study Board 53 APPENDIX C Membership57 Board Study of the APPENDIXD Membership of theStudy Board’s Technical Committees and Supporting Groups Supporting 61 APPE NDIX E Summary APPENDIXE Meetingsof Public 65 APPENDIX F Exchange of Notes and Memoranda Relating to the Long Lac and Ogoki Diversions and Article111 of the Niagara Treatyof 1950 75 A PPENDIX G APPENDIX ProposalsNew Diversion 79 List of Figures

Figure 1. The GreatLakes Basin 2 2. LongLac Diversion 11 3. Ogoki Diversion 12 4. LakeMichigan Diversion at Chicago 14 5. WellandCanal Diversion 17 6. NewYork StateBarge Canal Diversion 19 7. Comparison of Consumptive Use Projections 35 List of Tables Table

W elland Canal Diversions Canal 1. Welland 18 2a. Theoretical Effect of Existing Diversion Rates on Great Lakes Water Levels (centimetres) 21 2b. Theoretical Effect of Existing Diversion Rates on Great Lakes Water Levels (feet) 21 3a. Great Lakes Basin 1975 Withdrawals and Consumptive byUses Sector: Study B oard Findings (cubic metres per second) 28 second) per metres (cubic Findings Board 3b. Great Lakes Basin 1975 Withdrawals and ConsumptiveUses by Sector: Study B oard Findings (cubicFindings Board second)feet per 28

V Page

4a. Great Lakes Basin 1975 Withdrawals and Consumptive Uses by Sub-Basin: Study Board Findings (crns) 29 4b. Great Lakes Basin 1975 Withdrawals and consumptive Uses by Sub-Basin: Study Board Findings (cfs) 29 5. U.S. Consumptive Uses, Approximate Share by State, 1975 29 6. U.S. Portion Great Lakes Basin 1980 Withdrawals and Consumptive Uses: USGS Findings 30 7. U.S. Power Sector, Projected Consumptive Use to the Year 2000 33 8a. Great Lakes Hasin Most Likely Projectionfor the Year 2000 Withdrawals and Consumptive Uses: Study Board Findings (crns) 36 8b. Great Lakes Basin Most Likely Projectionfor the Year 2000 Withdrawals and Consumptive Uses: Study Board Findings (cfs) 36 9. Power and ManufacturingSectors, Most Likely Projection for the Year 2000 Consumptive Uses: IJC Update of Study Board Findings 36 10. Suggested Diversions That Have International Implications 82

vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction Part One: Diversions The Great Lakes, their connecting channels and the St. The Commission reviews the existing diversions at Long Lawrence River have been the key to the development of the Lac, Ogoki, Chicago, and the Welland and New York State industrial heartlandof North America, providing economical Barge Canals. The review shows that the diversions at Long and efficient transportation; low-cost hydro-electric power; Lac, Ogoki, Chicago and the Welland Canal have produced abundant water supplies for domestic,agricultural and indus- changes in Great Lakes levels and outflows, though the trial needs; and for depositing municipal and industrial dis- hydraulic effects aresmall in relation to the natural ranges on charges. Estimates of economic activity in 1975 amount to the lakes. TheNew York State Barge Canal diversion has no some $155 billion in the United States portion of the basin hydraulic effect on any of the Great Lakes. The diversions and some $27 billion in the Canadian portion. In addition to have also increased the long-term mean outflows from each their economic and social valueand the contribution the lake, but the current regulation plans for Lakes Superior Great Lakes make to the qualityof life of the citizensof the and Ontario have been designed to accommodate these basin, their environmental value is incalculable, containing diversions. as they do numerous species of mammals, reptiles, birds,fish and plants. The Commission finds that while each diversion has been analysed to the extent possible within the constraints of the The basin’s abundant water supply has largely been taken investigation, the information available is insufficient to for granted, for the lakes are the largest freshwater chain in draw any cumulative basin-wide economic or environmental the world and store about one-fifth of the world’s fresh water. implications. For many reasons discussed in the Report, the Serious disputes have not arisen between the United States economic analysis must betreated with caution as abasis for and Canada regarding the use of this shared resource, even decision-making. though all of the water the basin contains is currentlybeing utilized in some way. There is in effect no ‘surplus’ resource, With respect to the existing diversions, the Commission but rather competition among users. Yet if demands on the notes that there is ahistory of consultation and a recognition resourceincrease, the competition among users, both of the legitimate interests of both countries that has, domestic and international, will do likewise. It is appropri- regardless of legal considerations, by and large been ate, therefore, to examine existing and potential activities reflected in mutual co-operation and concern. Nevertheless, that have or could have a significant impact on the supply and there are several matters regarding existing diversions, both consequently the sharing of the resource. large and small, that might usefully be examined by Govern- This Report of the International Joint Commission con- ments. For example, the Commission finds that although cerning diversions and consumptive uses of Great Lakes most data on existing major diversions are reported regularly water has been prepared in response to a referencefrom the to both Governments, through the Commission or otherwise, Governments of Canada and the United States, dated Febru- this does not appear to be the case for.smal1 diversions. In ary 21, 1977, and continues the Commission’s long involve- addition, the international requirements under the 1909 ment in Great Lakes water quantity issues, which first Boundary Waters Treaty with respect to both large and small emerged through concern about lake levels. The Commis- diversions of boundary waters are not explicit, nor is any sion established the International Great Lakes Diversions and consistent practice followed. Consumptive Uses Study Board (the Study Board) to conduct the required technical investigations. The Report examines the Increased Lake Michigan Diver- sion at Chicago Demonstration and Study Program autho- The Commission’s Report on the reference is in twoparts. rized by the U.S. Congress in October 1976. The study Part One examines the effects of existing diversions, the portion of the program resulted in several computer model potential to improve extremes in Great Lakes levels by simulations of large diversion increases; they determined that changing existing diversion flow rates, and existing and such increases were not economically justified. The demon- projected consumptive uses in the Great Lakes basin. wit stration part of the program was never funded and no actual Two provides a broader and more appropriate context within demonstrations were conducted. The Commission finds that which to address the longer-term prospects for the use of there are now no sponsored or approved new or changed Great Lakes water. major diversions in the basin.

vii The Commission’s investigation shows that the present of consumptive uses in the year 2000 will be of the order of flowrates of the four diversions studied canbe modified 161 crns (5,700 cfs) to 238crns (8,400 cfs). The Commission without structural change at existing locations to reduce high concludes there is a strong need for continual improvement in levels and raise lowlevels by various but small amounts. information on historical and projected water use trends in With respect to reducing levels, under all diversion manage- general and consumptive use trends in particular within the ment scenarios except one - which essentially has been in Great Lakes basin. Should changes in public policies regard- effect since 1979 and has a financial benefit - substantial net ing these trends prove desirable in the future, a continuous annual direct financial losses appear to accrue to the sectors data and information base would provide an invaluable considered in the analysis. The net losses are such that the foundation. further manipulation of diversions for the purpose of alleviating the adverse effects of high lake levels is notjustified. As Part Two for raising low levels, the one alternative studied would result in a small net financial loss as currently assessed. However, In this part of the Report the Commission addresses a should hydrological or economic criteria within certain sec- number of matters that warrant the attention of appropriate tors change significantly in the future, or should other con- jurisdictions in theUnited States andCanada as new or siderations that would benefit from sucha changed regime be changed uses of Great Lakes waters are considered in the given sufficient weight, the divergence of values under this future. The Commissionnotes that not allexisting large scenario is sufficiently small that this management scenario diversions appear to be subject to international control either might become more attractive. by the Commission under the Boundary Waters Treaty or pursuant to special agreements between the Governments. The practice has been to permit domestic law and procedure to govern some large diversions, most small diversions and Part One: Consumptive Uses the consumptive use of Great Lakes water. While specific The second major area considered in Part One involves provisions of law and procedure vary from jurisdiction to existing and reasonably foreseeable patterns of consumptive jurisdiction, the legal regimes throughout the Great Lakes uses in the Great Lakes basin. Large quantities of water are basin, unlike those further west, place relatively few restric- withdrawn from the Great Lakes and their surface and tions on the use of water. groundwater tributaries for industrial (primarily manufacturing and power generation), agricultural and domestic pur- The Boundary Waters Treaty of I909 contains some guid- poses and for other human activities. In 1975, the base year ance to methods of addressing a range of issues raised for the Study Board’s work, withdrawals in the Great Lakes recently at the initiative of one or both Governments or of basin totalled roughly 2,120 cubic metres per second (75,000 individual jurisdictions. Its provisions appear sufficiently broad permit agreed contemporary interpretation by the cubic feet per second), with close to 95per cent of this water to being returned to the basin after use. Parties. The Commission notes that the overall international legal regime is not to be found only in the texts of treaties. It Consumptive uses as reported by the Commission’sStudy has evolved andcontinues to evolve througha combination of Board totalled about 140 crns (4,950 cfs) in 1975. Another agreements, custom, judicial decisions and writings. The estimate of consumptive uses for the U. S. portion of the basin jurisprudence of the InternationalJoint Commission is a by the United States Geological Survey differs considerably particularly significant element. In addition, it is necessary from thatof the Study Board. Consequently, the Commission to look at history in order to put the various elements in finds that existing (1980) consumptive uses may be in the proper perspective. range of 82 crns (2,900 cfs) to 159crns (5,600 cfs). The Commission emphasizes, however, that regardless of which The Commission reviews recent diversion proposals estimate ismore accurate, existing consumptive use data involving Great Lakes water that have received press and need to be improved in several areas in order to establish public attention. The Report recognizes, however,that no useful historical trends and to improve forecasts. major diversion from the Great Lakes basin is now under formal consideration and that none of the concepts is cur- In assessing future consumptive uses in the Great Lakes rently proposed or endorsed byany government directly basin, the Commission carefully considered the Study Board involved in the management of the water. The Commission estimates for the years 1975 to 2035. The Commission con- concludes that, although these large-scale diversions may be cludes that projections beyond the year 2000 are too spec- technically possible, at this time theyhave little political ulative anduncertain for planning and policy decisions given support; that theycould be undertaken only at enormous, and the imprecision in the forecasts of economicand demo- at present unjustified cost; and that they would have unknown graphic changes and the differing estimates of existing con- but likely significant social and environmental effects. sumptive uses in the U.S. portion of the basin. In addition, the Commission revised downward the Study Board’s esti- There maybe circumstances inthe future that could mates for the two largest growth sectors, power generation change this assessment. Changed global climatic conditions, and manufacturing, based on events since the Study Board or major shifts in current economic or political parameters, completed its work. such asa world food crisis, are examples of events that could lead to a more serious interest in large inter-basin transfers of The Commission’s investigation shows that consumptive Great Lakes water. Furthermore, climate changes could lead uses in the Great Lakes basin will increase and that, based on to some reduction in basin precipitation and increased con- current information and analysis, the most likely projection sumptive uses that would further reduce net basin supplies.

... VI11 With this in mind the Commission suggests that in plan- ommendations. Governments should agree to consult ning for the future Governments develop policies that would on each task force report. The task force would use provide adaptive mechanisms for dealing with change and information from the bilateral data committee, as well the unexpected. The Commission believes that this process as other sources, andwould build on the existing will be evolutionary in nature, similar to the process that has methodologydeveloped in each country. The task emerged in addressing the issueof Great Lakes water quality. force should have available to it pertinent social, eco- In this regardthe Commission expects Governmentswill nomic and demographic data both within and outside engage in water quantity discussions well in advance of and the Great Lakes basin context, but would likely needto separate from the formal review of the 1978 Great Lakes concentrate initially on the principal water use sectors Water QualityAgreement, andthe Commission supports of powerand manufacturing. Membershipon each these early initiatives. It may also be useful for Governments task force would be determined by the nature of the to incorporate as they deem appropriate the relevant observa- primary issues at that time. tions and conclusions of this Report at the time of the review. c) Governments institute a co-operative review of current The Commission notes that severalanticipatory initiatives public policies at the federal and stateiprovincial levels have already been or are being undertaken by the Parties and to identify those having an effect on consumptive uses jurisdictions in the Great Lakes basin. The Commission and to examine any that appear to have a significant believes that all these discussions and studies are important potential for reducing such use. andrelevant and should be encouraged,for they are all d) Governments, taking into account the existing and clearly germane to the issueof the diversion and consumptive uses of Great Lakes basin water. possible future diversion of water intothe Great Lakes, consult on the status of waters so diverted. 2. Regarding existing and future small diversions, Govern- Recommendations ments institute surveyson both sides of the border to identify and quantify existing and proposed small diver- Based on the foregoing considerations and conclusions, sions and establish a mechanism whereby information is the Commission’s response includes the following recom- made available to the bilateral data committee. mendations, which the Commission believes willassist Gov- 3. Regarding the management of existing diversions to ame- ernments in effectively addressing future considerations regarding the use of Great Lakes water: liorate high and low levels - a)Governments not consider under present conditions 1. Regarding the general aspects of diversions and consump- thefurther management of GreatLakes levels tive uses - and outflows through the manipulation of existing Governments establish a bilateral data committee, sep- diversions. arate from the Commission, to monitor all existing b) Governments take steps to ensure that better coastal diversions and consumptive uses in the Great Lakes zonemanagement practices are followed to help basinand publish data as appropriate, but no less frequently than biennially. This committee would also reduce flood and erosion damage along the Great Lakes shoreline. recommend appropriate additional research and monitoring efforts that would be necessary to develop 4. Regarding federally, state or provincially sponsored or the methodology and data to derive a more accurate approved new or changed diversions - estimate of existing consumptive uses inthe Great Lakes basin. The committee’s report should be made a) Governments resolve the questions discussed in Chap- public. ter 111 of this Report. b) Governments engage in a process of notice and con- Governments authorize the establishment of a bilateral sultation before additional new or changed diversions task force on diversions and consumptive uses, either are approved. by a reference to the Commission or otherwise. The task force would be created periodically, but no less 5. Regarding the broad aspects of this report, federal, state frequently than every five years, andwould update and provincial governments undertake appropriate mea- previousconsumptive use projections, assess the sures toinform the public of the results of thisstudy and to impacts of those projections, review the potential for initiate aneducational effort directed toward better under- new or changed diversions, and make appropriate rec- standing of the nature and effect of consumptive uses.

PART ONE

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin is a priceless United States Public Law 94-587 affecting the rate of natural resource in the heartland of Canada and the United diversion at Chicago; States. Constituting the largest body of fresh water in the 4. the possibility of improving the current regulation of the world, and considered one of the great waterways, no other Great Lakes during periods of extreme high and lowlevels major body of fresh water contributes so much to the health by changing the existing diversion rates; and and well-being of so many people. Thisimportance underlies the necessity for identifying factors relating to the levels and 5. existing and reasonably foreseeable patterns of consum- flows of the Great Lakes that have a potential for affecting the ptive use of Great Lakes waters. basin residents and users, particularly those factors that by misunderstanding, inadvertanceor neglect could create dis- The full text of the reference appears in Appendix A. putes both within and betweenthe United States and Canada. The scopeof the reference is the entire Great Lakes basin, consisting of the drainage areas for Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie and Ontario; their connecting channels and tributaries; and the international and Canadian reaches of the St. Lawrence River (Figure 1). In carrying out this investiga- The Reference tion, as in other references, the Commission has viewed its mandate broadly and has to the extent possible considered In 1977the Governments of Canada and the United States, each existing, proposed or projected activity the context of in response to certainrecommendations in the Commission’s in the entire basin. The Commission believes a holistic 1976 report on Further Regulation the Great Lakes, of approach to the resource is necessary while recognizing that expressed concern in a reference to the Commission regarding the effects of diversions and consumptive uses on Great the Boundary Waters Treaty and other documents divide the Lakes water levelsand flows. They notedin the reference that resource legally or administratively into categories such as the increasing demand for water to meet the needs of various boundary waters or tributaries, surface or groundwater, and users in the basin would have increasingly significant social, diversions or consumptive uses. As discussed more thor- economic and environmental impacts on all citizens in the oughly in subsequent chapters, the Commission found that Great Lakes basin. In addition, attention in both countries, the information available is not sufficient to enable aholistic particularly during periods of extreme levels, had focused on approach to be taken in all sections of this Report. the nature and effects of various existing basin diversions. Phrases such as “boundary waters”, “boundary waters of Specifically the 1977 reference requested the Commission the Great Lakes system”, and “waters of the Great Lakes to examine and report on the following matters as they affect system” are specifically defined, for example, in the Bound- water levels and flows, water uses, and other appropriate and ary Waters Treaty and in the Great Lakes Water Quality relevant effects and implications: Agreement of 1978. The geographic scope of the Boundary Waters Treaty is not coextensive with the limits of the Great 1. existing diversions at the Welland Canal, the New York Lakes basin. In this situation, and to avoid confusion with State Barge Canal, Chicago, Long Lac and Ogoki; treaty terms and provisions, the phrase “Great Lakes waters” is used throughout this Report to describe the waters of the 2. federal, state or provincially sponsored or approved pro- Great Lakes basin. Thisphrase is descriptive of those waters posed new or changed diversions; and is not synonymous with terms used in the Boundary 3. thestudy and demonstration program authorized by Waters Treaty or any other agreement.

1 Figure 1

2 The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River basin is a priceless natural resource which constitutes the largest body offresh water in the world.

The Study dition developed by the Study Board is known theas basis-of- The Commission established the International Great comparison (BOC). This consistsof the computed levels and Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Board (the flows that would haveprevailed, with the historical record of Study Board) and,by directive (Appendix B), requested the water supplies to the system, if present (1977) outletchannel Board to conduct the required technical investigations. The configurations, average diversion rates and regulation plans members of the Study Board weredirected to act as a unitary for Lake Superior (Plan 1977) and Lake Ontario (Plan 1958- body and to co-ordinate and integrate their investigations in D) had existed consistently throughout the selected period of both countries (see Appendices C and D for membership). record ( 1900-1976). The Commission received the Study Board’s final report The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the in September 1981. The reportmakes a major contribution to Study Board, together with the subsequent examinations by the body of information on, among other things, existing the Commission, provide the basis for this Report. Those diversions and consumptive uses. It also projected future wishing to examine technical details beyond those contained consumptive uses and examined alternative diversion man- here should refer to the Study Board’s documents. agement scenarios and their effects onGreat Lakes levels and flows. Subsequently the Commission examined other related technical and legal documentation on Great Lakes diversions and existing and future consumptive uses. To assess the hydrological effects of any change in the Definitions Great Lakes waters regime, a base-line condition must be The definition of the terms diversions and consumptive established against which such changes can be calculated. is important not only to this Report, but also to any The resulting differences in water levels or flows can then be uses meaningful public discussion of them. used to evaluate economic, environmental, or other effects on the relevant interests.The actual levels and outflows There is no inclusive definition of the term diversion. In during the period of record cannot be used because physical the water resource literature, a diversion indicates a with- and managerial changes have occurred in the Great Lakes drawal of water at one point and the transfer of that water to basin at different times over these years. The base-line con- another point some distance away. When the transfer occurs

3 from one watershed or basin to another (an inter-basin trans- Public Consultation fer), it should always be considered a diversion. Confusion occurs because some transfers that occur totally within one Following receipt of the reference in 1977 the Commission watershed (an intra-basin transfer) are called diversions held public hearings to receive comment on the reference, while most others are not,and there are no generally accepted the directiveand planof study of the Study Board. During the criteria for making the distinction. The decision to call an course of its investigations the Study Board published a intra-basin transfer a diversion instead of a withdrawal series of newsletters and conducted public workshops in May appearsentirely arbitrary. For example,cases where the 1980 at various locations within the Great Lakes basin. withdrawal and return points are relatively close together, After completion of the Study Board report, the Commis- such as for most municipal, industrial or individual pur- sion recognized that there were additional important issues of poses, are often not considered diversions. The opposite case concern to the Great Lakes community and possibly to areas is illustrated by the diversion entirely within the Niagara outside the basin. For example, large-scale diversions have River watershed for power at Niagara Falls. recently been the subject of considerable public discussion in The Study Board defined diversion as a transferof water both the United States and Canada. The Commission found either intothe Great Lakes basin from an adjacent watershed, that consideration of the policy implications of potential or vice versa, or from the watershed of one of the Great Lakes diversions and consumptive uses, and of the factors influenc- into that of another. While this definition was appropriate for ing that potential, was required to provide a comprehensive the Study Board to address the diversions identified in the treatment of the questions raised by the reference. Therefore, reference, it does not include those that take place either in theseven public meetings held by the Commission between smaller watersheds or that are called diversions even throughout the Great Lakes basin in June 1983 to receive though they occur totally within one river or lake watershed comments on the study, discussion included the report of the as discussed above. The reader should be aware that many Study Board and broader policy implications. otherwithdrawals occur that are not consideredto be At the public meetings statements were made by elected diversions. representatives, private individuals, citizen groups, business and industrial representatives and officials from federal, Consequently the following definitions will be used inthis state, provincial and municipal agencies. An informal sum- Report: mary of the statements presented at the public meetings is Diversion the transfer of water from one water- contained in Appendix E. The Commission notes that a shed (or basin) to another' and those submission was not received from the Government of the transfers that, while occurring totally United States; it is usual practice for that Government not to within one lake or river watershed, comment substantively on matters under investigation by the aregenerally called or known as Commission until its report has been submitted. diversions. Public statements have been included where appropriate Withdrawal the removal of water from the ground or throughout this Report. Such statements are included solely from surface water for various uses, for the purpose of providing background information and usually local, such as formunicipal, must not beregarded as necessarily representing the views of industrial or individual purposes. Such the Commission. In addition, verbatim transcripts of public removal, especially from surface water, meetings and hearings, and all written submissions made at is often returned in total or in part to and subsequent to the meetings, are on file and available for approximately the same location. examination by the public at the offices of the Commission in Ottawa and Washington, D.C. Consumptive Uses that portion of water that has beenwith- drawn or withheld from the Great Lakes for various uses such as power genera- Organization tion, manufacturing and so on, and is either known or assumed to be lost due Part One of this Report presents information on the Great to evaporation during use, leakage, or Lakes basin; on matters related to existing diversions and incorporation into manufactured prod- consumptive uses in the basin; on projected future uses ucts, or for other reasons has not been including potential diversions; and on conditions the two returned. countries may face, domestically and internationally, in the future. It also provides some conclusions and recommendations to the Governments of Canada and the United States. In Part Two the Commission discusses issues qualitatively different from those in the first part of the Report. Broader I This includes diversions either intothe Great Lakesbasin from an adjacent considerations and observations are presented as a starting watershed or vice versa,or from the watershed of one of the Great Lakesto point for further thinking by governments, institutions, citi- that of another. zens and the Commission itself.

4 CHAPTER I1

THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

Throughout the Great Lakes basin, the supply of water are not regulated, and their levels are controlled primarilyby supports a web of activities. This chapter describes some of natural conditions. Interventions in the natural regime also those activities andhow they would likely be affectedby any include the diversion at Chicago to the Mississippi system, long-term changes in lake levels.The results are expressedin the water used at Niagara to operate the Welland and New general terms and emphasize certain economic benefits of York State Barge Canals, and the diversion into Lake Supe- resource use. This provides one context within whichone can rior through the Long Lac and Ogoki projects, all of which view the findings on diversions and consumptive uses. are discussed in Chapter 111. Basically the fluctuationsof the However, there are other factors, less tangible perhaps, that lakes are natural phenomena thathave to date been modified are becoming increasingly important tocitizens of the basin; only slightly by man’s intervention, except in Lake Ontario they are sometimes referred to collectively as ‘quality of where considerable reduction in the rangeof water levels and life’. They include the psychic importance of the resource, the maximum level has been achieved. Nevertheless, small the view that the Great Lakes are more thanjust a resource to but permanent changes in lake level fluctuations can have be consumed. significant effects on the web of activities that dependon the levels of the Great Lakes system.2 Sometimes referred to as North America’s inlandsea, the Great Lakes comprise five immense bodies of fresh water, The interrelationship of Great Lakes water quantity and including Lake Superior, the world’s largest in area. With water quality of the Great Lakes cannot be ignored. It is some 246,000 square kilometres (95,000 square miles) of generally recognized that the uses of Great Lakes water are water surface, the lakes cover approximately one-third of influenced directly by the quality of the waters of the Great their drainage basin. The systemforms a waterway that Lakes. The large concentrations of people, industryand stretches more than a third of the way across NorthAmerica. agriculture in the basin have created water quality problems that both Canada and the United States are trying to solve The overall volume and vast water surface area of the through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972 Great Lakes accountfor the storage of enormous quantities of and 1978.These agreements were entered intoby the Govem- water that absorblarge variations in precipitation and runoff. ments to remedy the grave deterioration of water quality, Consequentlythe outflow from each lake is remarkably which had occurred on both sides of the boundary to the steady, with a normal range ofwater levels of 0.3 to 0.6 extent that it was injuring health and property on the other metres (one to two feet) in a single year. The total water side. They are excellent examplesof the consultative process supplies are the dominant causeof fluctuations in the levelsof between the countries. the Great Lakes. The level of each of the Great Lakesdepends on the balance between totalwater supplies received by that Largely because of water transportation, population cen- lake and its discharge to the next lower lake. The change in tres in the basin grew up on the water’s edge. The nearly 40 storage is the sum of precipitation, inflow from upstream, million people who live in the basin make up a third of the surface and ground water runoff, evaporation, outflow and Canadian population and one-seventh of that of the United diversions into or out of the lake. Precipitation in the formof States. In 170 years the population of the Great Lakes basin rain or snow is the primarysource of the natural water supply has increased more thana hundredfold, and it is expected to to the Great Lakes. double in the next 40 years. The increasing numberof people living and working in the Great Lakes basin willcontinue to The hydraulic characteristics of the Great Lakes system place demands on the resource, particularly in the southern havebeen affected by the works of man, including con- and eastern portions of the basin where population densities struction of works in theoutlets of Lakes Superior and are highest. Most of the domestic water supply for activities Ontario, and by dredging in the connecting channels. The operations of the control structures in the outlets of Lakes Superior and Ontario depend on plans of regulation designed 2 For more details of the hydrology and hydraulicsof the Great Lakes basin, the reader is referred to the Commission’s 1976 report on Further Regula- to comply with Orders of Approval issued by the Commis- tion @the Great Lakes and the 1973 report on Regulation of Great Lakes sion. The natural outlets of Lakes Michigan-Huron andErie Wafer Levelsby the International Great Lakes Levels Board.

5 Aesthetic and recreational opportunities make the waterfront an attractive place to live.The population $the Great Lakes basin is expected to double in the next 40 years. in the basin is drawn directly from the lakes. These water Nearly 8 million kilowattsof installed hydro-electric generat- intakesand water treatment requirements are sensitive to ing capacity is now in service on the Great Lakes system. both the quality and quantity of water levels and flows along Since these plants are ableto use the full river flow available the shoreline. to them during most periodsof peak demand, hydro power is affected by any increase or reductionin water supplies to the Aesthetic and recreational opportunities alsomake the Great Lakes. An increasing portion ofpower generation, waterfront an attractive placeto live. Over 20 per cent of the however, is being provided by thermal power plants which 17,100 kilometres (10,600 miles) of Great Lakes shoreline ring the lakes and use the water for their massive condenser has been developed as residential property. Shoreline prop- cooling requirements. erty is subject to flooding and erosion, which are influenced by natural conditions (such asthe type of shoreline, the The Great Lakes, with the St. Lawrence Seaway and other amount of wave action and theoccurrence of storms) and, to a canals, provide a vital commercial navigation route stretch- lesser extent, by man’s activities. ing some 3,900 kilometres (2,400 miles) from the Atlantic Ocean inland to the heart of North America. More than 180 The most comprehensive informationavailable on the million metric tons (200 million tons) of four bulk com- economy of the region shows thatin 1975 economic activity modities - iron ore, coal, limestone and grain - currently are amounted to $155 billion in the U.S. portion and $27 billion shipped each year, accounting for about 85 per cent of the in the Canadianportion of theGreat Lakes basin. (Both system’s commerce. The transportation systemwas central to figures are expressed in 1971 dollars.) Manufacturing the developmentof industry and agriculturein the region and accounts for over a third of the earnings of the basin’s econ-’ remains important to both regionaland national economies. omy,with the largest industries producing transportation Much of Canada’s grain shipments anda substantial volume equipment, machinery, primary metals, fabricated metals, of general cargo (three-quarters of which is manufactured and food and beverage products. Industry uses the basin’s iron and steel products), passed through the St. Lawrence water for processing, cooling, and washing, and for deposit- Seaway in the late 1970s. Ships loaded with cargo are sen- ing some of its wastes. sitive to depths, especially at ships’ harbours andconnecting channels. Reduceddepths can mean less cargo, less effi- Among the beneficial uses of the Great Lakes is hydro- ciency, and increased shippingcosts. If the changes in ship- electric energy. Someof the largest hydraulic power plantsin pingcosts are significant, they arelikely to have some the world rely on the steady flowsof the Great Lakes system additional effects on the economy of the basin. Navigation, on the Niagara and the St. Lawrence Rivers. This power, however, depends on the vitalityof the very industries that are which costs far lessthan thermally generated power, has consuming water, particularly the steel industry, the largest contributed tothe growth of industry at these locations. consumer of water in the basin.

6 The Great Lakes basin accommodates a wide variety of commercial fish catch was estimated to be about$25 million. agricultural activities, including dairy farming, livestock Sport fishing contributes an even greateramount to the production, and grain, tobacco, vegetable and fruit farming. region’s economy. Oneestimate, published in 1979, forecast Because irrigation requirements are low in the region, these 24 million angler-days of sport fishing on the Great Lakes activities have no major impact on water use in the basin, during that year. Those anglers were expected to spend although recent studies have shown that such activities can between $240 and$640 million and have a total impact on the have a significant impact on water quality. Of the almost 7.7 regional economyof between $480 and $1,600 million. More million hectares (19 million acres) of cropland harvested in recent surveys conducted in the United States and Canada the U .S. portion of the basin in 1975, only about 66,800 show that an estimated 55 million angler-dayswere spent on hectares (165,000 acres) were irrigated. In Ontario, of the the Great Lakes during 1980. nearly 3.2 million hectares (7.9 million acres) of cropland in A major portionof North America’s fleetof pleasure boats 1971, about 40,000 hectares (99,000 acres) were irrigated. is based in the Great Lakessystem. Extreme low or high lake The basin’s forests contain a large volume of harvestable levelsadversely affect recreationalboating activities and and usable timber products. There are about 181,000square diminish the number of docks and marina slips that can be kilometres (70,000 square miles) of commercial forest land usedsafely. Recreational use of beaches is also a major capable of producingcommercial crops of timber in the attraction of the Great Lakes. Three-quarters of the Great Canadian portion and about 153,000 square kilometres Lakes shoreline has beach zone at the water’sedge, including (59,000 squaremiles) in the U.S. portion. Production of many stretches of high-quality beach accessibleto the public. pulpwood, saw logs, veneer logs, and miscellaneous indus- A reduction in lake levels would exposea greater area of the trial timber products is substantial. beach zone, thus increasing opportunities for recreational use. In addition to man, the shores and waters of the Great Lakes support numerousspecies of mammals, more than20 Tourism, which is related to outdoor recreation, has long species of reptiles, over 100 species of birds and over 100 been one of the most important industriesin the Great Lakes species of fish. The 61,500 hectares (152,000 acres) of wet- basin. The value of tourism in the U.S. portion of the basin lands in the lower portion of the Great Lakes system include has been estimated at $300 million annually. A 1971 Cana- habitat that is essential to a wide variety of wildlife species dian estimate indicates that tourists’ expenditures in the Great and to the food chainfor the fishery. These wetlands include Lakes basin totalled over $500 million. More recently, the habitat for several species classified as rare, endangered or Michigan Travel Bureau estimated thatdirect expenditures by threatened, including the bald eagle, easternfox snake, travellers on pleasure trips amounted to roughly$3 billion in spotted turtle, fowler’s toad and the Lake Erie watersnake. In 1983. Clearly these values depend on the maintenance of a contrast to the human user groups that are affected adversely clean environment and healthyfish and wildlife populations. by the extremes of lake level fluctuations, the wetlands actually depend on these periodic disturbances, which result in The Great Lakes containa vast quantity of fresh water- 20 greater productivity and greater species diversity. Wetlands per cent of the world’s and 95 per cent of North America’s are complex ecosystems, and research studies are only now surface water. Yet these are measures of stock, a legacy from beginning to look at the responses of these systems to Great the last ice age, not the replenishable supply. It has been Lakes water level fluctuations. Consequently, very little shown that many of the activities discussed in this chapter detailed information exists on this subject and no general would be affected adversely by any long-term reduction in conclusions regarding effects can be made. In view of their flows or levels, while others would be jeopardized by importance. andthe fact that each wetland is unique, the increases. Any intervention in water supplies thus hasgreater response of wetlands in major systems like the Great Lakes implications than absolute quantities might suggest. More- must be taken into account, but this can be assessed more over, they will be felt throughout the system - perhaps, as effectively by site-specific studies. noted at one of the Commission’s public meetings, as far down as the estuary of the St. Lawrence. The Great Lakes fishery has fluctuated greatly over the years in terms of the size and compositionof its populations. While largeengineering structures have been built at Sault Successive strains on the fisheryhave included theeffects of Ste. Marie and Niagara Falls,in the St. Lawrence River and forest clearing on tributary spawning grounds, overfishing, elsewhere, it is clear that the overalleffect of people on lake the introduction of alien species, and chemical pollution. levels or flows to date has been minor. Natural variations in Some improvements have been notedin recent years, includ- lake levels are large by comparison and depend upon the ing the successful introduction of coho and chinook salmon pattern of precipitation overa number of years, which cannot to the Great Lakesin the late 1960s.The extent to which lake be predicted. However, the cumulative effect of individual level changes would affect the fisheryis poorly understood. increases in consumptive use can, over time, be significant There have not been enough studies to make a quantitative for water quantity, just as it has more obviously been for assessment of the effects on fish of water levelchanges; thus, water quality. Relatively smallchanges in the presentregime site-specific studies toevaluate the effects of fluctuating of lake level fluctuations can cause multi-million dollar water levels on the Great Lakes fishery are necessary. changes in dependent economic values. Flood damage can also be substantial; beach fronts areeroded by the same Although drastic changes have occurred overthe past forces thatcreated them. Thus, wisemanagement of the century, the GreatLakes fisheries, bothcommercial and available watersupplies in the Great Lakes basin willrequire recreational, are important contributors to the region’secon- broad and thorough consideration of the full range of omy. In 1979, the annual dockside value of the Great Lakes activities that affect supplies and those that depend onthem. 7

CHAPTER I11

THE REFERENCE: DIVERSIONS

established to administerTreaty,1950 the reports to both Existing Diversions Governments and, for information purposes, to theCommis- The 1977 reference requested the Commission to examine sion on the amounts of water used for power diversions at and report upon five existing diversions of water into, out of, Niagara Falls and in the Welland and New York State Barge or withinthe Great Lakes svstem. Thevinclude the diver- Canals. sions into Lake Superior from Long La; and Ogoki, out of In 1932 and again 1941,in the two Governments attempted Lake Michigan at Chicago, between Lakes Erie andOntario to reach agreement regarding the development of the Great at the Welland Canal, and between the Niagara River and Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. The proposed 1932 St. Lawrence Lake Ontario through the New York Barge Canal System. Deep Water Treaty and the proposed 1941 Great Lakes-St. These diversions wereselected because attention in both Lawrence Basin Development Agreement would have countries hadfocused on theirnature and effects during provided for the construction of a deep waterway and the periods of extreme lake levels, and becauseof the possibility development of water power. In addition, they were intended of enhanced regulation of Great Lakes levels throughchanges to effect a general settlement of questions relating to the the existing diversions. The other major diversions in the in diversion of waters from or into the Great Lakes system basin are discussed briefly below. through the establishment of agreed principles and mecha- Development of hydro-electric power at the head of the nisms for resolving disputes. These proposed agreements rapids in the St. Marys River, a boundary water between were signedfor both Governments butwere not consented to Lakes Superior and Huron, began in 1893and has been by the United States Senate. periodically increased, the last expansion being completed in In 1952 the Governmentsof Canada and the UnitedStates 1983. Although the power flows are withdrawn and returned applied to the Commission for approvalto construct certain entirely within the St. Marys Riverbasin, they are commonly works for the development ofpower in the international referred to as diversions since they redirect water around part rapids section of the St. Lawrence River. These works of the natural channel and the fish habitat in it. Privately involved the obstruction, rather than diversion, of boundary owned power plants on both sides of the river operate under waters. The construction, maintenance and operation of the Orders of Approval issuedby the Commission, while naviga- works, now part of the joint St. Lawrence Seaway and Power tion locks on eachside are controlled by the federal govern- Project, wereapproved by theCommission subject to a ments. The U.S. Government also ownsand operates a number of conditions in its 1952 Order of Approval as supple- hydro-electric power plant. Gated control works across the mented in 1956.Outflows from Lake Ontario to the St. upstream end of the river were completed in 1921 to coun- Lawrence River are governedby the Commission’s Regula- teract the loweringof Lake Superior that would have resulted tion Plan 1958-D and reported weeklyby the Commission’s from an increased discharge capacity.Operations of the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control. These control works are regulated in accordance with the Commis- three major projects are not discussed further in this Report sion’s plan of regulation (known as Plan 1977). The levels of since they are currently controlled as to levels and flows Lakes Superior, Michigan andHuron, as well asthe flows for through treaty in the case of Niagara, or by the Commission power, navigation and the main riverchannel, are monitored through Orders of Approval in the case of the St. Marys and andreported monthly by theCommission’s International St. Lawrence River projects. Other small existing diversion Lake Superior Board of Control. projects inthe Great Lakes basin are discussed briefly inlater Hydro-electric power is also developed by Ontario Hydro this chapter. and the New York Power Authority by diverting water from The hydraulic effects and, to a limited extent, the environ- Lake Erie and the upper Niagara River around Niagara Falls. mental and economiceffects of the five existing major diver- The terms of Article V of the Boundary Waters Treaty of sions were examined. These evaluations have been made by 1909, which governed diversionof the Niagara River for the comparing a common base set of lake levels and outflows production of power, were replaced in 1950 by those of the with the diversions in place at current average levels (termed Niagara River Water Diversion Treaty between the United the basis-of-comparison),with the conditions thatwould States and Canada. The International Niagara Committee, exist without one of the diversions.

9 Onecomponent of theStudy Board’s analysis of the considered together because both divert to Lake Superior effects of existing diversions and their further management waters that originally drained north into James The Bay. Long was the assessment of economic impacts. The basic meth- Lac diversion, completed in 1941, connects the headwaters of odology for the assessment was developed for and is dis- the Kenogami Riverwith the Aguasabon River, which natu- cussed in detail in the report of the International Lake Erie rally discharges into Lake Superior about 250 kilometres Regulation Study Board (July 1981) and will not be repeated (155 miles) east of Thunder Bay, Ontario (Figure 2). The here. Ogoki diversion, completed in 1943, connectsthe upper portion of the Ogoki River to Lake Nipigon and from there The economic analysis concentrates on three sectors and flows into Lake Superior 96 kilometres (60 miles) east of examines a fourth in a limited way. They are thecoastal zone, Thunder Bay (Figure 3). These diversions were developed to hydro-electric power, navigation, and recreational beaches generate hydro-electric power and also, in the case of the andboating respectively. These arethe major economic Long Lac diversion, to transport pulpwood logs southward. interests directly affectedby variations in levels and flows in the Great Lakes and those that have been conventionally of The economic potential of diversions into the Great interest to water use planners and managers. Lakes, suchas Long Lacand Ogoki, wasthe subject of discussionbetween the Governments of Canadaand the Coastal zone effects include erosion, flooding and, to a United States in the 1930s and 1940s.’ As part of the negotia- lesser degree, the water pumping implications of changed tions thatled eventually to an understanding on the Long Lac levels. Overall damage or costs generally increase as lake and Ogoki diversions, Canada proposed in 1938 an agree- levels rise along any givenshoreline. The values were calcu- ment that wouldhave provided in effect that, notwithstanding lated by determining the physical impact of changed levels Articles V and VI11 of the Boundary Waters Treaty, Canada and converting them into the dollar values of lost (or saved) would have exclusive rights to the use of waters from the real estate, flood damage caused(or prevented), and lower(or Long Lac diversion. However, the United States responded higher) pumping costs. that it was not prepared to entertain sucha proposal without The implications for hydro-electric power generation consideration being given to a number of other matters. In were calculated for the facilities on the entire Great Lakes 1940, the Governments did concludean arrangement through connecting channels and the international section of the St. an exchange of notes relating to the early development of Lawrence River and were related to the incrementalcosts or certain portions of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin pro- savings of relatively inexpensive hydro generation compared ject (Long Lac-Ogoki diversions). It provided in part that: with alternative sources for the affected amount of power. to assist in providing an adequate supply of power to Overall, decreases in levels or flowsreduce the system’s meet Canadiandefense needs and contingent upon the capability to generatehydro power,which then must be Province of Ontario’s agreeing to provide immediately replaced by higher-cost energy. for diversions into the Great Lakes System of waters from the Albany River Basinwhich normally flow into The economic effects on commercial navigation reflect Hudson Bay, the Governmentof the United States will the incremental costs or savings of operating ships under interpose no objection, pending the conclusion of a different loadingfactors on the Great Lakes, connecting final Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin agreement channels and associated harbours. Reduced water levels between the twocountries, to the immediate utilization mean that ships may have to reduce thesize of loads because for power at Niagarafills by the Provinceof Ontario of of depth limitations at critical points in the navigation additional waters equivalent in quantity to the diver- system. sions into the Great Lakes basin above referred t~.~ A limited assessment was made of the values of access to Subsequently, both governments ratified the Niagara public recreational beaches and recreational boating atcom- River Water Diversion Treaty of 1950, Article 111 of which mercial facilities. Beach values were calculated on the basis provides that the “waters which are being diverted into the of an estimated cost-to-use; boating valueswere based on the natural drainage of theGreat Lakes System through the cost of an equivalent boat-for-hire. The evaluation did not existing Long Lac and Ogoki works shall continue to be include the beaches on LakesMichigan, Huron and Superior governed by the notes.” or their connecting channels. Recreational boating was examined only in the UnitedStates portion of the basin from The notesprovide flexibility in operationbecause no LakeHuron to the point where the St. LawrenceRiver diversion amounts are specified, but initial use at Niagara becomes entirely Canadian. In addition, this estimate exam- Falls was to be 142 cubic metres per second(5,000 cubic feet ined the effects of lowering high lake levels but did not per second). An Exchange of Memoranda of October 20 and include anyeffects of raising low levels. Generally, lowering November 14,1941 allowedthe province of Ontario the high levels benefits beaches and harms boating. choice of using the divertedwater for hydro-electricpower at Niagara Falls or at the DeCew Falls plant via the Welland The limitations inherent in evaluating economic impact Canal (see discussion under Welland Canal diversion). suggest caution in using these evaluations. The Commission Because of greater plant efficiency, power is generated at discusses its reservations in more detail at the end of this chapter. See also page 9. The Long Lac and Ogoki Diversions Exchange of Notes (October 14, 1940) between the Government of the United States of America andthe Government of Canada, including History: These two diversions are separatebut they are often Supplementary Notes (October 31 and November 7, 1940).

10 -N-b

MILES 0 10 16

HAYS L

11 Diverted Ogoki Drainage Basin Area 5390 sq. mi.

Lr SUMMIT FLLCONTROL DAM

Great Lakes

Ogoki Diversion Figure 3

12 The Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago is part of one of the most heavily used navigation systems in the United Stutes.

DeCewFalls. Copies of thesenotes and memoranda are noted that “At power facilities at Niagara hlls, by treaty,5 contained in Appendix E this diverted water is credited to Ontario. At Cornwall, the diverted water is shared equally through negotiationpart as of From July 1943 to December 1979 the combined diversion the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project. At Sault Ste. averaged about 159 crns (5,600 cfs), although it has been the Marie, however, the diverted waters are shared equally with- practice of the Parties to use a constant figure of 142 crns out formal agreement. ” It also stated that “water diverted to (5,000 cfs) in calculating the Canadian and U.S. shares of the Great Lakes system from other watersheds in Ontario water availablefor power under the NiagaraTreaty instead of continue to be considered as Ontario’s water throughout the the actualdiversion amounts as permitted by the notes. system.” Similar views have been expressed from time to Apparently this practice is a pragmatic solution to the prob- time by the Government of Canada. lem of trying to use the actual diversion rates, which vary frequently and whose arrival time at Niagara, about 1,600 Effects: These diversions increase thesupply of water to the kilometres (1,000 miles) downstream, cannot be calculated Great Lakes. The hydrological effect has beento increase the accurately. The maximum and minimum annual combined mean levels of each of the lakes. The mean level of Lake diversions have been 227 crns(8,020 cfs) and 72 crns (2,530 Superior has been increased by 6.4 cm (0.21 feet), Lakes cfs) respectively. Although the diversions are under Cana- Michigan-Huron by 11.3 crn(0.37 feet), Lake Erieby 7.6 cm dian control there have been consultations between Govern- (0.25 feet), and Lake Ontario by 6.7 cm (0.22 feet). Under ments during emergency periods. Examples of mutual co- the Commission’s current regulation plans for Lakes Supe- operation occurred in 1952 and 1973 when, in response to a rior andOntario, the maximum criteria levels for these lakes request by the United States, Canada reducedor stopped both are unaffected by these diversions. diversions in an attemptto alleviate problems createdby high lake levels. The amount of water diverted into LakeSuperior Various economic interests in the Great Lakes system by these diversions is reported to the Commission, through have been affectedby these twodiversions. The dollar value its International Lake Superior Board of Control, by Ontario Hydro. 5 The treaty referred to is the 1950 Niagara River Water Diversion Treaty, At the Commission’s public meeting in Toronto in June Article 111 of which states in part, “Waters which are being diverted into 1983, the Commission receiveda submission on behalf of the the natural drainageof the Great LakesSystem through the existing Long Lac-Ogoki worksshall continue to be governedby the exchange of province of Ontario relating to, among other matters, the notes ...on October 14 and 31 and November 7, 1940, and shall not be existing diversions at Long Lac and Ogoki. The submission included in the waters allocated under provisions of this Treaty”.

13 BRANDON ROA D LOCK AND DAY c

lake Michigan \ Diversion f-1 at Chicago Lr\ \ / Figure 4 of annual losses to coastal zone interests was calculated at age amount of 90 crns (3,200 cfs) authorized by the 1980 $4.8 million, while the amounts of direct annual benefits to decree isthat which has occurred since 1938, except in navigation and power were estimated at $17.6 million and emergency situations. $40.2 million respectively. The Study Board therefore esti- Although the average diversion rate has not changed for mated that total calculated direct benefits attributed to these some time, the potentialfor increases in that amount has been diversions, including benefits to the pulp and paper industry a concern to Canada and to those in the vicinity that might located on the Aguasabon River, exceeded calculated losses possiblybe affected adversely by higher waterlevels or by an average of $57 million annually.The recent increase in velocities. The major U.S. interestsinclude commercial the average Welland Canal diversion from 198 crns (7,000 navigation, recreational boating, hydro-electricpower gener- cfs) to about 260 crns (9,200 cfs) would change slightly the ation, residential flooddamage, agriculture and wetland hab- estimated economic values of the effectsof the Long Lac and itat. Article of the Boundary Waters Peaty provides that Ogoki diversions. I1 the United States and Canada reserve to themselves exclusive The Long Lac and Ogoki diversions have had significant jurisdiction and control over the useand diversion of waters local environmental effects on fish spawning areas and hab- on their own side of the line, waters that in their natural itat as a result of the original construction and operation of channels would flow across the boundary or into boundary diversion structures on the main stemrivers, the construction waters, subject tocertain provisions with respect to injuries.‘j and alteration of diversion channels, the creation of reser- Over the years, several proposals have been made in the voirs, the greatly altered flow regimes, and the use of water- U.S. Congress to increase the amountof the Chicago diver- ways for log transportation. However, no significant basin- sion; none of the proposals was successful. In the 1950s two wide environmental effects from these two diversions have bills authorizing an increase in the diversion were passed by been documented. the Congress but vetoed by President Eisenhower whocited, among other reasons, opposition expressedby Canada. More recently, Congress passed the Water Resources Development The Luke Michigan Diversion ut Chicago Act of 1976 which included authorization for a study and History: Water has been diverted from the Great Lakes basin demonstrationprogram affecting the rate of theChicago via the Lake Michigan diversion atChicago (Chicago diver- diversion. A discussion of the program, as requested by the sion) since the completionof the Illinoisand Michigan Canal reference, begins on page 22. in 1848 (Figure 4). The diversion of water through the Illinois Canada has objected, through diplomatic notesand other waterway to the Mississippi River for is water supply, sewage communications, to each of the proposals to increase the disposal, power generation and navigation. The diversion Chicago diversion.’ The Commission notes that the U.S. consists of three components: Government has been atpains to ensure that decision-makers (a) water supply withdrawn directly from Lake Michigan for in the United States are awareof the Canadian Government’s domestic and industrial purposes and then discharged views and that indeed they have been taken into account. into the Illinois River as treated sewage; Effects: The Chicago diversion decreases thewater supply to (b) runoff that once drained to Lake Michigan but is now Lake Michigan and creates an additional outflow channel diverted to the Illinois River; and from Lake Michigan. The effect of the diversion on lake levels has beento reduce the mean levelsof Lakes Michigan- (c) waterdiverted directly from Lake Michigan into the Huron by 6.4 cm (0.21 feet), Lake Erieby 4.3 cm (0.14 feet) Illinois River and canal system for navigation and dilu- and Lake Ontario by 3.0 cm (0.10 feet). Under the current tion purposes in the Chicago area. regulation Plan 1977 for Lake Superior, the diversion also Until 1900, water diverted from Lake Michigan to the reduces the mean level of that lake by 2.1 cm (0.07 feet). area’s canal system averaged about 14 crns (500 cfs). The For several reasons, even the limited economic evaluation completion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in 1900 applied to the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions was not under- and the Calumet-Sag Channel in 1922made possible the taken for this diversion. First, estimates could not readily be diversion of pollutants to the Illinois River system andaway made of the specificbut clearly sizable benefits attributableto from LakeMichigan, the sourceof Chicago’s water supply at the users of the diversion. Second, it wasnot considered the time theBoundary Waters Treaty came into force in 1910. realistic to assume reductionof the diversionto zero, because That year, the volume of water to be withdrawn was limited there are no apparent alternatives for water supply and navi- by a permit of the U.S. Secretary of War to 118 cms (4,167 gation. Any evaluation wouldalso be somewhat hypothetical cfs) for domestic, sanitary and navigation purposes. Shortly since the diversion predated the large investments that now afterward, however, the Chicago Sanitary District exceeded this amount, thereby touching off the first British note of protest on behalf of Canada in 1913, as well as protracted See also page 9. litigation between the District and the UnitedStates of Amer- Most recently, in a statement tabled at the public meetings held by the ica, joined at later stages by the State of Illinois, three other International Joint Commission in June 1983, the Government of Canada cities andseveral other Great Lakes states. The dispute reiterated its “long-standing opposition to unilateral increases in diversions from the Great Lakes system’’ and its view that “such proposals reached the U .S. Supreme Court, was settled by several should be considered only after consultationand agreement between judicial decrees issued over the past 50 years, and remains Canada and the UnitedStates.” In its submission, the Rovince of Ontario under the Supreme Court’s continuingjurisdiction. The aver- restated its opposition to any such unilateral increases.

15 The Welland Canal is an integral part sf the St. Lawrence Seaway system. permit or could, if expanded, permit the realizationof further Lake Ontario at Port Weller, bypassing the Niagara River and benefits in the Great Lakes systemfor navigation andpower. the Falls (Figure 5). The canal is used primarily as a deep Nevertheless, an estimation of the major benefits that might draft navigational waterwayand for power generation at otherwise have been generated on the Great Lakesdoes have Ontario Hydro’s DeCew Falls generatingstations. The diver- some descriptive value in the context of the effects of other sion also supplies water for industrial and municipal use and diversions. If the diverted water were available and used, for water quality enhancement. downstream navigation and power interests could generate Originally builtin 1829, the canal has beenreconstructed, additional revenue while coastal zone interests would experi- lengthened and realigned severaltimes. The present Welland ence some increaseddamage. Overall, however, it is obvious Canal is a modified version of that built between 1913 and that the present diversion’s net benefits exceed those of any 1932. Since 1959 the canal has been operated as an integral alternative uses by a significant margin, even without taking part of the St. Lawrence Seaway system by the St. Lawrence into accountthe many indirect benefitsof the diversion being Seaway Authority,a Canadian Crowncorporation. Under an in place and its prior existence. agreement with the Seaway Authority, Ontario Hydro takes No significant environmental impact on the Great Lakes water out of the canal at Allanburg and rediverts it to the basin has been documentedas a result of this diversion; there DeCew Falls hydro-electric power generating plants. This have, however, been important local effects on the Illinois water is discharged into Lake Ontario through Twelve Mile waterway, which is one of the most heavily used navigation Creek. While most of the remainder is discharged directly systems in theUnited States andis a major conduit for into Lake Ontario from thecanal, a small portion is agricultural and industrial commodities as well as treated redirected into the Welland Riverto maintain its waterquality sewage effluent. In the upper reachesof the waterway, water and is discharged to the Niagara River. quality is rather poor, creating unfavourable conditions for The first power development using Welland Canal water at natural habitat and poor biologicalresources. In the mid and DeCew Falls began about 1887 and was completed in 1913. lower reaches, the water is of relatively higher quality.Sedi- At completion, at flow of 31crns (1,100cfs) was allocated for mentation has had a significant influence on changing the power. Since the period of power development straddles the character of the Illinois River. 1910 effective date of the Boundary Waters Treaty, the Com- mission presumes that itwas the intention of the Parties that The Welland Canal the final 1913 power flow constituted a diversion “heretofore permitted” under Article111 of the Treaty. Total canal flowin History: The Welland Canal takes water from Lake Erie at 1913 was 68 crns (2,400 cfs) and varied annually between62 Port Colburn and diverts it across the Niagara Peninsula to and 85 crns (2,200 and 3,000 cfs) through 1940.

16 OkIPORT COLBORNE

17 Table 1 WELLAND CANAL DIVERSIONS*

Purpose Amount Comments crns cfs crns Navigation Approximate average flow during the navigation season. Approximate annual flow for hydro-electric power generation required to service navigation facilities year-round. Power Diversion for power at DeCew Falls plant prior to the Boundary Waters Treuty. Approximate diversion for powerat DeCew Falls plant based theon current average annual diversions into Lake Superior from Long Lac and Ogoki as authorizedby exchange of notes and memoranda between Governments.For practical reasons this amount is taken as a constant 142crns (5,000 cfs) in calculations determining the amounts available for powerat Niagara Falls. Water Estimated flows taken from thecanal at four separate locations for Quality dilution of sewage or prevention of stagnation. Approximately 5 crns (190 cfs) isreturned to the WellandRiver and becomes available for power generation at Niagara Ealls. Domestic Four separate withdrawals from thecanal. Approximately 0.5 crns (19 cfs) are returned to the Welland River. Industrial Nine separate withdrawals fromthe canal. Approximately 0.3 crns (12 cfs) are returned to the WellandRiver. An unreported amount of these flows is consumed by plant operation or products and is not returned to the system. Totals Typical navigation season uses. (rounded) Typical non-navigation season uses. ommittee on Welland Canal Diversions, May 1982 (Revised October 14, 1982).

Further increasesof flows through the Welland Canalhave lishedseparately by Governmentsto administer the 1950 been due mainly to the installationof additional power gener- treaty. ation capacity in the 1940s. The supply ofwater for this purpose appears to be governed by the international agree- Effects: The diversion of water through the Welland Canal ments discussed in the section on the Long Lac and Ogoki increases the outflow capacityof Lake Erie and has lowered diversions. The exchange of notes between Canada and the the mean levelof that lakeby about 13.4 cm (0.44 feet), at the United States of October 14, 1940, reaffirmed by the 1950 current diversion rate of 260 crns (9,200 cfs). Because the NiagaraTreaty, allocate to Ontario thevolume of water level of Lake Erie naturally affects the levelsof Lakes Michi- equivalent to the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions, currently gan-Huron and, by regulation, LakeSuperior, the mean averaging 159 crns (5,600 cfs), to be used at Niagara Falls.By levels of these lakes have also dropped about 5.5 cm (0.18 1951 the diversion was at a maximum rate of 210 crns (7,400 feet) and 1.8 cm (0.06 feet) respectively. There is noeffect on cfs) and averaged 215 crns (7,600 cfs) through 1970. Begin- the mean level of Lake Ontario but the minimum, maximum ning in about 1973, increased flows for power generation and range have been affected (seeTables2a and 2b, page21). were put through the canal, without structural change, raising its current (1980) rateto about 260 crns(9,200 cfs) on an Aswith the Chicago diversion, nodetailed economic annual basis. evaluation was performed for the Welland Canal diversion A breakdown of the Welland Canal diversion by purpose since this wouldhave entailed determining the costsof alternative water supplies and other modes of transportation is shown in Table 1. between Lakes Erie and Ontario. While the diversion has Considering that the requirementsof each user fluctuatein lowered the mean levelsof all the lakes upstream from Lake amount over time, the current average annual diversion of Ontario, the benefits of navigation through the canal itself 260 crns (9,200 cfs) is relatively close to the accounting exceed by a wide margin any losses attributable to lower shown in the table. The diversion amounts are reported to Great Lakes levels. With the same amount of water, more Governments by theInternational Niagara Committee as power can be generatedat the DeCew Fall plants, due totheir provided for in the 1950 Niagara Treaty. This is not a Com- greater efficiency, than at Niagara Falls. Overall there mittee of the International JointCommission, but was estab- appears to be a net benefit to power generation, significant

18 Figure 6

19 benefits tonavigation, and somebenefit to coastal zone Anadromous fishruns have been blocked by dams, and interests. wetland spawning areas have been eradicated by drainage and dredging programs. Water quality in natural streams has The WellandCanal has had a significant effect on the deteriorated as a result of domestic, agricultural and indus- indigenous fishery in the basin. Sealamprey reached the trial pollution. Lakes have been created and/or modified by upper lakes from Lake Ontario through the Welland Canal and lake trout stocks in the upper three lakes virtuallydisap- flood control projects, andstream flowsand temperature regimes have been altered by engineering works. In most peared, primarily as a result of sea lamprey predation. instances, however, the extent of the impact on aquatic resourceshas notbeen well documented. In addition, no significant basin-wide environmental effectsas a result of the The New York State Barge Canal New York Barge Canal diversion have been documented. History: The New York State Barge Canal, comprising the interconnected Champlain, Erie, Oswego and Cayuga-Sen- eca Canals, takes water primarily for navigation purposes Cumulative Efects af Existing Diversions from the Niagara Riverat Tonawanda, New York, and returns all of it to Lake Ontario through several tributaries and the The theoretical effects of the diversions just described, Oswego Canal (Figure 6). Construction of the Erie Canal excluding the relatively minor New York State Barge Canal began in 1817 and was completedin 1925. Work began on the diversion, are presented in Tables 2a, b. The numbers were presentcanal in 1905and was completed in 1918. Con- derived by reducing the current rates to zero, individually sequently, the canal is a diversion “heretofore permitted” andin combination. The tableshows that, based on the under Article 111 (1) of the BounduryWafers Treaty. In approximate existing rates of these diversions, each current addition, thebarge canal is included in theprovisions of diversion hasan effect over the total rangeof levels on eachof Article 111 of the Niagara River Diversion Treaty, which the Great Lakes. allows the continuation of existing water “used and neces- The diversions have increased the long-term mean out- sary for domestic and sanitary purposes and for theservice of flow from Lake Superior by159 crns (5,600 cfs); that of canals for the purpose of navigation”. However, the Com- Lakes Michigan-Huron, Erie and Ontario by about 68 crns mission has been unable to ascertain the exact amountof the (2,400 cfs); and outflow from Lake Erie by 193 crns (6,800 diversion either by the 1905-1918 project or in 1950 when the cfs). However, the regulation plans in operation on Lakes Niagara treaty was signed. Superior and Ontario have been designed to accommodate The amount of water diverted from the Niagara Riverby these diversions, and they satisfy the Commission’s criteria the canal is currently not measured but is estimated on the for the regulation of those lakes to the extentpossible, given basis of flow measurements made in the 1950s. The amount the large fluctuations in supplies. If these diversions had not varies seasonally; the average is taken to be about 20 crns been present, the regulation plans would be different, but (700 cfs), with a maximum flow during the navigation season approximately the same level regime would be produced. (April to November) estimated at about 31 crns (1,100 cfs). The second cumulative effect of the diversions is that the Water is diverted from the canalat various locations and for mean levels of Lakes Superior and Ontario have been various purposes, including irrigation andpower production, increased by 2.1 cm (0.07 feet) and 2.4 cm (0.08 feet) but theexact amounts used for these purposes, andthe respectively while themean levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron manner in which water is diverted, are unclear. Furthermore, and Eriehave been reducedby 0.6 cm (0.02 feet) and 10.1 cm it is not known whether waters used downstream for irriga- (0.33 feet) respectively. tion and power generation are merely subsequent uses of water required upstream for the navigation service. Whileeach diversion has been analysed to the extent possible within the constraints of this investigation, the infor- The Governments are informed regularly about this diver- mation available is insufficientto draw any cumulative basin- sion by the International Niagara Committee. wide economic or environmental implications. Effects: This diversion has no hydraulic effect on any of the Great Lakes. All of the flow is returned to LakeOntario, and Other Existing Diversions the point of withdrawal from the Niagara River is downstream from the natural hydraulic control of Lake Erie. Althoughnot specifically named in the reference, two additional diversions, both involving relatively small For reasons similar to those at the Chicago and Welland amounts of flow, are known to the Commission, and there Canal diversions, no economic analysis was undertaken of appear to be others. the barge canal diversion. However, considering the large number of municipal, recreational and industrial users along Since 1975, the Detroit domesticwater supply system has the entire canal system, its benefits would appear to outweigh withdrawn approximately4 crns (145 cfs) from Lake Huron, by far any alternative usesof that relatively small amountof the bulk of which is returned to the system in the lower water. Detroit River. This diversion has no measurable effects on the levels of Lakes Huron or Erie, and the Commission has Throughout the region traversed by the New York State not issued an Order of Approval for the project. BargeCanal system, bothwaters and wildlife have been modified extensively.In some parts of the system, fish fauna In 1968 the Commission issuedan Order of Approval fora have increased whilein other parts reductionshave occurred. diversion of 0.7 crns (25 cfs), to last up to100 days annually,

20 Table 2a THEORETICAL EFFECT OF EXISTING DIVERSION RATES ON GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS (CENTIMETRES)

-~ Rate Superior Michigan-Huron Erie Ontario‘ Diversion (ems) Mean Max Min Range Mean Max Min Range Mean Max Min Range Mean Max Mm Range Long LaclOgoki I59 f6.4 f3.7 f25.9 -22.3 f11.3 fII.0 f13.1 -2.1 $7.6 f7.9 f8.5 -0.6 f6.7t38.4 f44.8 -6.4 Lake Michigan at Chicago 91 -2.1 0 -1.8 f1.8 -6.4 -6.1 -7.3 t1.2 -4.6-4.6-4.3 0 -3.0 -55.5-14.6 -40.8 Welland CanalZ 266 - 1.8 0 -1.8 $1.8 -5.5 -5.5 -5.5 0 -13.4 -12.8 -14.6 +1.8 0 -2.1 t0.3 -2.4

I59 Combined 91 f2.1 ‘f3.4f22.3 -18.9 1-0.6 -1.8 f1.2 -3.0 I-10.1 -9.8 -11.0 f1.2 t2.4t19.5 f18.0 f1.5 266 Notes: I. Lake Ontario levels were computed under the current regulation Plan 1958-Dwithout application of the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control discretionary deviations. 2. The Study Board evaluated a rate of 266 cms for the Welland Canal, a rate that could likely occur in the future. The evaluation of the current rate of 260 cms would give very similar results. 3. The (-) sign signifies a reduction in level while a (+) signifies an increase. Source: The Study Board. Table 2b THEORETICAL EFFECT OF EXISTING DIVERSION RATES ON GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS (FEET)

Superior Michigan-Huron Erie Max Min Range Mean Max Min Range Mean Max Min Range I Mean MaxOntario’ Mi0 Range Long Lac/Ogoki + .21 +.I2t.85 -.73 +.37 f.36 f.43 -.07 f.25f.26 +.28 -.02 1 f.22f1.26 f1.47 -21 Lake Michigan at Chicago 3,200 - .07 0 -.06 f.06 -.21 -.20 -.24 f.04 -.I4 -.I5 -.I5 0 -.lo -1.82 -.48-1.34 Welland Canal2 9,400 - .06 0 -.06 f.06 -.I8 -.I8 -.18 0 -.44 -.42 -.48 f.06 0 -.07 +.Ol -.08

Combined f.11 f.73 -.62 -.02 -.06 t.04 -.IO -.33-.32-.36 f.04 f.08 +.64 f.59t.05

Notes: I. Lake Ontario levels were computed under the current regulation Plan 1958-Dwithout application of the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control discretionary deviations. 2. The Study Board evaluated a rate of 9,400 cfs for the Welland Canal, a rate that could likely occur in the future. The evaluation of the current rate of 9,200 cfs would give very similar results. 3. The (-) sign signifies a reduction in level while a (+) signifies an increase. Source: The Study Board. I from Lake St. Lawrence into the Raisin River in eastern compounded by Article III(2), which provides that neither Ontario. This diversion is used to improve flowconditions in Commissionapproval nor special agreement between the the Raisin River during the summer months. The water is Parties is required for the ordinary use of waters for domestic returned to theSt. Lawrence Riverbelow Cornwall, Ontario, and sanitary purposes. thusbypassing the hydro-electric generating station. The diversion hasno measurable impact on levels of the St. The proponent of a minor diversion may not be required Lawrence River. The Commission’s order is still active; it is under domestic law to inform either federal government. In monitored by the Commission’s International St. Lawrence practice, if neither federal government is informed, no River Board of Control. application would be made to the Commission, since under Commission rules applications are to be submitted through The fact that oneof these minor diversions operates under the Parties. If one of the Parties isso informed, it may convey a Commission Order of Approval and the other does not the application to the Commission, or it might seek agree- points out the necessity for clarifying the Commission’s role ment with the other country, thereby exempting the project in such instances, a point thatwas also raised at the Commis- from the Commission process. sion’s public meetingsin 1983. Accordingto Article IlI(1)of the Boundary Waters Treaty, the Commission’s jurisdiction These uncertainties are notnew. In 1966 and 1967 the covers “uses, obstructions and diversions affecting the natu- Commission was informed throughdiscussions with Govern- ral level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the ments about two such special agreements allowing minor line.. .” . However, it is uncertain whethera minor diversion, diversions to proceed. The Commission followedup on this which by itself does not affect levels and flowsin a measura- issue with a letter to Governments in 1970, but received no ble fashion, is meant to be encompassed. This uncertainty is direct response. In terms of governmental practice, however,

21 with the exception of the Raisin River diversion, no applica- instances where small diversions are unknown to tions for approval of minor diversions have since been sub- either or both Governments. mitted to the Commission. This matter is also discussed in 6. The international requirements under the Boundary Part Two. Waters Treaty with respect to both large and small There is the possibility that the number of small diversions diversions of boundary waters are not explicit, nor is is sufficient that, collectively, their effects on basin and lake any consistent practice followed. This matter is dis- waters could be measurable. For example, one publication cussed further in Part 'ho. indicates that in 1975 small diversions into the U.S. portion of the basin totalled about 0.8 crns (30 cfs). This estimate does not include any diversions that are occurring between small watersheds within the basin. Federal, State or Provincially Sponsored or ApprovedNew or Conclusions Changed Diversions In light of these findings the Commission has reached the The Commission has found no federal, state or provin- following conclusions: ciallysponsored or approved new orchanged major 1. The review of existing diversions at Long Lac, Ogoki, diversions in the basin. There is one new diversion, which is Chicago and the Welland Canal has shown that they considered minor, from the Lake Simcoe (Lake Huron) have produced changes in Great Lakes levels and drainage basin, and a change in the Welland Canal diversion outflows, but the hydraulic impactsare small in rela- as discussed earlierin this chapter. The previously authorized tion to the natural rangeson the lakes. The New York increase in the Lake Michigan diversion for demonstration State Barge Canaldiversion has no hydrauliceffect on purposes, which expired in 198 1, is discussed separately any of the Great Lakes. The effects on the connecting below. channels and rivers where diversions are located are The Simcoe diversion, which has been approved by more significant, but they are localized. Ontario authorities, is a municipal sewage disposal project 2. The hydraulic effects of these diversions on the Great that is still in the development stage. Sewage from several Lakes and connecting channels can be translated into municipalities in the Lake Simcoe-Georgian Bay drainage dollar terms for certain major interests in the basin basin will be pumped to the Lake Ontario drainagebasin via such as hydro-electric power. However, such an analy- the York-Durham sewer system for treatment at Pickering, sis is of questionable utility, since the sizable economic Ontario. The flow is estimated to reach 0.7 cms (25 cfs)by benefits to respective users of the diversions have not the year2000 and constitutes adiversion from LakeHuron to been calculated, except for the Long Lac and Ogoki Lake Ontario. diversions, and would have limited analytical or deci- As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Commission sion-making value. believes there may well be other minor diversions approved 3. The environmental evaluation of existing diversions or under active consideration by various levels of government was limited by the reasonably available ecological and in both countries. other data. The study found certain important Proposed large-scale diversions from the Great Lakes to localized environmental effects, but no significant parts of the North American continent, the issue that received basin-wide effects have been documented. so much attention at the Commission's public meetings in 4. The history of consultation with respect to diversions June 1983, are considered in Part Twoand Appendix G of this and recognition of the legitimate interests of both Report. countries, regardless of legal considerations, has by and large reflected mutual co-operation and concern. This Report has discussed several matters regarding existing diversions (e.g., the status of waters diverted intothe Great Lakes, the changed Welland Canal The Study and Demonstration diversion and the amount and statusof the New York State Barge Canal diversion), some of which might Program Authorized by United States usefully be examined by Governments. Public Law 94-587 5. Although data on existing major diversions are The reference requested the Commissionto report on the reported regularly to both Governments through the Increased Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago Demonstra- Commission or other mechanisms, (e.g., flows in the tion and Study, which was authorized by U.S. Public Law Chicago diversion are reported to the U.S. Supreme (P.L.)94-587 in October 1976 to evaluate the effects of Court and areavailable to the public), this does not increasingthe diversion from its present limit of 91 crns appear to be the case for small diversions. There is no (3,200 cfs)up to an average of 283 crns (10,000 cfs). Diver- single repository for information on all existing diversion increases would be for improving water quality of the sicw in the Great Lakes basin, and there may be Illinois waterway through dilution and reducing shoreline

22 erosion along Lake Michigan caused by high lake levels. The next phase of the Study Board’s investigation wasthe Criteria specified in the study authorization did notallow mathematical modeling of various assumed diversion rates, increased diversion when river stages approach orwere pre- individually and in combination, to determine whether some dicted toapproach bankfull conditions at theestablished amelioration of extreme lakelevels, both high and low, could flood warning stations on the Illinois River. Increased diver- be achieved within the constraints cited above. An indicator sion was prohibited when the levelof LakeMichigan is based on water supply to the Great Lakes was selected to below its average level, or when increased diversion would signal when a change in the diversion rate should occur. adversely affect water levels necessary for navigational Thirty-six different diversion scenarios were developed to requirements on the St. Lawrence Seaway. encompass the full range of flows over which the diversion rates could be altered. Five scenarios to reduce high water By itsnote of October 7, 1976 to theUnited States levels andone scenario to raiselow water levels wereselected Department of State, the contents of which were provided to for further hydrological analysis and an economic review. the U.S. Congress, the Canadian Government reiterated its The Commission’s reservations about the prescriptiveutility objection toany unilateral increase in thediversion from of the analyses that are generally undertakenin this regard is Lake Michigan at Chicago. The note also pointed out that the discussed at the end of this chapter. Nevertheless, the esti- legislation was without prior consultation with Canada. mated economic values are cited to providean indication of The program’s study and demonstration parts were subse- the order of magnitude of certain defined benefits and costs quently separated by the action of the U.S. Congress. The within the sectors analysed and can be used in that context. study portion was funded through fiscal year 1981 and resulted in several computer model simulations of large diversion increases. These studies also determined that such Reducing High Levels increases werenot economically justified. Although there Of the five scenarios for reducing high levels selected for were indications that significantly smaller increases mightbe detailed examination, themaximum-effect diversion sce- beneficial overall, no additional study funds have been nario, which achieves the greatestreduction, occurs with the provided. following assumptions: the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions The demonstration part of the program was never funded are reduced tozero, the Chicago diversion is increased to 246 and no actualdemonstrations were conducted. The authority crns (8,700 cfs), and the Welland Canal flow is increased to for this activity expired in I98 1 and cannot be undertaken 255 crns (9,000 cfs) from its 1979 average rate of 204 crns without the enactment of new legislation. (7,200 cfs). Under this scenario there would bea lowering of the maximum levelof Lake Superior by 3.0 cm (0.10 feet), of Lakes Michigan-Huron by 17.4 cm (0.57 feet), of Lake Erie by 13.7 cm (0.45 feet), and of Lake Ontario by 42.7 cm (1.4 The Possibility for Improved feet). The large effect on Lake Ontario is due to operating Regulation of The Great Lakes during under the fixed maximumand minimum releases of Regula- tion Plan 1958-D and reflects thefull impact of all upstream Extreme High and Low Levels actions. The reference from Governments requested the Commis- According to the Study Board’s analysis, the maximum- sion to investigate the possibilityof improving the regulation effect diversion scenario would generate annual economic of Great Lakes levels by manipulating the existing diver- benefits to coastal zone interests ($6.0 million) and recrea- sions. This sectionreports on the feasibility of reducing tional beach users ($1.8 million); however, it would cause extreme high and raising extreme low lake levels by varying significant annual losses to navigation($I 3.8 million), power the flow rates in the Long Lac, Ogoki, Weliand and Chicago generation ($61.3 million), pulp and paper ($4 million), and diversions. The NewYork State Barge Canal and existing recreational boating interests($1.6 million). For this scenario diversions at Sault Ste. Marie and Niagara Fallswere not therefore, the estimated net economic loss would be about included; the formerdoes not affect lake levels, and the latter $73 millionannually. Except for one scenario discussed two were examined in this respect by previous studies. below, all the remainingscenarios to reduce high levels were calculated to generate annual losses ranging from about$23 In considering the possible flow variations at each diver- million to $73 million. Even within the limitations of the sion, the Study Board recognized several practical limita- analysis, as discussed later in this chapter, such dollar dis- tions or constraints. First, no structural changes to the parities are of sufficient magnitude to indicate that further the diversion were considered. Consequently, potential flow manipulation of diversionsfor the purpose of alleviating changes were limited to what could be obtained underexist- extreme lake levels is without merit on the basis of con- ing physical conditions. Second, it was found that the Long ventional benefit-cost criteria. Lac and Ogokidiversions could not be increased abovetheir existing rates during timesof low lake levels, as there was no The Study Board’s economic analysis of one scenario to additionalwater available in their natural drainage areas. reduce high lake levels showeda net benefit of $1.3 million, Third, it wasnot realistic to consider reducing either the primarily due to increased power generation. This scenario Chicago diversion below itscurrent rate or the Welland Canal had the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions at 142 crns (5,000 below 74 crns (2,600 cfs) as there are no practical alternatives cfs), the Chicago diversion at 91 crns (3,200 cfs) and the to provide for thedomestic water supply, sanitary and naviga- Welland Canal diversion at255 crns (9,000 cfs); essentially, tion purposes served by these flows. this scenario became fact during thecourse of the study. The

23 Welland Canal flow currently averages 260 crns (9,200 cfs), and its meanby 3.0 (0.10 feet). The effects on the maximum the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions 159 crns(5,600 cfs). The levels of these lakes are0.6 cm (0.02 feet) or less. A varying scenario has no calculated effect on the Lake Superior max- effect is shown on Lake Ontario; that is, its minimum is imum level and lowers the maximum levelsof Lakes Michi- lowered by 3.7cm (0.12 feet) and its mean and maximum are gan-Huron by 1.8 cm (0.06 feet), Lake Erie by 3.0 cm (0.10 raised by 0.3cm and 3.4 cm (0.01 feet and0.11 feet) respec- feet), and Lake Ontario by 0.9 cm (0.03 feet). tively. This varying effect is due to the manner in which outflows from Lake Ontario are regulated. Since the maximum-effectscenario would have thegreat- est effect on levels and flows, it was the only one evaluated This scenario was estimated in the Study Board’s analysis for environmental impact. Althoughlimited in detail, the to generate annual direct dollar losses to coastal zone inter- environmental evaluationcovered fisheries, wildlife, wet- ests ($0.8 million) and power ($4 million), and annual bene- lands and water quality. A review of the published literature fitsto navigation ($2 million).The economic effects on pertaining to those resources indicates that effects are not recreational boating and beacheswere not calculated. The net quantitatively definable using existing data. Although any annual direct dollar loss considered by theanalysis was effects might be subtle and indirect, and could add orto act in estimated at about $2.7 million. synergy with stress factors the system’s resources are already experiencing, it is expected that the overall environmental effects on the Great Lakes systemwould be indistinguishable The Limitations of Economic Analysis from those experienced as a result of existing water level fluctuations. The Study Board’s analysis, despite a considerable expen- diture of effort, was not a complete assessment. For only two During the Commission’s public meetings, a widespread diversions - the combined effect of Long Lac and Ogoki - comment was thatno further consideration should be given to was a full assessment of the benefits and costsof the existing managingGreat Lakes levels andflows through existing diversions, as well as their effect on the Great Lakessystem, diversions. The view of the representatives from the province even attempted. It was decided thatan evaluation of the of Ontario and the state of Illinois, among others, was that the Chicago diversion or of fundamental alternatives to the diver- problem of flooding and erosion should be approached sion wasbeyond the scope of thestudy. Similarly, only through proper land use planning and public information. adjustments to the power portion of the diversionat Welland With the exception of riparians, most speakers opposed fur- were evaluated, and there was no economic analysis of the ther regulation of lake levels by manipulating existing diver- New York Barge Canal. sions, citing a lack of knowledge about the effects on water quality and the Great Lakes ecosystem anda lack of evidence A second concern with this kindof economic analysis lies of economic feasibility or desirability. Theyalso claimed that in the incompleteness of the accountingof benefits. As indi- it would not be in the public interest or in the interests of cated at the beginning of this chapter, only four economic certain key sectors of the economy of both nations, such as sectors, albeit important ones, were selected for analysis, power and navigation. All submissions that addressed this and one of those was geographically incomplete. Multiplier issue, including those from the Governmentof Canada, the or secondary effects within and outside the areaof concern provinces of Ontario and Quebec, andseveral U.S. state were not included. Other direct economic effects, such as agencies, were in accord with the Study Board’s conclusion employment and increases in the supply and service indus- thatall diversions shouldbe monitored and their effects tries (which often include other primaryusers, such as com- assessed periodically. Some environmental and natural mercialnavigation and power) were not included in the resource agencies called for a recommendation to address analysis, nor were the indirect benefits accruing fromthe use high lake levels, recognizing that manipulation of existing of alternative sources ofpower or transportationmodes. diversions was not going to be feasible to accomplish this. Finally, despite an exhaustive and standardized effort, even Others suggested that existing environmental information is the benefits that were calculated can reflect actual economic not adequate to evaluateproposals affecting Great Lakes values attributable to the hydraulic impacts only within a levels and urged that better environmental baseline informa- considerable margin of uncertainty becauseof the numberof tion be generated. assumptions involvedand their evolution over time. For example, interest rates and energy costs change, as do real estate values and the amount of shoreline development. A Raising Low Levels specific example is thatof the estimated replacementcosts for hydro-electricity at Niagara, which are on the order of $16 Under the scenario to raiselow water levels, theLong Lac thousand per gigawatt-hour on the Canadian side and $1 10 and Ogokidiversions are assumed tobe 142 crns(5,000 cfs), thousand per gigawatt-houron the United Statesside. Clearly the Chicago diversion is maintained at 91 crns (3,200 cfs), these estimates are basedon vastly different assumptions that and the Welland Canal diversion is assumed to be at the are open to debate. minimum acceptable level of 74 crns (2,600 cfs). In addressing the management ofwater use, diversion Hydrologically, this scenario would raise lake levels as flows and, indeed, mostresource management decisions, follows: the minimum and mean levelsof Lake Superior by considerable emphasis has normally been placed on eco- 0.3 cm (0.01 feet),the Lakes Michigan-Huron minimum nomic analysis. Government agencies andthe Commission, level by 2.1 cm (0.07 feet) and the mean by 1.2 cm (0.04 in this Report and in other studies, generally use con- feet), and the Lake Erie minimum levelby 6.4 cm (0.2 1 feet) ventional measures of economic valuation, using techniques

24 suchas benefit-cost analysis. The Commissionwishes to management of existing diversions to affect high and low emphasize, however, the limitationsof this typeof analysis in water levels is unlikely to be justifiable in overall terms. assessing management and policy questions such as those pertaining to Great Lakes levels. Conclusions Benefit-cost analysis is a technical measurement of economic efficiency, or overall dollar gainsor losses. It cannot In light of these findings the Commission has reached the properly be used outside that context and should not be used following conclusions: in isolation from other decisioncriteria. Benefit-cost analysis is not able to deal with concepts such as equity and income 1. Present diversion rates canbe modified without structural change at existing locations. Reduction of high distribution, which are matters of social value and respon- levels in the Great Lakes system could be achieved by sibility. It is also generallyrecognized that despite some progress in measurement methodology, monetary valuation altering diversion rates to provide a general lowering techniques have considerable difficulty incorporating non- of the maximum levels, a small lowering of minimum market or intrinsic values inherentin resource-use decisions, levels, and a net reduction in the range of levels. such as aesthetics and environmental integrity. 2. Under all diversion management scenarios except the In the case of the Great Lakes, it is possible to calculate one discussed under 3 below, which essentially has certain economic gainsof changed water levels to navigation been in effect since 1979, significant net annual direct and hydro-electricpower generation, and to balance those off financial losses would appear to accrue to the sectors against certain technically derived measures of erosion and considered in the analysis. Generally, diminishing lev- flooding losses to individual riparians. Yet the substantial els and flows in the Great Lakes system by managing direct economic benefits to largeor corporate interests are not diversions has a negative effect on hydro-electric and easily or equitably compared with the social, personal and navigation costs that exceeds shoreline protection ben- economic losses to the individual. Not all articles of appar- efits. The dollar values are of sufficient magnitude to ently equal monetary value are necessarilyof the same intrin- indicate that, on the basis of conventional cost-benefit sic or social value, and the marginal valueof additional units criteria and under existing economic conditions, the of income orof a commodity may not be equal at all times or further manipulation of diversions for the purposeof equal for allrecipients. It can also be argued that protectinga alleviating the adverse effects of high lake levels is not resource or its use has a collective social importance and a justified. value higher than the strict equivalency of dollar gains and 3. Under one scenario, whichlowered high levelsby losses indicated by benefit-cost analysis. The techniques are increasing Row in the Welland Canal, there is a calcu- inadequateto measure all the ‘soft’ costs to society (as lated net financial benefit of $1.3 million annually. individuals or collectively) of shore damage or of wetland This potential became fact during the course of the losses resulting from changing Great Lakes levels,for exam- study. ple. 4. The ecological effects of changes in lake levels from In light of these Considerations, the Commission believes managing existing diversions are not definable in a that the economic analysis contained in the Study Board’s quantitative sense using existing data, but any changes report must be treated with caution as a basis for making would add to existing stress factors on the resource. decisions that have broad implications forsociety and for the interests of many individual citizens. 5. With respect to raising low levels, onlyone alternative was considered feasible to evaluate economically. It Nevertheless, some empirical basis is required for deci- would involve curtailing power production through sion-making. Benefit-cost analysis does have value as one the Welland Canal diversion and would result in a measure of ‘hard’ GNP exchanges. Despite the limitations smallnet financial loss ascurrently assessed. discussed in this report, the Study Board’s evaluation does Increases in lake levels under this scenario are rela- indicate marked differences in the economic values gener- tively small, except for Lake Erie. Should hydro- ated by further management of the existingdiversions. These logical or economic criteria within certain sectors values provide an indication of the order of magnitude of change significantly in the future, or should other economic effects, but not a definitive and precise statement considerations that would benefitfrom such a changed of benefits and costs or of social utility. The evaluation is regime be given suficient weight, the divergence of sufficient for the Commission to agree with the Study Board values is sufficiently small that this management sce- that, withoutoverwhelming reasons such as a significant nario might become more attractive. shift in the beneficial uses of Great Lakes water. the further

CHAPTER IV

THE REFERENCE: CONSUMPTIVE USES

Existing Consumptive Uses largest water-consuming industries are paper and chemicals. The chemicals industry accounts for the largest portion of The reference requested the Commission to examine and Canadian manufacturing consumptive uses in the basin. report on the effects of existing and reasonably foreseeable patterns of consumptiveuses on GreatLakes levels and Municipal use includes all water uses supplied by cen- flows. As defined in Chapter I, a consumptive use refers to tralized water distribution systems throughout the Great that portion of water withdrawn or withheld from the Great Lakes basin except for manufacturing uses.This sector is the Lakes and assumed to be lost to them due to evaporation second largest consumer of water in the basin (17 per cent) during use, transpiration from irrigated crops, leakage, and third largestin terms of water withdrawals. Consumptive incorporation into manufactured products, or similar occur- use in this sector includes estimated net leakage - the rela; rences during use. Consumptive uses affect levels and flows tively smallportion of total leakage that does not return by reducing or removing the water supply that would other- directly through the sewer lines to the surface waters. While wise flow in the GreatLakes. No attempt was made to not contributing significantly to the consumptiveuses of examine the benefits generated by the activities that result in water in the Great Lakesbasin, the high leakage rates in some consumptive uses. Consumptive uses are normally not mea- distribution systems may nonetheless warrant correction for sured directly, but are derived from metered withdrawals. other reasons. Power useconsiders thermally generated power only, because hydro-electric power generation does not consume a Study Board Estimates significant amountof water. Withdrawals by the power sector Large quantities of water are withdrawn from the Great amount to over half of all withdrawals in the Great Lakes Lakes and their surface and groundwater tributaries for basin, but only 10 per cent of total consumptive uses at industrial, agricultural and domestic purposes and for other present. humanactivities, In 1975, the base yearfor this study, Irrigation use includes the watering of all lands except withdrawals in the Great Lakes basin totalled roughly 2,120 those supplied by the municipal sector. This sector accounts cms (75,000cfs). Because close to 95 per centof this water is for about 7 per cent of total basin consumptive uses. Agri- returned to the system after use, the large withdrawals do not culturalirrigation requirements per acre are small in the have a commensurate effecton Great Lakes levels and flows, Great Lakes basin relative to other parts of North America although the returnflows have implications for water quality. because rainfall is normally abundant. Golf course irrigation Total consumptive uses in theGreat Lakes basin were constitutes the primary recreational irrigation demand. about 140 crns (4,950 cfs) in 1975, as reported by the Study Rural-Domestic refers to private water uses, usually asso- Board. Tables 3a and 3b display the Study Board's findings ciated with rural populations and groundwater sources. This for existing withdrawals and consumptive uses, broken into sector accounts for about 7per cent of total basin consump- the seven principal water use sectors the study employed. tive uses. Manufacturing, municipal and power uses together accounted for just over 75 per cent of all consumptive uses Mining refers to water used for ore extraction and the and almost 97 per cent of all withdrawals in 1975. reduction of metallic and non-metallic minerals and in the production of coal, petroleum and natural gas. This sector Briefly, the water use sectors are defined as follows: accounts for about 5 per centof total basin consumptive uses. Manufucturing use includes both self-supplied water users Livestock-watering includes animal drinking water, evap- andthose supplied by central water distribution systems. oration from stockwater ponds, and water used for cleaning. This sector alone accounted for about half of all consumptive This sectoraccounts for about4 per cent of total basin uses in 1975. Primary metals manufacturing consumes con- consumptive uses. siderably more water than any other single industry in the Great Lakesbasin and accountsfor nearly 70 per centof U.S. Tables 3a and 3b indicate that in 1975 about 82 per cent of manufacturing consumptive uses. The second and third withdrawals and about 87per cent of consumptive uses inthe

21 Table 3a GREAT LAKES BASIN 1975 WITHDRAWALS (W) AND CONSUMPTIVE USES (CU) BY SECTOR: STUDY BOARD FINDINGS (CUBIC METRES PER SECOND)

Water Use Sector United States Canada Great Lakes Basin W cu W cu W cu Manufacturing 579 64 158 70 6 737 Municipal 19 174 26 4 200 23 Power 948 12 I87 2 1,135 14 Imgation IO 3 7 4 14 10 Rural-Domestic 14 9 2 1 16 10 Mining 31 7 4 0 35 7 Livestock 4 4 2 2 6 6 Total 122 II 1.760 383 18 2,143 140

Table 3b GREAT LAKES BASIN 1975 WITHDRAWALS (W) AND CONSUMPTIVE USES BY (CU) SECTOR: STUDY BOARD FINDINGS (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)

Water Use Sector States Canada United Great Lakes Basin ~ ~~ W cu W cu W cu Manufacturing 20,450 2,270 5,580 220 26,030 2,490 Municipal 6,130 680 930 I50 7,060 830 Power 33,470 420 6,600 60 40,070 480 Irrigation 260 350 130 360100 480 Rural-Domestic 300 500 30 60 330 560 Mining 1,080 250 130 0 1,210 250 Livestock 130 130 80 80 210 210 Total 62,110 4,310640 13,510 75,620 4,950

basin occurred in the United States portion of the basin. U.S. Geological Survey Estimates Consumptive uses are greater there because of higher economic output, larger population, and wastewater discharge The Commission examined anotherestimate of consump- requirements that encourage water recycling in the power and tiveuses to provide a perspectiveon the Study Board’s manufacturing sectors as a means of pollution control. findings. The United States Geological Survey(USGS) pub- lishes estimates of consumptive uses in the United States; it Of the water now being consumed in the Great Lakes reported in 1983” that consumptive uses in the U.S. portion basin, 50 per cent results from withdrawals from“boundary of the Great Lakes basin totalled about60 crns (2,140 cfs) in waters” as defined in the Boundary Waters Treaty, 30 per cent 1980 (see Table 6). This differs significantly from the Study results from withdrawals from tributary rivers and ground- Board’s projectedestimate of 138 crns (4,870 cfs) for 1980 as water sources, and 20 per cent results from withdrawals taken well as its findingof 122 crns (4,310 cfs) for the 1975 level of directly from Lake Michigan. In the Canadian portionof the consumptive use in the U.S. portion of the basin. basin, consumption is concentrated in theLake Ontario basin, followed by the Lake Erie and Lake Huron basins The Commission considers the USGS National Water-Use (Tables 4a, b); all are within the provinceof Ontario. In the Information Program very importantin recognizing the need U.S. portion of the basin, the states of Michigan and Ohio for uniform, current, and reliable information on water use. together account for over half of U.S. consumptive uses Ultimately, this should help ensure that major attention is (Table 5). The percentages in Table 5 wereobtained by given to water management issues in both the United States allocating the Study Board’s consumptive use estimates for and Canada, as the Commission recommendsin Chapter V. each sector among the statesin each basin, using thedistribu- tion reported in the Great Lakes Basin Commission Fra- Esfirnafed Useof Wafer in the United Sfafesin IY80, Geological Survey mework Study of 1975. Circular 1001; Wayne B. Solley, Edith B. Chase, and William B. Mann IV.

28 Table 4a GREAT LAKES BASIN 1975 WITHDRAWALS (W) AND CONSUMPTIVE USES (CU) BY SUB-BASIN: STUDY BOARD FINDINGS (CUBIC METRES PER SECOND)

Sub-Basin United States Canada Total W cu W cu W cu Superior 44 6 22 1 66 7 Michigan 720 44 - - 720 44 Huron 109 8 67 12 4 176 Erie 690 57 81 5 77 1 62 Ontario 197 7 213 8 410 15 Great Lakes Basin 1,760 122 383 18 I 2,143 140

Table 4b GREAT LAKES BASIN 1975 WITHDRAWALS (W) AND CONSUMPTIVE USES (CU) BY SUB-BASIN: STUDY BOARD FINDINGS (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)

Sub-Basin United States Canada Total W cu W cu W cu Superior 220 1,550 790 30 2,340 250 Michigan 25,420 1,530 - - 25,420 1,530 Huron 3,850 280 2,370 430150 6,220 Erie 24,320 2,020 2,840 2,210190 27,160 Ontario 6,970 260 7,5 10 270 14,480 530 Great Lakes Basin 62,110 4,310 13,510 640 75,620 4,950

Table 5 Board. The two studies are much closer in their estimates of total withdrawals, because these differences tend to cancel U.S. CONSUMPTIVE USES, APPROXIMATE each other out. SHARE BY STATE, 1975 In addition to the different withdrawal estimates, the two State % of U.S. studies also employ dissimilar water use coefficients, the Total most significant beingin the power sector. Consumptive uses are typically estimated by multiplying measured withdrawals Michigan 33 by a coefficient representing the average rate of water con- Ohio 20 sumption for a particular plant or industry. The accuracy of New York 14 the consumptive use estimate therefore depends as much on Indiana 12 the choice of coefficients as on the measurement of with- Illinois 9 drawals. Rates of consumption varya great deal from plant to Wisconsin 8 plant, however, because ofdifferences in technology, process Minnesota 3 and degree of compliance with wastewaterdischarge require-, Pennsylvania 1 ments. The variation occurring over a region as large as the Great Lakes basin makes the derivation of accurate coefficients a considerable task. In addition, it isnecessary to The program uses information atboth the U.S. state and update the coefficients continually as new plants come on national levels;the current report is intended to improve past line and new processes are adopted. estimates of U.S. national water use, which have been published by USGS since 1950. While differences between the two estimates have been identified, there is not sufficient informationnow available to Comparing Tables 3a and 3b with Table6 shows that the conclude with any confidence thateither is more appropriate Study Board’s estimate for withdrawals in the manufacturing for the existing levelof consumptive usein the U .S. portion sector is about twice thatreported by the USGS, although the of the basin. Consequently, both are includedin this report. USGS manufacturing sector does not include the relatively Regardless of which estimate is more accurate, the Commis- minor component of industrial users supplied by municipal sion is drawing attention to the need for more information water systems. For the power sector, the USGS withdrawal and assessmentin a variety of areas that affect water use.The estimate is about 25 per cent higher than that of the Study specific recommendations are contained in Chapter V.

29 Table 6 U.S. PORTION, GREAT LAKES BASIN 1980 WITHDRAWALS(W) AND CONSUMPTIVE USES(CU): USGS FINDINGS (IN CMS AND (CFS))

Water Use Sector W cu Public Supply 170 ( 6,000) (Industry, Commercial & Domestic) Rural-Domestic Livestock Irrigation Self-Supplied Industrial Thermo-electric 1 ,189 (42,000) Other (fresh water) 249 ( 8,800) Other (saline water) 18 ( 650) TOTAL 1,657 (58,530)

Conclusions sion’s public meetings, and provides an update of the Study Board’s projections, concentrating on the power and manu- In light of these findings the Commission has reached the facturing sectors. following conclusions: 1. The Study Board summarized the base (1975) level of consumptive use in the Great Lakesbasin, in both the Study Board Estimates United States and Canada, underseven main use cate- The Study Board estimated future consumptive uses by gories. The findings of the StudyBoard and of a related projecting water use for each water use sector from 1975 to study by the USGS, while close intheir estimated total 2035. The Study Boardused economicforecasts for the withdrawals for the U.S. portion of the basin, differ region to predict the level and geographic distribution of considerably in their estimates of existing consumptive activities that would require water. Consumptive use esti- uses, particularly in the manufacturing sector. mates were then derivedby applying available data on water 2. The information available at this time is not sufficient use and assumptions regarding technology and policy. to determine whether one estimate is more appropri- The Study Board’s projections of consumptive uses were ate than the other. Consequently, existing (1980) con- based on existing data and foreseeable economic and demo- sumptive uses of water in the basin may be in the range graphic trends at the time of the study (1980). Because of the of about 82 cms (2,900 cfs) to 159 cms (5,600 cfs). uncertainties confronting long-term forecasting, the Study 3. Existing consumptive use data, by sector, need to be Board developed multiple alternative projections to establish improved in coverage, accuracy and consistency in a range. This produced alternative high andlow projections order to establish useful historical trends and to centred on the Study Board’s most likely projection (termed improve forecasts. This could be achieved by more the MLP). The MLP was the projection judgedby the Study complete co-ordination and reporting, additional flow Board to have the highest probabilityof occurring relative to measurements at key locations, and by research on the other projections considered. For example, the high and consumptive use coefficients. low projections of consumptive uses to the year 2000 were about 20 per cent above and below the value of the MLP. In the year 2035, the range extended nearly 40 per cent above and below the MLP. Future Consumptive Uses A considerable body of work, including detailed national economic andwater use forecasts, alreadyexisted in the The Commission was asked to consider reasonably fore- United States. The water use projections produced by the seeable patterns of consumptive uses of Great Lakes waters. U.S. Water Resources Council for the Second NationalWater In assessing future consumptive uses, the Commission has Assessment, published in 1978,served as the basis, with carefully considered the Study Boardestimates from 1975 to some modifications, for the MLP for six of the seven U.S. 2035 buthas concluded that projections beyond the year water usesectors in the UnitedStates. The Study Board made 2000 are too uncertain to be useful for planning and policy its own projection for the power sector. decisions. In addition, theCommission has updated the Study Board’s estimates using more recent forecasts and has In Canada, more fundamental data analysis and model included the USGS estimate on existing consumptive uses. developmentwere required. The datafor manufacturing, As a result, the Commission’s projection reflects a shorter mining, thermal power and municipal useswere the resultof time frame and a somewhat lower estimate than that of the detailed surveys and measurements. An econometric input- Study Board. This section discusses the Study Board’s esti- output model for Ontario was developedto predict how mates, presents relevant comments received at the Commis- changes in one industry would affect interconnected indus-

30 tries. In addition, a range of constant growth rates for indi- derived from withdrawals and consumptive uses, but that vidual industries was developedbased on historicaldata these were not quantified in the Study Board’s report. Con- since 1950. The Study Board recognized that data from this siderationshould begiven to the net economic benefits period would probably lead to an upward bias in long-term occurring at the place of use. The province of Ontario growth rates. expressed concern about the unequal distributionof existing consumptive uses, especially in relation to future trends in A large number of assumptions were built into the Study these uses. The province suggested a reference to the Com- Board’s consumptive useprojections. Those most important mission to examine these and other concerns. to the MLP included Many statements presented at the Commission’s public - annual population growth rateof 0.9 per cent in the U.S. meetings, including thoseof the Governmentof Canada, the portion of the basin and 1.4 per cent in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, andseveral U.S. state portion of the basin to the year 2000; agencies, expressed concerns regarding the consumptive use - continuation of existing uses of energy; pfojections in the Study Board report. They addressed the assumptions used in the projections, the environmental and - attainment by the year 2000 of U.S. requirements under economic implications of a significant drop in water levels, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and continuation of existing and the future monitoring of consumptive uses. There was practices in Canada; and widespread support fora monitoring activityin the basin and - annual growth of the gross national product at 3.2 per several requests for the Commission to review the Study cent in the U.S. portion of the basin and at 3.5 to 4.0 per Board’s projections in light of developments that occurred cent in Ontario. after the Study Board submitted its report. It was also stated several times that the Commission should be given a new Analytical limitations also imposed certain assumptions. reference to study consumptiveuses, and there was a sugges- For example, while evaporation caused by use, particularly tion that anydecrease in the flow from the Great Lakes due to in the manufacturing andpower generation sectors, accounts consumption should be offsetby a corresponding increaseby for the greatest portionof consumptive uses, it was assumed diversion into the Great Lakes oran increase in their capacity that water consumed at any point in the basin is lost to the to retain water. system and does not return in the form of precipitation. This assumption was madeby the Study Board because thestate of the art in meteorology does not permit quantifying such Power and Manufacturing ProjectionsUpdate precipitation quantities and patterns. The projectionsfor powerand manufacturingare dis- The Study Board projected that under their MLP, con- cussed in some detail because the overall consumptive use sumptive uses in the basin would double the1975 estimate of projections are most sensitive to the assumptions used for 140 cms (4,950 cfs) by about the year 2000. These findings these two sectors. In addition, several submissions at the are summarized inTables 8a, b onpage 36. Mostof the Commission’s public meetings challenged theStudy Board’s projected increases would occur in the power and manufac- projections in these areas. The Commission’s analysis con- turing sectors, and these would be driven by two primary centrates on projections to the year 2000 because,for several factors: substantial growth in these sectors in both the U.S. reasons, those beyond 2000 are too uncertain a basis for and Canadian portions of the basin, and changing water use planningand policy decisions. First, theprojections are requirements and technology. Steady increasesin basin pop- sensitive to assumptions that have changed and are changing ulation and per capita consumption of municipally supplied rapidly. Second, projections have a compounding effect as water and the expansionof lands under irrigation would also base values grow higher.Third, there isa strong possibilityof contribute to the projected increases in consumptive uses, major shifts in the economies of both countries. Finally, the though to a much lesser extent. Commission questions the need to plan far ahead except with respect to general trends, especially in view of the process The Study Board expected thatchanges in water usein the envisaged by the Commission and recommendedin Chapter United States would result first from implementation of the V. Because long-range water use projections typically have Clean Water Act. In thepower sector, different types of substantial errors, theCommission believes shorter-range closed-cycle cooling systemsare being incorporated into forecasts may be of greater value. newpower plantsto eliminate thermal discharges. Water recirculation is being used increasingly in the manufacturing Experience gained during the recent energy crisis and sector, primarily to meet other effluent water quality stan- economic recession has demonstrated that demand for power dards. Both changes increase consumptive use. The corol- in both countries issensitive to economic conditions in lary is that any proposal to reduce these consumptive uses in general and world energy prices in particular. Energy con- the U.S. portion of the basin wouldhave to take the possible servationpractices have resulted in a lowering of energy water quality implicationsinto account. Both the shift to growth rates. Whether these practices are permanent is spec- recycling and thetype of cooling technology used willaffect ulative. The dramatic downward adjustmentsin electric util- water consumption. At present, alternative technologies are ity expansion programs that have occurred in recent years, too expensive or do not meet U.S. regulatory requirements. coupled with the difficulty of predicting energy prices over the long term, underscore the uncertainties of projections. During the Commission’s public meetings therewas much discussion concerning consumptive uses. A representative Power: The Study Board’s MLP for the power sector in the from the state of Michigan noted there are obvious benefits U.S. portion of the basin was most sensitive toassumptions

31 Power plants using cooling towers eliminate the discharge of heated water to the source. It has been projected that the power sector will use about one quarter of all water consumed by the year 2000.

32 Table 7 U.S. POWER SECTOR, PROJECTED CONSUMPTIVE USE TO THE YEAR 2000 (IN CMS AND (CFS)) - Study Board Approximate 198 1 Current Percentage Sub Basin Estimates Estimates Difference Reduction Lake Superior 1 ( 30) 1 ( 30) ( 0) 0 Lake Michigan 26 (910) 19 (650) 7 (260) 28 Lake Huron 5 (190) 3 (120) 2 ( 70) 37 Lake Erie 19 (670) 17 (600) 2 ( 70) 10 Lake Ontario 13 (460) 4 ( 150) 9 (310) 67 U.S. Portion of Great Lakes Basin 64 (2,260) 44 (1,550) 20 (7 10) 32

regarding the shift from once-through to closed-cycle cool- Combining the lower power growth figure with the reducing and the projected rateof growth of conventional thermal tion in the share used by nuclear plants yields the Commis- plants. In a once-through system, hot cooling water is sion’srevised estimates for consumptiveuse inthe U.S. returned to thesource, whereas thedischarge of heated water portion of the basin (see Table 7). is eliminated in closed-cycle systems by passing it through Revised demand growth for electrical power in Ontario cooling towers or plants. Since it was assumed that power (Electric Power Canada: is an overall cent plants in the Canadian portion of the basin would continue in 1982) 2.1 per per annumfor the period 1982-2000, compared theto 4.5 per using once-through cooling and established trends in tech- centMLP rate in theStudy Board report. Canadianand nology, the growth rate was the most important assumption Ontario policy, as it affects the GreatLakes, is more clearly for the Canadian power MLP. In both portions of the basin, theMLP was also sensitive tothe amount of electricity supportive of continued growth in nuclear power, in part because coal is seen as having undesirable environmental generated by nuclear plants asthey consume more water than fossil-fuel plants. Because the projectionof any trend should side-effects. Thus, nuclear power is expected to increase 51to per cent of thermal and 40 per cent of total electrical power be re-evaluated over time, the Commission examined the generating capacity by 1991. This is a somewhat lower share consumptive use projectionsin light of information available since the Study Board completed its work. than that assumedby the StudyBoard’s MLP. Becauseof the assumptionthat Canadian power plantswill continue to The StudyBoard assumed an average annual rate of employ once-through cooling, consumptiveuses are pro- growth for power generation in the U.S. portion of the basin jected to increase less than in the U.S. portion of the basin, of about 4.1 per cent from 1975 to 1980 and 4.7 per cent to butwithdrawals would increase dramatically and surpass 2000. In 1983, the U.S. North American Electric Reliability those in the U.S. power sectorjust beyond the year2000. In Council (NAERC) issued an annualtabulation of power summary, the Commission believes the Study Board’s low- demand and supply with projectionsto the year2000. For the growth scenario in the Canadian power sector is the one that U.S. portion of the Great Lakesbasin, this projection, incor- corresponds most nearly with present forecasts. Using this porating recent cancellations and delays of both fossil-fuel analysis, the Study Board’s MLP of 9 cms (310 cfs) for the and nuclear plants, uses an average annual growth rate of power sector in the Canadian portionof the Great Lakes basin approximately 2.5 per cent to the year 2000. to the year 2000 has been revised by the Commission to 6 cms (200 cfs). In the United States, increased regulatory requirements, costs and construction time for nuclear power plants have Manufacturing: The Study Board’s MLP for the U.S. man- combined with public opposition to delaylicensing. Massive ufacturing sector assumed the primary metals industry would cost increases to bring nuclear plantson line have resulted in continue to be the principal component in water consump- the cancellation of many nuclear plants thatwere planned or tion. Consumptive use by paper and allied goods would be under construction. In the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes second largest, while the largest increase wouldoccur in the basin, recent nuclear plant cancellations total nearly 12,000 chemicals industry, with consumptive use quadrupling megawatts. between 1975 and 2000. Manufacturing consumptive usesin Canadawill continue tobe dominated by the chemicals The effect of these cancellations, coupled with delays in industry. Primary metals and paper would consumea much bringing other plants on line, hasbeen estimated by the smaller portion of the Canadian total. Water use technology Commissionto reduce the mostlikely projection of the is assumed to remain fairly constant, though it was recog- nuclear share from 39 per cent to 28 per cent by the year nized that trendsin environmental controls could also lead to 2000. Since nuclear plants consume approximately 35 per some change in water recirculation practices in Canada. cent more waterthan fossil-fuel plants, assuming closed- cycle cooling, these cancellations significantly reduce con- The projectionsfor the U.S. portion of thebasin are sumptive use for power. particularly sensitive to the growthof primary metals produc-

33 Over the long term, uses of water by the manufacturing sector could be substantially less than projected, although still accounting for almost one half of total consumptive uses.

tion.The Study Board’s MLP is based on the OBERS’O In the Commission’sview, production in the steel industry Series-E Projections, published in 1974, which forecast is not likely to rise to the levels built into the Study Board’s moderate growth for the primary metals industry in the Great MLP in the near term. Over the longterm, consumptive uses Lakesbasin. Current information suggests, however, that for the U.S. manufacturing sector couldbe substantially less steel, the major primary metals industry, will continue to than projected. For example, the Study Board’s low projec- produce below the historical levels used in these projections tion for this sector differs from the high projection only in through the 1980s for the nation as a whole. that primary metals production in the Lake Erie basin is assumed to decline instead of grow. Under the low projec- The 1984 U.S. Industrial Outlook, published by the tion, consumptive uses would be nearly 25 cms (900 cfs) less Department of Commerce, contains short-term forecasts of than the MLP in the year 2000. Trends established in recent U.S. industrial activity. This publication indicates that for the years, including stronger competition by foreign producers United States as awhole, iron and steel consumption (includ- and a product mix oriented toward lighter weight products, ing imports minus exports) averages about 95 million metric suggest that even if the economy of the Great Lakes basin tons (105 million tons) for the 1970s. Shipments in the 1980s were to return to the long-term growth rates forecast in the have averaged 69 million metric tons (76 million tons) and early 1970s, steel production might not. For these reasons, are forecastto rise to about 82 million metric tons(90 million the Commission used a revised consumptive use estimate in tons) by 1988, which would be about 5 per cent below the the year 2000of 100 cms (3,500cfs) for theU. S. manufactur- average for the 1970s. Department of Commerce steel indus- ing sector and 14cms (500 cfs) forthe Canadian manufactur- try experts indicate that, compared to the entire U.S. indus- ing sector, based on its judgement that the StudyBoard’s low- try, the portion in the Great Lakes basin appears to be the growth scenario is more appropriate. most stable; whatever industry shrinkage and restructuring can be anticipated for the industry as a whole have already taken place for that portion in the Great Lakes basin. Summary of Consumptive Use Projections The Commission recognizes that the Study Board’s work represents a major contributionto and refinement of the body lo An integrated set of projections developed by the Bureau of Economic of knowledge on water use forecasts. The Study Board recog- Analysis, formerly Office of Business Economics (OBE), U.S. Dept. of Commerce. andthe Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Dept. of nized that long-range forecasting becomes increasingly ten- Agriculture. Widespread acceptance of the term OBERS has led to its use uous when applied far into the future and, for this reason, as a descriptive title of the program. developed a band of future values centred on the MLP. The

34 Figure 7

Comparison of Projections

Cubic feet/sec. metreslsec Cubic

300

200

100

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Commission emphasizes this point, as well as that the Study 2000 are presented in Tables 8a, b. The Commission’s update Board’s tindings were based on anumber of assumptions of the power andmanufacturing sectors, based on informa- using the best information and judgement available at the tion that became available in the three years subsequent to the time. As the foregoingdiscussion shows, however, criticalStudy Board’s report, is presented in Table 9. assumptions about the future can be subject to significant readjustmenta short timeafter they are made.This point is Figure 7 compares the Study Board’s MLP, the Commis- addressedfurther inPart Two. The Study Board’s projections sion’s update of the Board’s MLP and a third projection, of consumptiveuses for the Great Lakes basin to the year whichuses the USGS estimate of existingconsumption and

35 Table 8a GREAT LAKES BASIN MOST LIKELY PROJECTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITHDRAWALS (W) AND CONSUMPTIVE USES (CU): STUDY BOARD FINDINGS (IN CMS)

Water Use Sector United States Great Lakes Basin Canada “---4 W CU W cu W cu Manufacturing 648 1 I5 428 17 1,076 132 Municipal 25 228 38 30 5 266 Power 1,364 64 1,170 9 2,534 73 lrrigation 14 17 5 4 22 18 Rural-Domestic 16 9 3 2 19 I1 Mining 46 9 10 - 56 9 Livestock 4 4 3 3 7 7 Total II 2,323 40 240 1,657 3,980 280

Table 8b GREAT LAKES BASIN MOST LIKELY PROJECTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITHDRAWALS (W) AND CONSUMPTIVE USES (CU): STUDY BOARD FINDINGS (IN CFS)

Water Use Sector United States Canada Great Lakes Basin W cu W cu W cu Manufacturing 22,870 4,050 15,110 600 37,980 4,650 Municipal 8,050 200870 1,350 9,400 1,070 Power 48,170 2,260 4 1,270 310 89,440 2,570 lrrigation 500 600 I90 I30 790 630 Rural-Domestic 330 550 90 60 640 390 Mining 320 1,610 370 10 1,980 330 Livestock I30 130 120 I20 250 250 Total 8 I ,980 8,460 58,500 1,430 iI 140,480 9,890

Table 9 POWER AND MANUFACTURING SECTORS, MOST LIKELY PROJECTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 CONSUMPTIVE USES: LJC UPDATE OF STUDY BOARD FINDINGS (IN CMS AND (CFS))

Reduction from United Great Lakes Study Board MLP Water Use Sector States I Canada Basin (Tables 8a, b)

Power 44 (1,550) 6 (200) 50 (1,750) ~ 23 (820) Manufacturing I 14 (500) I I14 (4,000) 18 (650)

the Commission’s projected increases. alternative methods. The Study Board results, quoted for the year 2000 only, show that based on average supply condi- The projections are shown to the year2000 because in the tions, consumptive uses could reduce mean lake levels in Commission’s view projections beyond then are too uncer- Lake Superior by 2.1 cm (0.07 feet) and Lakes Michigan- tain for the necessary planning and policy decisions. Based Huron and Erie by 6. I cm (0.20 feet). Because the Commis- only onrevised figures for the powerand manufacturing sion has updated and reduced the Study Board’s MLP, the sectors, the Commission estimates total consumptive use in Study Board results would be reduced slightly. the Great Lakes basinat about 238 cms (8,420 cfs) in the year 2000, using the Study Board’s 1975 level of use and 161 cms (5,670 cfs), using the USGS1980 estimate. The Commission Results for Lake Ontario present an anomaly. Under one hasnot examinedthe consumptive use projections in the methodology, Lake Ontario levels fall, while under another other sectors. they actually rise as a result of consumptive uses. This is because of the way the current regulation Plan 195%” The Study Board calculated the hydrological effects of responds to the consumptive use projections and water sup- their MLP on Great Lakes levels and outflows using three plies. It indicates that revisions to Plan 1958-D would be

36 required in the future if water supplies were reduced due to 2. The Study Board succeeded quite well in identifying increasing consumptive uses andif the criteria for regulation the factors thataffect consumptive use trends, includ- were to continue to be satisfied.For these reasons theeffects ing the sectors and location in the Great Lakes basin of consumptive uses on LakeOntario levels arenot quoted in where increases are likely to occur, and developed a this Report. useful range of consumptive use projections. 3. The Study Board’s MLP for the two largest growth sectors, power and manufacturing, had to be revised Economic Evaluation cf Projected downward in light of events since the Study Board Consumptive Uses completed its work. However, the Commission’s The Study Board reported selected economic effects revised MLP remains within the StudyBoard’s range resulting from changing lake levels due to the Study Board’s of projections. projected consumptive uses to the year 2035. As the Study 4. Because of the uncertainty regarding estimates of Board used the same methodology developed for analysing existing consumptive uses in the U.S. portion of the diversion management scenarios, the Study Board’sanalysis basin prepared by the Study Board and the United in thisregard is subject to the same reservations as the States Geological Survey, both estimates have been Commission expressed in Chapter 111. Furthermore, the used as a base in the Commission’s projection of con- Commission has indicated the unreliability of projections sumptive uses. beyond 2000 and has revised the Study Board’s projections downward because changing conditions affected certain 5. Projections of consumptive use beyond the year 2000 assumptions. Consequently, the Commission notis reporting are too speculative and uncertain for planning and or commenting further on the Study Board’s values. policy decisions, given the concerns regarding forecasts of economic and demographic changes and exist- Conclusions ing consumptive uses discussed in 4 above. In light of thesefindings the Commission has reachedthe 6. There is a strong need for continual improvement in information on historical and projected water use following conclusions: trends in general and consumptive use trends in par- 1. Based on current information and analysis, the most ticular within the Great Lakesbasin. Should changes likely projection (MLP) of consumptive uses in the in public policies regarding these trends prove desir- basin in the year 2000 is on the orderof 161 cms (5,700 able in the future, a continuous data andinformation cfs) to 238 cms (8,400 cfs). base would provide an invaluahle foundation.

CHAPTER V

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commissionbelieves the following recommenda- side the Great Lakes basincontext, but would likely tions will assist Governmentsin effectively addressing future need to concentrate initially on the principal water considerations regarding the use of Great Lakes water. The use sectors of power and manufacturing. Mem- Commission recommends a broad scope of information and bership on each task force would be determined by assessment, frequently updated and including national and the nature of the primary issues at that time. global trends, in a variety of key policy areas that could affect c) Governments institute a co-operative review of cur- water use directly and indirectly. The Commission also rent public policies at the federal and state/provin- believesthe design and implementation of thenecessary mechanisms for review, consultation and action should incor- cia1levels to identify those having an effect on consumptive uses and to examine any that appear to porate flexible decision-making criteria so that the rate and have a significant potential for reducing such use. scope of change can be measured and handled in a way that might anticipate and thereby minimize conflict. d) Governments, taking into account the existing and Based on these considerations, and in conjunction with possible future diversion ofwater into the Great the more detailed matters examinedin this Report, the Com- Lakes, consult on the status of waters so diverted. mission’s recommendations are as follows: 2. Regarding existing and future small diversions, Govern- I. Regarding the general aspectsof diversions andconsump- ments institute surveys on both sides of the border to tive uses- identify and quantify existing and proposed small diversions and establish a mechanism whereby information is Governments establish a bilateral data committee, made available to the bilateral datacommittee. separate fromthe Commission, to monitor allexisting diversions and consumptive uses in the Great 3. Regarding the management of existing diversions to Lakes basin and publish data as appropriate, but no ameliorate high and low levels- less frequently than biennially. This committee would also recommend appropriate additional a) Governments not consider under presentconditions research and monitoring efforts that would be neces- the further management of Great Lakes levels and sary to develop the methodology and dataderive to a outflows through the manipulation of existing diver- more accurate estimateof existingconsumptive uses sions. in the Great Lakes basin. The committee’s report b) Governments take steps to ensure that bettercoastal should be made public. zonemanagement practices are followed to help Governments authorize theestablishment of a bilat- reduce flood and erosion damage along the Great eral task force on diversions and consumptiveuses, Lakes shoreline. either by a reference to the Commission or other- 4. Regarding federally, state or provincially sponsored or wise. The task force would be created periodically, approved new or changed diversions - butno less frequently than every five years, and would update previous consumptive use projec- a) Governments resolve the questions discussed in tions,assess the impacts of thoseprojections, Chapter 111 of this Report. review the potential fornew or changed diversions, b)Governments engage in a process of noticeand and make appropriate recommendations. Govern- consultation before additional new or changed ments should agree to consult on each task force diversions are approved. report. The task force would use information from the bilateral data committee,as well as other 5. Regarding the broad aspects of this report, federal, state sources, andwould build on the existing meth- and provincial governments undertake appropriate mea- odology developed in each country. The task force sures to inform the publicof the resultsof this study andto should have availableto it pertinent social, eco- initiate an educational effort directed toward better under- nomic and demographic data both within and out- standing of the nature and effect of consumptive uses.

PART TWO

Introduction be just for a series of immediate, practical recommendations but alsofor observations and counsel that may bear onlonger- In Part One of this Report, the Commission responded term development. In so doing, the Commissionencourages principally to the physical-engineering aspects of the 1977 Governments to keep in touch with and be responsive to Reference on Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive dialogues now in progress on theseissues, which also bear on Uses. It has taken as its point of departure the report of the the future of all diversions and consumptive uses, including StudyBoard and the comments on that report at public those discussions initiated by thegovernors of theGreat meetings held in June 1983. The Commission has examined Lakes states and the premiers of the Great Lakes provinces. existing diversions and the capacity of the structures further to control Great Lakes levels. It has noted that no majornew diversions, or changes in existing ones, have been proposed or endorsed by any level of government. It has noted that Legal Considerations small diversions can have a cumulative effect. It has analysed existing consumptive usesand made some projections of While thereis a body of domestic legislation andcase law future consumptive uses, based on current knowledge, expe- dealing withwater quantity, derivingfrom common law, rience and recent history. The Commission’s specific con- Roman (civil) law and prior appropriation, legislation in the clusions and recommendations in Part One flow from all that two countries has paid greater attention towater quality. The information and its own work. same can be said for the international regime in the Great Lakes basin. There is nothing comparable to the detailed Notwithstanding the thorough work of the Study Board provisions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of and the task assigned to it by the Commission in May 1977, 1972 and 1978 to guide and control the actions of Govern- theCommission for severalreasons is not satisfied with ments and of citizens when it comes to the management of ending its response to the referenceat this point.To provide a Great Lakes water. broader and more appropriate context within which to address the longer-term prospects for the useof Great Lakes For thepast twelve years, theCommission has been water, it seems desirable to consider a wider range of issues assigned by Governments major reference responsibilities within thespirit and intentof the reference. These include the with regard to theGreatLukes Water Quality Agreements.In following: carrying out these responsibilities the Commission has observed the positive resultsof co-ordinated federal-state and 0 the legal framework, which continues to evolve with federal-provincialefforts in achieving mutually agreed respect to the use of Great Lakes waters; goals. This experiencesuggests to the Commission that 0 longer-termclimatic variations and structuraleconomic similarly advantageous results might accrue to the coun-two change, which might have an effect on the Great Lakes tries through co-operativeefforts in the fieldof water quantity region as well as on other regions of the continent and the management. globe, and which, in conjunction with other factors, could Not all existing large diversions appear to be subject to modify thinking about the possible and desirable use of international control either by the Commission under the Great Lakes water, including the possibility of future Boundary Waters Treaty or pursuant to special agreements large-scale diversions; and between the Governments. The practice has been to permit 0 the need to consider the interrelationship of Great Lakes domestic law and procedure to govern some largediversions, water quantity andwater quality in thecontext ofan mostsmall diversions and theconsumptive use of Great ecosystem, including the other than economic importance Lakes water. Whilespecific provisions of lawsand pro- of this vast body of waterto the millionsof people who live cedures vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the thrust of and will live in the basin. the legal regimes throughout the Great Lakes basin, unlike those further west, places relatively few restrictions on the In this part of the Report, therefore, the Commission will use of water. turn its attention to thehuman, the historical, the diplomatic, the legal, the economic and the climatic considerations that mightusefully bekept in mind by Governmentsas they The Treaty discuss the harder and more technical conclusions and recommendations in Part One of the Report. Our intent is to The Boundury Waters Treaty of 1909, the basic document assist Governmentsin an area where the requirementmay not dealing with boundary and transboundary waters, has much

41 to say about uses, obstructions and diversions that affect what constitutes “ordinary use”. With few exceptions, levels and flows on the other side of the boundary. It does not domestic law has governed minor diversions and consump- purport to require a basin-wide, comprehensive approach to tive uses, which individually may have no measurable effects the management of shared waters. The reasons are readily but cumulatively could be very important. apparent. First, the Boundury Wuters Treuty derives from a period when water supply, certainly in the Great Lakes, was Article VlII of the Boundury Wuters Treuty requires the regarded as virtually unlimited. Second, comprehensive IJC to apply certain rules or principles when considering cases under its jurisdiction involving the use, obstruction or river basin planning to deal with complex interrelated issues diversion waters. Party to have, on own side was not practised in the early part of the century. of Each is its of the boundary, “equal and similarrights” in the use of bound- Neither the Boundury Wuters Treaty nor other Canada- ary waters, with the following order of preference: domestic U.S. agreements dealing with waters within the basin have andsanitary purposes, navigation, and power and irriga- addressed in a clear fashion a whole rangeof issues raised at tion.I4The Commission is permittedto suspend “the the initiative of one or both Governments or of individual requirement for an equal division” in cases of temporary jurisdictions. Such issues includethe method of dealing with diversions along boundary waters at points where an equal changes in pre-existing diversions; the status of tributaries of division cannot be made advantageously, provided the diver- boundary waters; entitlements to subsequent use of water sion does not diminish elsewhere the amount available for diverted into the Great Lakes from either country and the use on the other side.15 The diversion of waters has also been effect of diversions on entitlement generally; the cumulative considered in otheragreements between Canadaand the effect of small diversions;the cumulative effect of incremen- United States. l6 tal consumptive use; the broad question of entitlement to use or allocation or ‘ownership’ of Great Lakes water by either country; and the regulation of water uses. The History and the Practice There is some guidance to methods of addressing these The 1964 reference on Great Lakes levels, on which the matters in the Boundury Waters Treaty,and its provisions are Commission reported in 1976, and the current reference on sufficientlygeneral to permit agreedcontemporary inter- diversions and consumptive uses share the objective of pretation by the Parties. “Boundary waters” are those along attempting to deal with a defined problem throughout the which the international boundary between the United States basin; both references were extended pursuant to Article IX and Canada passes, “including all bays, arms, andinlets of the Boundary WutersTreaty. The Commission’s work thereof”, but not including tributary waters. ‘I Each country leading to the 1972 and 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality reserves exclusive control over the “use and diversion, Agreements was similarly inspired by a basin-wide, even an whether temporary or permanent”, of waters on its own side ecosystem approach, and also derived from Article IX refer- of the line which would, “in their natural channels”, flow ences extended to the Commission. across the boundary or into boundary waters (i.e., tributary waters) although if resultant injury occurs on the other side, The fact that the Boundury Waters Treaty does not deal an injured party is entitled to the same legal remedies as if specifically with water use questions of current concern does such injury took place in the country where the diversion or not mean that such matters have been or can be ignored, any interference occurred. Such remedies, however, are not more than it can be said that the Boundury Wuters Treaty is applicable with respect to preexisting diversions and may insufficient for the contemporary setting. In these circum- not be applicable to diversions covered by special agreement stances Governments have,within the context of the prevail- between the Parties; but both Parties retain the right to object ing legal regime, done what they believe to be in their best to any diversion that would do injury to its navigation inter- interests, decided what should and what should not be ests. referred to the Commission, or simply remained silent, which may or may not mean that they acquiesce. In other As for boundary waters, “no further or otheruses or cases, forinstance with respect to the Chicago and Long Lac obstructions or diversions,whether temporary or perma- and Ogoki diversions, they have taken clearer positions. nent” that would affect the natural level or flow on the other side are to be made except by authority of the Parties, within Serious disputes have not arisen between Canada and the their respective jurisdictions and with the approval of the United States regarding the sharing of Great Lakes waters. Commission, unless they are the subjectof special agreement This may be attributable to the fact that, as is noted under the between the Parties. The “ordinary use of such waters for section on the Chicago diversion in Chapter 111 of Part One of domestic and sanitary purposes” is not subject to interna- this Report, even where no specific understanding has been tionalcontrol; nor are governmentalactivities undertaken reached, the Governments have often engaged in a commen- “for the benefit of commerce and navigation”, provided they dable degree of consultation, co-operation and accommoda- are wholly on one side of theboundary line and do not materially affect the level or flow of boundary waters on the 13 other. Domesticregulatory procedures have determined l4 Ibid., Articles VIII(2) and VIll(3). Is Ibid., Article VIIl(5). Ih For example, Article VI of thetreaty between Canada and the United States of America concerning Diversion of the Niagard River, 1950, and I’ Boundary Waters Treuty, Preliminary Article. the Exchange of Notes (October 14 and 31 and November 7,1940) relating l2 hid., Article 11. to the early development of certainportions of theGreat Lakes-St. j3 Ibid., Article 111. Lawrence Basin project (Long Lac-Ogoki Works).

42 tion, taking into account the interests and the views of the lakes was very high, that the first Great LakesWater Quality Great Lakes partner. It may also be attributed to the fact that Agreement was signed. Since that time our understanding of the increasing use of the waters for one purpose has not yet the parameters of the water quality issue has expanded become so significant as to cause serious inconvenience for greatly. We now have greater knowledgeof the seriousness of alternative uses: there has been enough to go around. Yet if toxic pollutants andpollution from non-point sources. Much the projected increase in consumptive uses of Great Lakes of what we have learned has been incorporated into the more waters, even at levels less than that foreseen by the Commis- comprehensive 1978 Great LakesWater Quality Agreement. sion, were to materialize,there would be a potential for But again, the process is not complete, and the Commission dispute and conflict between different users and between the anticipates that significant improvements will be made when two countries.The same potential exists shouldthere be the 1978 Agreement is formally reviewed by Governments in strong pressure for new major diversions out of the Great the next few years. Lakes basin - which the Commission does not believe to be a The Commission expects Governments will be undertak- strong possibility, at least in the near future. (This is dis- ing certain water quantity discussions well in advance of and cussed later in this part.) separate from the formal review of the 1978 Great Lakes It is worth noting that attempts have been made to add WaterQuality Agreement, and the Commission supports precision and clarification to anumber of clauses of the these early initiatives. It may be useful, however, for Govern- Boundary Waters Treaty. In the circumstances of today and ments to incorporate as they deem appropriate the relevant tomorrow, when we face the prospect that escalating use of observations and conclusionsof this Report at the time of the Great Lakes waters by some may limit its use by others, it review. might be useful for the Governments to review the principles discussed and, in some cases, agreed upon in earlier years, The Commission considers that,based on the experiences with respect to both boundary waters and transboundary of the United States and Canada with regard to the 1972 and flows, to see whether they can provide guidance for a mutu- 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements, the two Gov- ally acceptable course of action in the future. ernments would be well advised at this stage to engage in broad but systematic discussion of their use of Great Lakes Any consideration of matters pertaining to Great Lakes water before they are faced with any sense ofcrisis, actual or waters requires an awareness of the scope and content of the imminent,and before any relationships deteriorate or relevant international legal regime. In this regard, the signifi- become jeopardized. In drawing the attention of the Govern- cance and accomplishments of the Boundary Waters Treaty ments to the lack of specificity in the BoundaryWaters must not be under-estimated. The overall international legal Treuty, the Commission is not proposing either revision of regime is not, however, to be foundonly in the texts of the Treaty or the acceptanceby the Governments of a specific treaties. It has evolved and continues to evolve through a principle to guide them in all approaches to the use of the combination of agreements, custom, judicial decisions and shared waters of the Great Lakes. An attempt at comprehen- writings. The jurisprudence of the International Joint Com- sive legal codification,while attractive in somerespects, mission is a particularly significantelement. In addition, it is might have the effect of making national positions too rigid necessary to look at history in order to put thevarious and practical solutions to practical problems more difficult. elements in their proper perspective.'7 On the issue of diversions and consumptive uses of Great The process that has led to our current understanding and Lakes water, we are at an earlystage in the process of what might be called an action program with respect to water developing appropriate national and international policies. It quality issues in the Great Lakes may also be applicable to is too early to view the matter as a crisis. The projected the question of water quantity and use. Article 1V of the increases in consumptiveuses are significant enough, Boundary WatersTreaty contains a simplebut powerful com- however, to warrant initiating a process to enable the two mitment by the two Governments: countries to take appropriate actionsto preserve the priceless shared natural resource that is the Great Lakes.The Commis- It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as sion believesthat the two Governments should consider plans boundary waters and waters flowing across the bound- or mechanisms that could contribute to their ability to recog- ary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of nize and assess warning signs and to prevent conflict as the health or property of the other. pressures on the natural resource base increase. From this provision has emerged the more detailed Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements along with associated institutional mechanisms in both countries. But this did not occur overnight. It has been a long evolutionaryprocess, and it is not yet complete, Since early in the century there have New Diversion Proposals been concernsregarding water quality in thebasin, particularly the connecting channels. In 1964 the Commission The Study Board found that, with the exception of those was asked to report on water quality in LakesErie and projects identified in Chapter 111, there areno significant new Ontario. Its report was submitted in 1970, but it was not until or changed diversions proposedfor the Great Lakes- at least 1972, when public and governmental concern regarding the none having federal, state or provincial sponsorship or approval. It is nonetheless presumed that minor diversions of water could continue to occur in the future. The principal '7 See also page 9 concern over new diversion proposals, however, as the sub-

43 ject has recently received press and public attention, relates There may be circumstancesin the future under which this to possible larger-scale diversions of water from the Great assessment could change. For example, as discussed in the Lakes to other regions. next section, thebasis for regarding major diversions as unlikely may itself change under changed global climaticor The attention being given to the possibilityof diversions economic conditions. The economics of major diversions, from the Great Lakes is due primarilya general to perception the demand - and therefore the price - for the products the in thebasin of theneed for thewater elsewhere. At the diversions would serve, and even the views of Great Lakes Commission’s public meetings around the Great Lakes in residents and politicians about the use to be madeof ‘their’ June 1983, the most persistent themewas strong opposition to water - all these may change over the longer term. Govern- any new diversions from the Great Lakes, with their poten- ments would therefore be well advised to establisha process tially adverse consequencesfor navigation, recreation, that would broaden the current dialogue with regard to the power generation, industry in general and the environment. future of fresh water use in the United States and Canada. In Almost the onlycontrary views were thoseof some riparians this respect, the Commission is encouraged by and suppor- favouring manipulation of existing diversions, and possibly tive of the national dialogue recently initiated in Canada by constructing new ones, in the hope of reducing high lake way of the Inquiry on Federal Water Policy. levels and finding a solution toshoreline erosion and flooding concerns. Several intervenors urged the Commission to Small-scale diversions, both into and out of the Great examine possible new diversions out of the Great Lakes. To Lakes basin, are another matter. The Commission expects this end, the Commission held a special seminar to become that if the Great Lakes region isto experience economic better informed with respect to the diversion proposals that growth, there will be new and changed demands for water. have from time to time been suggested, including the costof Modifications to hydro-electric installations and new or diverting water out of the Great Lakes basin. changed water uses for domestic sanitary and water supply purposes, wildlife and fisheries management, and industrial Diversions arenot new. Theydate back to biblical timesas purposes are likely to occur from timetime. to Therefore it is a means of advancinghuman welfare through expanded anticipated that the construction of some small-scale diver- production and service to larger population centres. There sions will continue. The exact amountsof flows involved are have been many diversions, both large and small, in Canada unknown, as are the number and geographical distribution. andthe United States in order touse water in locations While some may involve diversions into or outof the Great sometimes far distant from its source. Diversions have been Lakes basin, others are expected to occur between smaller constructed for the water needs of expanding communities, watersheds within the basin. The Powder River Coal Slurry for irrigation, for flood control, for power generation and to Pipeline Project, described in Appendix G, is an example of improve or construct new navigation channels. In Canada, the type of proposal that potentially could divert a small approximately sixty existing water transfers have been identi- amount of water either from or into Lake Superior. Govern- fied, and there are several hundred in the United States. mentsmight therefore wish to discuss the desirability of A number of major diversions at several locations on the having systems in place to report small-scale diversions and continent have been propounded over the past threedecades. consider their cumulative impact on the Great Lakes eco- Appendix G includes a list and description of these possible system. diversions, some of which would have international effects. Of those listed, only the GRAND Canal proposal, to the Commission’s knowledge, is still being publicly and actively discussed. In response to recent public concerns regarding A Non-Linear Future: possible new diversions, three hypothetical diversions from the Great Lakesto the Missouri, upper Mississippi, and Ohio Are We Prepared? river basins, have been examined to estimate their potential Major changes in the economic and social conditions of cost. These three estimates are also included in Appendix G. our two nations have occurred in the past, and substantial It is important to recognize, however, that no major diversion policy shifts have taken place in reaction to them. One has from the Great Lakes basinis under formal consideration and only to think first of the Great Lakes in the early 18OOs, not that noneof these concepts is currently proposed orendorsed greatly different from what they were before the arrival of by any government directly involved in the management of Europeans, and then of the Great Lakesa century later,at the the water. centre of a rapidly industrializing and urbanizing North America. The Great Lakes made this change possible with The Commission has reviewedthese large-scale diversion their seemingly unlimited supply of water for domestic and concepts. It has concluded that, although they may be tech- industrial use, for navigation, for power generation, for rec- nically possible, at this time they have little politicalsupport; reation; but they also paid the pricein terms of pollution and thatthey could be undertaken only at enormous, and at eutrophication. In little more than a century, an apparently present unjustified cost; and that they would have unknown inexhaustible supply of pure water had become fully com- but likely significantsocial and environmental effects. Under mitted - if not over-committed - to supporting a variety of current circumstances, such diversions are extremely beneficial uses, leading inevitably to a variety of control unlikely. All of these conclusions, including lack of eco- measures to balance the needs of competing forces. nomic justification, also apply to the potential for significantly increasing the Lake Michigan diversion at Chicago, If this rapid a change could occur in little more than a except that its construction costs would be relatively small. century, discontinuities must also be expected in the future.

44 A change in attitudes or in economic imperatives could make water a widely accepted article of commerce.

45 Though some trends leadingto major change may be discern- thousand years have been small in comparison with the ible now, their nature and scope are to a large extent unpre- changes we must consider possible during the coming hun- dictable, for the Great Lakes and elsewhere. For example, a dred years, the latter are also small by comparison with the change in attitudes or in economic imperatives could make changes that large partsof the world’s population have under- water a widely accepted article of commerce. The impetus gone in populating the western hemisphere. Nevertheless. for change may come from within the basin,or it may there is still the prospectof climate changewithin the coming originate well outside the affected area. century that takes us outsidethe boundaries experienced within the past 10,000 years. Theeconomic, social and Climatic Change environmental implications of climate change could be severe and largely unavoidable, so that anticipation and pre- While its workings are still imperfectly understood, cli- paredness for adaptation are required. matic change, both natural andman-induced, may have a significanteffect on supplies to theGreat Lakes and on demands for Great Lakes water. In recent decades the region World Food Supply and Demand has, on the whole, experienced higher precipitation levels than thehistorical norm, but climatologists now think that we With or without long-term climate change, the tremen- may have a cyclical return to warmer and drier conditions.In dousincrease in world population, especially in the addition to this natural change, a global and largely man- developing countries, will require increased agricultural pro- made change is occurring in thegaseous mixture of the duction, while thetrend to urbanization will mean even fewer atmosphere, due especially to increasing amounts of carbon people producing their ownfood supplies. These factors will dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels - the so-called require either a majorimprovement in agricultural productiv- ‘greenhouse effect’. Predictions as to the rate and extent of ity in the developing countries or increased production and change vary, but the expectation is for a gradual warming export of food products from agriculturally more proficient effect on the earth’s climate. The effects will be more pro- countries such as the United States and Canada. nounced in northerly regions. Agriculture is a mainstay of both national economies, with On the North American continent, the warming effect food production substantially exceeding the direct needs of from the build-up of CO, and other active trace gases could their peoples. A major portion of grains and considerable lead to an increase of as much as 3°C in the mean annual quantities of other commoditiesare shipped overseas. Should temperature in the Great Lakes region within the next six to theredevelop a stronger world demandfor food that the ten decades. An overall shift in temperatures of this magni- developing countries were unable to meet, there could be tude is very significant in terms of space heating and cooling, intense pressure on the United States and Canada, for eco- water evaporation losses and agricultural growing seasons. nomic or humanitarian reasons, to provide large increases in Preliminary climate model studies suggest that reductions in food exports. basin water supplies may occur. The amount of the reductions The relevance of these issues from the perspective of this has been characterized variously as ranging between modest Report is their potential effect on the demand for water for and substantial. Further, the extent to which increased evap- North American agricultural production. Low-cost water and orationlosses may be offset by increased precipitation is low-cost energy have contributed to our low-cost food. The poorly understood. demand andprospects for greatly increased foodexports Perhaps even more signiticant, however, are the results of couldlead to either heavy subsidization of water supply the ‘greenhouse effect’on other areasof the continent andthe projects or an increase in food prices to permit the water used globe, particularly as they affect agricultural production and in agricultural production to approach its economic price. markets. Higher temperatures and slightly lower precipita- Either way, Great Lakes water could be looked at as a source tion in the middle-latitudes could be particularly serious for of supply. Despite the current high cost and low likelihood of thesouthern and western parts of the United States, the further large-scale diversions out of the Great Lakes, major southern Canadian prairies, and otherrelatively arid or semi- shifts in economic or political parameters, such as a world arid areas in theselatitudes around the globe.Increased food crisis, could lead to a more genuineinterest in consider- difficulties for agricultural production in these regions might ing large inter-basin transfers of water. be offset by a lengthened growing season in more northerly climes. But adjustment to the change in terms of the mobility of capital goods and labour would not be easy. Pressures Other Trends could well increase to bring water frommore temperate regions,such as the GreatLakes basin, to where it was One factor that could significantly affect the future of the acutely needed forirrigation of crops as well as industrial and Great Lakes is a fundamental shift in the economies of the other human activity. United Statesand Canada with the move into the post- industrial or electronic age. This has led and will continue to The changesthat may come as aresult of increased carbon lead to a structural realignment away from heavy industry dioxide in the atmosphere or long-term climatic cycles will toward lighter and service industries as the most active be slow; they will take place over decades andcenturies. As a growth sectors. A parallel trend is the shift of productive recent study of the National Academy of Sciences pointed capacity for the resource-intensive industriesto other partsof out, however, one of the ways people react to climate change the world, alongwith a growing desirefor industrial develop- is by moving. If changes in climate during the past several ment in the Third World, to provide new, low-cost sources of

46 The needs of future generations demand that the shared waters of the Great Lakes receive close attention. traditional goods as well asemerging markets for tech- for anticipatory planningand appropriate policy formulation. nological and intellectual commodities. In the Great Lakes A seriesof statistical data relating to factors influencing water region, these changes may reduce growth rates for the con- consumption such as those addressedin this Report should be sumptive use of water characteristic of heavy industry and provided. It might include current data, trends and projec- thermal power installations. tions on

- basic basin and national demographicdata, including Thinking Aheud population and its distribution (by sub-national region, The possibleeffects of discontinuitiessuch as climate urban-rural); change andshifts in world food supply anddemand all - regional, national and selected global shipments, exports suggest a different approach to planning for the future, an and capitalexpenditures by water-consumptive indus- approach based on the need to be responsive to a broad range tries, including iron and steel, other metals, certain of societal concerns and values and adaptive to unexpected chemicals, and forest products, as well as agriculture; change. Additional diversions and a systematic approach to and water sharing could require dialogue in the future. National and binational mechanisms, methodologies and policies - regional electricalproduction and capitalforecasts by should therefore take these possibilities into account. type of generation. The future will always remain to some extent shrouded in Most of the data will be collected currently in some form or uncertainty, but the direction of trends in consumptive use, other, but may need to be adjusted or specially aggregated. the nature of their effects, and trends in uncertainty itself Additional information might be supplied by governmental suggest the need, at minimum, to monitor the changes that agencies in the form of narratives on present and possible will occur. This matter is addressed specifically in the con- future trends in the areas listed or other relevant sectors, on clusions and recommendations of Part One of the Report. In technologicaldevelopments relating to water withdrawals addition to monitoring, continually updated consumptive use andconsumption, and on legislativeor administrative projections could also provide Governments with some basis developments that would have an impact on the amount of

41 water used andthe condition in which it would be returned to The governors of the eight Great Lakes basin statesand the the Great Lakes. premiers of Ontario and Quebec have urged Governments, through the Commission, to undertake a broad inquiry into The comparison has often been drawn, during the Com- consumptive uses, including the need periodically to calcu- mission’shearings and deliberations, betweenthe future late consumptive uses and trends. Theyhave also recom- supply and demand for waterand the energy crisis. The mended an examination of existing laws and regulations, sudden, then permanent shock to oil pricesand availability in conflicts with existingnational policy, economic impact, the early 1970s,notably in those countries dependent on associated environmental effects, and the time required for cheap, abundant energy, iswell known. There followed mas- implementing control strategies. Aside from the question of sive ramifications throughout the world economy, including whether the Commission should undertake such a study, a petrodollar investment. Though our institutional mecha- consideration properly reserved to Governments, the Com- nisms were not well designed to adjust quickly to the new mission endorses what it believes to be the underlying situation, there were substantial effects on government pol- assumption in the request of the governors and premiers. icies and public attitudes toward energy useand production, Specifically,they appear tohave recognized that the futureof partially asa result of deliberate initiatives, but also in Great Lakes water should, in addition to appropriate uni- responseto economic considerations. Whateverthe stim- lateraland bilateral studies, be addressed in a binational ulus, it is clear that despite initial confusion a major con- forum. servation effort has occurred without serious, long-term effects on the standard of living. Recently, the Commission notes that the United States Government has takenan initiative to commence discussions The question basic to this Report is whetherinstitutions in with the Governmentof Canada on the issue of consumptive the United States and Canada will be any better prepared to water uses in the Great Lakes basin.Ix deal with a water crisis - should one occur in the decades The Commission believes that all these discussions and ahead as some predict - than they were to deal with the studies are important and relevant. They should be encour- energy crisis. While the Commission does not believe that aged tocontinue and to expand their considerationof a broad there is now a critical situation, at least one that would be felt range of views concerning future water policy. They are all in the Great Lakes region with respect to the quantity of clearlygermane to the central theme of this Report, the water, it questions whether the institutionsof government are diversion and consumptive uses of Great Lakes water. in a position to make thoughtful and forward-looking decisions about the useof water, should the needarise. We know The shared waters of the Great Lakes have a regional, with little precision the present and future uses and valuesof national and international significance that requires thatthey Great Lakeswater. Policies should therefore provide adaptive be treated as a joint responsibility of the Governments and mechanisms for dealing with change and the unexpected. peoples of both nations. They area priceless natural resource in their own right. The multiplicity of uses to whichthey are The Commission is encouraged that the two Governments put makesit imperative that closest attentionbe paid not only and other Great Lakesjurisdictions have already taken some to the present needs of diverse users but also to the needsof anticipatory initiatives. In Canada, a federal water inquiry is future generations. The waters must be protected, conserved toprovide a comprehensive report in 1985. At a Water and managed with insight, determination and prudence if Resources Conference convened by the Premierof Ontario in they are to continue to play the role they have played in the June 1984, concernwas expressed by spokesmen for govern- past. The Commission therefore urges the Governments of ment, industry and the public about a broad range of water thetwo nations and the people whom they represent to issues. Discussion in the United Statesat the federal andstate examine carefully the conclusions, recommendations, obser- level subsequent to the 1978 presidential policy review, and vations and counsel to be foundin this Report. The Commis- the resurgence of involvement in water matters by a number sion stands ready to providewhatever assistance the of states are symptomatic of increasing interest and activity. Governments may request in this regard.

Signed this 18th day of January, 1985, at the International Joint Commission, Washington, D.C.

Robert C. McEwen /J. Blair Seaborn 2&qLs%e- I K eith Bulen L. Keith I A

Donald L. Totten E. Richmond Olson

’* Diplomatic Note from the Government of the United States of America to the Government of Canada, March 31, 1984.

48 Appendix A

TEXT OF REFERENCE

Text of Reference to the International Joint Commission

On February 21, 1977, the Secretary of State for External (f) Flood Control: Affairs for the Governmentof Canada, and the Secretaryof (g) Fish and wildlife, and other environmental aspects; State for the Governmentof the United States sent follow-the (h) Public recreation; and ing Reference to the International Joint Commission, through (i) Such other effects and implications which the Commission may identical letters addressed respectively to the Canadian and deem appropriate and relevant, United States Sections of the Commission: the Commission is requested to examine into and report upon the following matters which have, or may have, material effects on water levels and flows of the Basin, including the international and I have the honor to inform you that the Governments of Canada Canadian reaches of the St. Lawrence River: and the United States have agreed, pursuant to Article IX of the I. Existing and reasonably foreseeable patterns of consumptive Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, and in light of the second recom- uses of Great Lakes waters: mendation contained in the International Joint Commission’s report 2. Existing diversions, including the Welland Canal and the New entitled “Further Regulation of the Great Lakes”, in response to the York State Barge Canal, and federally, state or provincially October 7. 1964 Reference from Governments. to request the Com- sponsored or approved proposed new or changed diversions, mission to examine into and report upon the effects of existing and within, into or out of the Basin; and, in particular, proposed diversions within, into or out of the Great Lakes Basin, 3. Existing diversions at Chicago and at Long Lac/Ogoki, and the and the effects of consumptive uses on Great Lakes water levels and proposed study and demonstration program authorized by flows. United States P.L. 94-587 affecting the rate of diversion at The Governments are concerned about the increasing demand Chicago. for water to meet the needs of domestic and municipal supply and sanitation, navigation, industry, power generation, irrigation and The Commission, upon the availability of adequate funding, other such uses, which willhave increasingly significant socio- should proceed with the above studies as expeditiously as practica- economic and environmental impact on all interests in the Great ble, and report to Governments by March l, 1979, andon an interim Lakes Basin. basis if deemed appropriate. During periods of extreme lake levels, attention in both countries In the conduct of its investigation and the preparation of its has focused on the natureand effects of the various diversions report, the Commission shall make use of information and technical within, into and out of the Basin. The Governments consider further data heretofore available or which may become available in either study of these important hydrological features important in the country during the course of its investigations. In addition, the context of the Commission’s on-going efforts to promote a greater Commission shall seek the assistance, as required, of specially understanding of the Great Lakes system and to investigate pos- qualified personnel in Canada and the United States. The Govern- sibilities of enhanced levels regulation consistent with the con- ments shall make available or, as necessary, seek the appropriation clusions of the Commission’s Report. of the funds required to provide the Commission promptly with the In light of the foregoing, and with reference to the following resources needed to discharge the obligations under this Reference specific criteria: fully within the specified time period. TheCommission shall (a) Domestic water supply and sanitation; develop as early as practicable cost projections for the studies under (b) Navigation: reference for the information of Governments. (c) Water supply for power generation and industrial purposes; An identical letter is being sent to the Secretary of the United (d) Agriculture; States Section of the Commission by the United States Department (e) Shore property, both public and private; of State.

Appendix B

DIRECTIVE TO THE STUDY BOARD

Directive to the International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Board On May 3, 1977, theInternational Joint Commission 6. The Board shall prepare and submit for Commission approval by establishedthe International Great Lakes Diversions and June 15, 1977, a plan of study for the investigations thatit ConsumptiveUses Study Board to undertake, through proposes to undertake, and a schedule of the estimated time and appropriate governmental or other agencies in the United costs involved in the completion of each of the necessary phases of the study and submission of a final report to the Commission. States and Canada, the necessary investigations and studies In preparing its plan of study, the Board should be guided by the and to advise the Commission all matters which it must on following considerations: consider in making its reports to Governments under the (a) Provision should be made for the investigation of all attached Reference. The following Directive to the Board environmental impacts of the matters under investigation as was issued on May 10, 1977: described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this directive. 1. The Governments of the United States and Canada have for- (b) The Board shall act as a unitary body, carrying out its warded the attached Reference, dated February 21, 1977, to the investigations jointly in both countries as a coordinated and Commission for examination and report pursuant to Article IX of integrated effort, and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. (c) Provision should be made, where appropriate, for public 2. The Commissionestablished the International Great Lakes information and participation throughout the course of the Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Board on May 3,1977, study. to undertake, through appropriate governmental or other agen- 7. The Board shall carry out the programs in accordance with the cies in the United States and Canada, the necessary investiga- plan of study approved by the Commission. If it appears to the tions and studies and to advise the Commission on all matters Board at any time in the course of its investigations and studies which it must consider in making its reports to Governments that the programs should be modified, it shall so advise the under the attached Reference. Commission and request instructions. 3. The Board shall undertake an investigation of the following 8. The Board shall submit its final report, and appendices, if any, in matters which have, or may have, material effects on water levels the necessary quantity for public distribution, to the Commis- and flows in the Great Lakes Basin, including the international sion no later than September 1, 1978. and Canadian reaches of the St. Lawrence River: 9. In the conduct of its investigation and in the preparation of its (a) existing and reasonably foreseeable patterns of consumptive report or reports, the Board should make use of information and uses of Great Lakes waters; technical data heretofore available, or which may become avail- (b) existing diversions, including Welland Canal and the New able during the course of the investigation. The Board’s attention York State Barge Canal, and federal, state or provincially is specifically drawn to the Final Report of the International sponsored or approved proposed new or changed diversions, Great Lakes Levels Board, and the Report of the International within, into or out of the basin, and in particular; Joint Commission on Further Regulation of the Great Lakes. (c) existing diversions at Chicago and at Long Lac/Ogoki and 10. The Board will consist of a United States Section and a Cana- the proposed study and demonstration program authorized dian Section, each having five (5)members. The Commission by United States P.L. 94-587 affecting the rate of diversion will appoint one member of each Section to be Chairman of that at Chicago. Section. At the request of any member, the Commission may In conducting this investigation, the Board shall examine the approve in each case an alternate member to act in the place and effects of the above on: stead of such member whenever the said member, for any (a) domestic water supply and sanitation; exceptional reason, is not available to act as a member of the (b) navigation; Board. (c) water supply for power generation and industrial purposes; 11. Members of the Board, and of its committees and working (d) agriculture; groups, whether or not employed by departments or agencies of (e) shore property, both public and private; government, are not representatives of their employers. They (0 flood control; serve in a personal and professional capacity under the direction (8) fish and wildlife, and other environmental aspects; of the Commission, and their employers or superior officers are (h) public recreation; and not committed in any wayby the actions of the individual (i) such other matters as the Commission may indicate to the members or of the Board. Board during the course of the study. 12. The Chairmen of the two Sections shall be joint Chairmen of the 4. In its studies the Board should note the concerns of the Govern- Board and shall be responsible for maintaining proper liaison ments expressed in the Reference about the increasing demand between the Board and the Commission and between their for water to meet the needs of domestic and municipal supply and respective sections of the Board andthe corresponding sections sanitation, navigation, industry, power generation, irrigation of the Commission. and other such uses, which will have increasingly significant 13. Each Chairman shall ensure that the other members of his socio-economic and environmental impact on all interests in the Section of the Board are informed of all instructions, inquiries Great Lakes Basin. and authorizations received from the Commission; also of 5. The Board should in particular assess the effects of varying the activities undertaken by or on behalf of the Board, progress rate of existing diversions during periods of extreme levels on the made and any developments affecting such progress. Great Lakes. 14. A Chairman, after consulting the other members of his Section

55 of the Board, may appoint a Secretary of that Section and a 18. The Chairmen shall submit, at least semi-annually and more Public Information Officer of that Section. Under the general often if necessary, reports to the Commission describing the supervision of the Chairman, these individuals shall carry out progress that has been made and any problems that have arisen such duties as are assigned to them by the Section. in the investigation. All such reports shall be sent to the Secre- 15. The Board may establish such committees and working groups taries of the Commission. Regular semi-annual reports should as may be required to discharge its responsibilities effectively be submitted at least two weeks prior to the Commission’s April and may enlist the cooperation of federal, provincial or state and October meetings. departments or agencies in the United States and Canada. The 19. If, in the opinion of the Board, there is a lack of clarity or duties and composition of any such committees shall be subject precision inany instructions,directive or authorization to prior approval by the Commission. The Board should con- received from the Commission, the matter shall be referred sider and advise the Commission whether it would be desirable promptly to the Commission for appropriate action. to appoint a coordinator to assist the Board inits investigation in 20. Documents, letters, memoranda and communications of every view of the severe time constraints imposed on the study. Board kind in the official records of the Commission are privileged and Committee members will make their own arrangements for and become available for public information only after release reimbursement of necessary expenditures for travel. by the Commission. The Commission considers all documents 16. The Board shall maintain liaison with the International Lake in the official records of the Board or of any of its committees to Erie Regulation Study Board, the International Lake Superior be similarly privileged. Accordingly, all such documents shall Board of Control, the International Niagara Board of Control be so identified and maintained in separate files. They shall and the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control, so become available for public information only after Commis- that each may be aware of any activities of the other Boards sion approval. which may be useful to it or may havea bearing on its activities. 21. In its dealing with the public and news media, the Board shall 17. The Chairmen shall keep the Commission currently informed observe the principles of the attached documents on Public of the Board’s plans and progress and of any developments, Relations Policy dated 27 July 1973 and 20 September 1974 of actual or anticipated, which are likely to impede, delay or the Commission as supplemented by the provisions of the study otherwise affect the carrying out of the Board’s responsibilities. plan of the Board when approved by the Commission.

56 Appendix C

MEMBERSHIP OF THE STUDY BOARD

Membership of the International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses StudyBoard When the International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Boardsubmitted its report to the International Joint Commission, the Study Board membership was as follows: United States Canada Brigadier General Scott B. Smith, Chairman Ralph L. Pentland, Chairman North Central Division Inland Waters Directorate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada William D. Marks Ralph Smith Department of Natural Resources Waterways Development State of Michigan Transport Canada Dr. Frank L. Kudrna, Jr. Donald N. Jeffs Division of Water Resources Waters Resources Branch State of Illinois Ontario Ministry of the Environment R. Timothy Weston Bertrand Bouchard Department of Environmental Resources Hydraulic Development Service State of Pennsylvania Quebec Department of Natural Resources James D. Hebson Walker Roy A. FederalEnergyRegulatory Commission OntarioHydro Zane M. Goodwin (Alternate) North Central Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Donald J. Leonard (Secretary) D.A. MacMillan (Secretary) North Central Division Inland Waters Directorate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada Former Board Members Major General Richard L. Harris (Chairman) Norton H. James (Chairman) Colonel Andrew C. Remson, Jr. (chairman) Inland Waters Directorate Brigadier General Robert L. Moore (Chairman) Environment Canada all with North Central Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers M cConnell Grant H. MillsClifford H. H. Grant McConnell Pennsylvania Department of NaturalResources Ontario Ministry of the Environment Peter L. Wise Illinois Division of Water Resources

Appendix D

MEMBERSHIP OF THE STUDY BOARD’S TECHNICAL COMMITTEES AND SUPPORTING GROUPS

Membership of the Study Board’s Technical Committees and Supporting Groups When the Study Board submitted its report to the International Joint Commission, its subcommittees and supporting groups consisted of the following members:

Working Committee United States Section Canadian Section Colonel Robert V. Vermillion (Chairman) John Bathurst (Chairman) Detroit District Inland Waters Directorate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada Mogens Nielson G. Reginald Golding Michigan Department of Natural Resources Transport Canada Daniel Inferd John M. Spratt Illinois Division of Water Resources Ontario Hydro Steven Runkle Tom M. Kurtz Pennsylvania Department of Ontario Ministry of Natural Environmental Resources Resources Martin Inwald Ronald C. Hore Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Ontario Ministry of the Environment John B.W. Corey Illinois Department of Water and Sewers Diversions Subcommittee Benjamin G.DeCooke (Chairman) David F, Witherspoon (Chairman) Detroit District Inland Waters Directorate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada Philip Gersten, Gordon Larson and Nanette Tack all from Detroit District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Consumptive Uses Subcommittee Dr. Arthur Pinsak (Chairman) Ronald C. Hore (Chairman) National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Ontario Ministry of the Environment C. Frederick Jenkins and Donald Tate Heather D. Wicke, both from Environment Canada National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Douglas Vallery Ontario Ministry of the Environment Environmental Evaluation Subcommittee John R. Collis (Chairman) Douglas I. Gillespie (Chairman) Detroit District Environment Canada U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dr. James E. Galloway Detroit District U .S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Involvement Group Philip Gersten and Michael Perrini, Raimo Kallio and Dana Vindasius, both from Detroit District both from Environment Canada U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

63 Liaison, Lake Erie Regulation Study William Erdle Dr. A1 R. LeFeuvre and Peter Yee, Buffalo District both from Environment Canada U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Advisers Paul Mohrhardt J.T. Brown Chicago District Environment Canada U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chris P. Potos and Joseph Vnsky, both from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

64 Appendix E

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

Summary of Public Meetings June 7-16, 1983 Thefollowing is an informal summary of statements Lee Botts, Center for Urban Affairs and PolicyResearch at presented at public meetings of theCommission in June Northwestern University: 1983. Verbatimtranscripts of meetings and hearings, and In addition to presenting a recommendation to the Governments written submissions made at or subsequent to the meetings, informing them that it is not feasible to regulate theGreat Lakes like are on tile and available for examination by the public at the a plumbing system, the IJC should interpret the significance of that recommendation to the public and engage in public education on Commission's offices in Washington, D.C. and Ottawa. this issue. There is an opportunity with this study to interpret an issue of the greatest concern to hundreds of thousands of property CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, June 7, 1983 owners throughout the Great Lakes. Phillip D. Peters, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission The IJC should makc it very clear to the public that the projec- (NIPC): tions on consumptive uses are based on assumptions. NIPC supports the conclusionsand recommendations of the Bill Rustem, Center for the Great Lakes: International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study In addition to theresolution adopted at the GovernorsCon- Board. Keduced diversions at Chicago would be damaging to the ference last year, those sentiments were echoed by the new gover- region's economy, seriously impair future economic plans, result in nors of the Great Lakes states at an economic summit called by the eventual depletion of groundwater resources in the region and Governor Celeste in Ohio just a couple of weeks ago. could lead toincreased water qualityviolations. NlPCsupports legislation to prohibit the exportof Lake Michigan wateroutside the Dr. James R. Gale, Michigan Technological University, Great Lakes states. Houghton: Theeconomic literaturereveals no relationshipbetween the Neil R. Fulton, Illinois Division of Water Resources, Illinois availability of water for consumptive use and the location of indus- Department of Ransportation (DOT): try. Water is a very small part of the input costs. It might have some The Illinois DOT agrees with thcfindings, conclusionsand effect within a region, but not in the choice between regions. recornmendations of the Board. The Illinois DOT was active in the Most of the water diverted between regions is used for irrigation. devclopmcnt of the June 1982 resolution by Great Lakes Governors Because of the costs of transporting thewater the economicjustifica- and Premiers that IJC be given a Keference to monitorconsumptive tion for the individual farmeris simply not there. The taxpayers have uses, to studypossible control measures and theimpacts of the to foot the bill as has been done in western states. The large farm control measures. Continued IJC involvement is essential if effec- bloc is water wise. This is not anefficient use of the resource, tive control strategies arc to bc developed. looking purely at the production side of agriculture. Governors and Premiers oppose new diversions outside of Great If water was diverted to the high plains region, about 4.1 million Lakes states or provinces because water is needed for current and acre feet, or 5,500 cubic feet per second would be necessary to futurc demands in the states and provinces, and because losses to sustain current agricultural production. This would amount to a 2- hydro-power and commercial andrecreational navigation industries per cent rcduction of the outflow into the St. Lawrence River. This would result. would not be a major economic factor in terms of supplies available Some communities in this area historically have had leakage to the Great Lakes region. from the underground supply system of 40 to 50 per csnt. Illinois has established a requirement that it be reduced to 8 per cent by Tom Merz, Michigan Technological University, Houghton: 1985. There has been a lot of publicity that jobs should move to the Great Lakes rather than have water move to the jobs. That is not Judith Kiriazis, Lake Michigan Federation: likely to happen. The Board's study is a good first step and indicates a definite unwillingness to tamper with the Great Lakes ecosystem any fur- Tom Berry, for Patrick W. Simmons, Legislative Director for ther. Illinois, United "ansportation Union: The IJC should begin now to develop strong and well thought out The studymethodology looked at the costs of allocation in policy guidelines for water use within the Great Lakes basin. The production dollars which means all kindsof scenarios, such asusing focus must shift from studyinglevels and flows to grappling with the electric appliances, can bejustified.Pipelines can make money and question of who uses how much water, for what purpose, andin what it can be said that this economically justifies theotherwise wasteful condition it is returned to the ecosystem. The IJC should promote use of water. But, if there is an adverse economic impact someplace water conservation in a big way. else, if you lose a hundred jobs someplace else, then the benefit to society is lost. Address these things in any subsequent studies. Fred Brown, Michiana, Michigan: My 100-foot lot on Lake Michigan, originally worth $30,000 to $50.000, is only worth $500 as a picnic area now that a minimum DULUTH, MINNESOTA, June 8, 1983 setback of75 feet has been imposed. There arehundreds of miles of shoreline on the Great Lakes and multiplying $30,000 by a mere James Ulland, State Senator and Chairman of the Minnesota IO,OOO lots, the number is $300 million. Thisis much more than the Commissioners to the Great Lakes Commission: $4-6 million figure in the status report of the U.S. Army Corps of The Great Lakes Commission concludes that water is the most Engineers. environmentally and economicallysound manner to transport bulk cargoes and the most environmentally sound manner to produce Gene Hollenstein, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources electric power. The Great Lakes Commission objects to any new (DNR): diversion out of the Great Lakes for use outside the Great Lakes With regard to theStudy’s findings, the Minnesota DNR is States. uncertain of the validity of “i” (no known proposed diversions) and The port of Duluth-Superior is the twclfth largest tonnage port in “j” (consumptive uses of water are projected to increase from the the country. The draft levels of the port as well as the tourism 1975 rate). potential of this area must be protected. The DNR gencrally agrees on the establishment of a mechanism for institutional consultation, but the states and provinces must be William Richard, for Congressman James L. Oberstar: able to express adequately their views and concerns. This series of hearings must become the first step for the development of a major long-term water protection and enhance- Elmer Berglund, United lkansportation Union of Minnesota: ment policy for the Great Lakes. In the event that federal eminent domain rights were granted today, there are about eight pipelines that would take away some- Jim McCarville, Port Director of Superior, Wisconsin: where between 40,000 and 50,000 railroad jobs. If the IJC receives A reduction of the level of Lake Eric by 8-9 inches would have a a request from a pipeline company, the United Transportation Union very severe impact on navigation. Eachinch of draft lost for a of Minnesota asks that the IJC turn it down. thousand-foot vessel means about 200 tons in cargo. It is also quite possible that navigation interests will soon be required to pay for William Millet, Duluth City Planning Commission: some or all of the costs of maintaining the channels. The City Planning Commission supports conclusion “d” (consumptive uses should be monitored) and recommendation “b” Alden Lind, Izaak Walton League: (establish mechanism for institutional consultation). Because of the While the Board found no new proposed diversions, a schematic importance of shipping to Duluth’s economy, the impacts discussed for a coal slurry pipeline was presented to the Minnesota Environ- in the study are clearly of concern to all the citizens of Duluth. mental Quality Board in February by the Powder River coal slurry pipeline organization. Milton Pelletier, Minnesota Conservation Federation: A 24-inch pipeline, pumping at II cubic feet per second, would Water quality is important to this area and there is a significant take about 2,000 cfs out of the basin. This would reduce water levels investment in it. Water should be taken from places like the lower at Montreal by somewhere in the vicinity of 0.6 to 0.9 feet. This Mississippi for areas where the aquifers are drying up. indicates vividly that there isn’t much water to spare, a point that needs to be brought forcefully to the attention of the American Betty Hetzel, League of Women Voters: public and decision-makers. The IJC needs to pay greater attention The Board should have been active when the league of women to the prospect of a very substantial political struggle on the question voters was fighting Plan 1977. The league maintained that the highs of waler export. and lows could not be changed by opening and closing gates. Is To make a diversion pipeline economically feasible, additional anybody monitoring Plan 1977 and is it working? users would probably be sought to reduce per unit costs. When the Response by Ben DeCooke. U.S.Army Corps of Engineer.\.: From a technical standpoint, it is working. Powder River trial balloon was floated. a lotof L.mode in South Dakota got veryexcited and started asking if they could get some of Bob Eikum, Great Lakes Committee, Sierra Club: the water that was coming through. The suggestion that Lake Superior water be diverted to supple- Alison Contos, Save Lake Superior Association: ment irrigation in Nebraska and Kansas is of concern, as &-the The Lake superiorAssociation opposes diversion of Great proposal for a slurry pipeline to bring coal to Duluth harbor and pipe water to any place outside the Great Lakes Basin for any water out west. The 1JC should extend its study to determine the reason. effects of those two possibilities. Henry M. Buffalo, Jr., Great Lakes Indian Fisheries Commis- WINDSOR. ONTARIO, June 9, 1983 sion: Decisions are being made at this level without the type of input WilliamD. Marks, Michigan Department of Natural that the Great Lakes Indian Fisheries Commission would like to Resources: provide. This Commission looks forward to developing an advisory In the short time since the study was initiated, citizen concern relationship to the IJC similar to what has been developed with the about the lakes has shifted from narrow specific problems such as Great Lakes Fishery Commission. lake level fluctuations to ones of wider perception concerning the Governments have the obligation and the duty to protect the intrinsic value of the lakes; this has been reflectedby governments at exercise of treaty-guaranteed rights to fish. Since the viability of the all levels. A wider spectrum of society now is showing concern for fishery is so closely related to the water, the duty naturally extends to the Great Lakes. an interest in the uses of the water. Nine years ago, in a landmark decision known as United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 There should be no future diversions from the lakes without the (W.D. Wash. 1974), the federal court reaffirmed the treaty fishing concurrence of the states and provinces, and some institutional rights of nineteen WesternWashington tribes and the resultant mechanism to achieve concurrence should be sought. The Bound- responsibility to ensure that everything is done to protect the fishery ary Waters Treaty gives some recognition to the question of diver- from environmental degradation. sions but does not fully take into account the riparian situations of the states and provinces. Bill Newstrand, Minnesota Department of ’lkansportation Consumptive uses require the most attention. Projections in the (DOT): report of the Board may be wrong because development of basic Water diversions can have a detrimental impact on Minnesota’s industries is not likely to be the same as it has been in the past. There commercial navigation and specifically on the state’s agriculture and are obviously benefits to consumptive uses and these werenot iron mining industries. recognized in the report. In considering the future, the net economic The Minnesota Dm urges the IJC to review carefully the eco- benefits occurring at the place of use will haveto be recognized; it is nomic and the environmental effects of any additional diversions easier to see where economic losses occur but future planning will before they occur, especially with the strong probability of the require considering where the economic benefits occur. institution of user fees for maintenance of the channels. A need exists to set in place a measuring technique to keep tabs

68 on the impacts in both countries of consumptive uses and small before developing the institutional structures or defining the realm diversions. It is technically possible to do this but no mechanism is of discourse. now in place. The challenge for the Commission isits ability to influence national policy on diversions through its recommendations. “Philo- Marie E. Sanderson, Great Lakes Institute, University of sophically, it is in the best interests of the psychic, economic and Windsor: social health of both of our societies to attempt to adapt our lifestyle The Board report is excellent but two topics of importance have more to the ecosystem rather than the manufacture of massive not been included: the impact of possible large-scale diversions out plumbing systems to change our ecosystem.” of the Great Lakes and the impact of possible climatic changes on the levels of the lakes. Preliminary studies indicate that a climatic Harlan L. Gaddy, United Tkansportation Union: warming may take placc, with correspondingdecreasing lake There is a need to establish priorities for water use, and the use of levels. water to move coal is not justifiable in light of the damage it would Water quality is going to be the big problem in the Great Lakes in cause to the ecology. Transportation methods already exist to move the not-too-distant future. The IJC should encourage research into coal and these should be used because they cause less damage and the implications, including legal implications, for the lakes of large- cost less. Great pressure will beexerted on the Commission to allow scale diversions and climatic changes. the diversion of water if coal slurry legislation passes and billions are invested. The Commission should raise its voice against passage Justine Magsig, Rivers Unlimited, Cincinnati, Ohio: of such legislation before the problem has to be dealt with in the To reduce farm chemicals in the Great Lakes, alternatives to future. stream channelization should be supported by the Commission. Water consumed by millions has become a chemical brew, and over- Frank Kudrna, Great Lakes Commission (GLC): fertilization of Lake Erie resulted in algae blooms and water that is The Great Lakes Commission opposes any new diversion of unpalatable. The Commission should recommend the adoption of Great Lakes water out of the basin, as do the Great Lakes states’ land use procedures for agriculture that will clean up the waters governors and the provinces. The Great Lakes Commission and flowing into the Great Lakes. governors also favour the giving of a reference to the IJC to monitor uses of Great Lakes water. The GLC supports development of Wayne Schmidt, Michigan United Conservation Clubs: contour mapping and resource inventory techniques. The Michigan public is indignant at the idea of massive inter- The provisions of the coal slurry bill being heard before the basin diversions of water from the Great Lakes to the western United House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs are inadequate to States. The debate is healthy because it focuses attention on the protect the Great Lakes. An individual riparian state could take importance of the lakes to the region. The Great Lakes are not for action allowing diversions of water from the Great Lakes without sale, and a growing militancy will fight any new diversions out of agreement from other states and provinces. the Great Lakes watershed. The people of Michigan see the threat as real. Despite the speculative nature and seemingly astonomical Elizabeth Harris, East Michigan Action Council, Michigan costs, history proves that “water flows uphill tomoney” and price is Environmental Council: no object. There is no vital shortage of water in the West, only inefficient There are many reasons to be concerned about the possibility of use of water. Transferring water from the Great Lakes will cause diversions, including the depletion of aquifers, legislation being people in the West to regard the Great Lakes as an economic considered to permit coal slurry pipelines and a court decision commodity to be sold, rather than as a precious resource to be prohibiting a ban on the interstate export of water. protected. There is a danger that project momentum will overcome There is a danger in considering the giving of permission to reasoned debate about diversions. Diversions present economic and restrict diversions only to within Great Lakes states and provinces; environmental threats. Present legal mechanisms do not provide this mayhave political merit but has no ecological merit. The adequate protection against the threat of diversions. The Commis- Board’s report on consumptive uses shows that there is a threat to sion should develop a comprehensive plan for the use of Great water levels even without diversions outside the basin. Ignorance of Lakes water. the Great Lakes ecosystem is so profound that it is difficult to know what questions to ask. John D. O’Doherty, Michigan Department of Tkansportation: Despite what the report says, the people of Michigan are not There is reason to be concerned about the potential impacts on convinced that losses through irrigation and the impacts on the lakes commercial navigation of large-scale diversions or increased con- from uses of groundwater, inland lakes and tributaries are benign. sumptive uses of Great Lakes water. The economic benefits of There is a fear that Ontario may be considering the sale of water maritime-related activities to the United States are substantial; the when it should be joining Michigan to fight diversions. economic impact of the port industry for the Great Lakes is $21.8 MUCC agree that regulating levels by manipulation of diver- billion, for ship operations $4 billion and for shipbuilding $2.93 sions is not feasible or desirable. The Commission should help billion. Hundreds of businesses are engaged in support for commer- educate the public about consumptive uses. cial navigation activities. Traffic growth on the Great Lakes is forecast to be considerable John P. Nash, Association in Defence of Man and Nature: but for this to occur, an adequate and efficient system of channels Riparians have been asked to subsidize hydro, indus- and harbours must be maintained, Significant water diversion would try and municipalities through accepting man-made changes to the be a threatbecause of the increased dredging which would be lakes system. The works of man cause erosion, not nature. necessary. Large diversions would create “devastating impacts”. Mark Van Potten, National Wildlife Federation (NWF): J. Menard, Reeve of Sandwich Township: The NWF, the largest environmental group in the United States Concern, basically, iswith the lack of stabilization of water with 4.2 members, has adopted a resolution Opposing any levels in the basin and the effect this has on local municipalities, plan to divert water outside the Great Lakes basin for any purpose. any diversion programs will with a guarantee is It is a mistake for the Commission to confine itself to quantity in important to municipalitiesadjacent to the Great Lakes, determining if adiversion is significant. Project momentum where a great deal of’ money has been invested is cause for concern. The James A. Desper, Resident of Illinois: Commission should notwait until diversion projects are made (tabled a deposition against diversions)

69 Thomas O’Dwyer, Windsor Chapter, Decisions for the Great monitor proposals for increased usage of Grcat Lakes water; cvalu- Lakes: ate variousproposals for diversions;assess U.S. and Canadian On behalf of a binational group recently cxposed to a variety of riparian law, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions, to identify issues through an intensive course at the University of Windsor. IJC’s constraints andopportunities under thc Boundury Waters unanimous opposition to further diversions is registered until their Treaty to regulate levels and flows. and to see if there is need fornew exact impact can be determined. There is still not enough known joint Canadian-U.S.decisions on diversions; providc a basisfor IJC about thc impacts of even small-scale diversions on wetlands, and to review the ecosystem impacts of additional diversions or consum- lower water levels hit particularly hard on Lakes Erie and St. Clair. ptive uses; serve as a uniform data base for both sides; and serve as ’There is a need to know much more about the Great Lakes system an incentive for Govcrnments to provide adequate and up-to-date before considering diversions. information. There is a tremendous mythology about what causes changes in Mrs. D.L. Dawdell, Resident of Windsor: lake level>,, andthe IJC is probably blamed for 90 per cent of the Concerns relate to erosion, particularly that caused by the traffic changes. There needs to be improved public information. of very large boats on the Detroit River. Large boats built to operate The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Institutions should on thc upper lakes are used regularly on the lower lakes and cause look at the findings of other boards to ensure that all commitments increased erosion. under the Agreement have been considered. James W. Cowden, Great Lakes Tomorrow: CLEVELAND, OHIO. June 13, 1983 Three problems will eventually be of concern to the IJC: First, there is a lack of goals for uses of Great Lakes water due to the Anthony J. RUSSO,for C. Thomas Burke, Executive Director, fragmentation of the agencies charged with management. The IJC Port Authority of Cleveland: should encourage the major jurisdictions to think about the alloca- Attempts to regulate the lake levels toan extent causing substan- tion of water. Second is the whole question of water conservation tial changes are not in the public interest. Although there are no which must bc givenserious consideration in light of projected known significant new diversions proposed for the GreatLakes, the consumptive uses. The third matter is that whilethe report has rest of the country is eyeing the possible use of our precious looked at large-scale uses of water in the aggregate, an examination resource. Every effort should be made to safeguard the water and of the micro-economic aspects would be necessary to reveal the water transportation.Specifically, port operations in theGreat more critical problems. Lakes Region require a 27-foot draft along the piers. Unnecessary increases in lake levels are also detrimental because vessels, when John Cousins, for Lt. Governor MyrlH. Shoemaker, Director of moored, cause more damage to the piers, and waves breaking over the Ohio Department of Natural Resources: the docks reduce utilization. Ohio supportsthe resolutionof the Great LakesCommission and the similar resolution adopted by the Great Lakes governors and Ellen Knox premiers in 1982. The latter concludes that the IJC should begiven a The issue of possible diversions of water to the southwest should reference “to monitor consumptive use of Great Lakes water and worry everyone, particularly because of the needless polarization study possible control measures, along with their impacts”. among regions. Residents of the Great Lakesbasin must go beyond TheLake Erieshoreline is subject to flooding anderosion, their own region and address the rest of the country and then the problems that are aggravated by high lake levels. The annual eco- wholeworld, so that all realize that we have the job of being nomic benefits to the coastal zone interests that can be achieved by immediate stewards for this resource. the “maximum effect diversion scenario’’ are smallwhen compared Glen Nekvasil, Lake Carriers’ Association: to the attendant losses to navigation and power, yet the problems The Association supports the findings and conclusions of the persist. Some positive and constructive recommendations to Board. In opposing the reduction of extreme high levels by diver- address these high lake level problems should be developed. sions, the IJC should consider the vital role shipping plays in the Nancy Martl, League of Women Voters: economy of the Great Lakes Region. Thedirector of the Center for At the IJC’s Great Lakes Water Quality Meeting of November the Great Lakeshas predicted that for every inch the water level falls 1981, the Powder River diversion was just rumoured. The IJC was below the 27-footlcvcl, shipperswill lose upwards of $200 million, asked if a cost-benefit analysis of transporting the water, cleaning it utilities $10 million, and the recreation industry $3-12 million. In up. and the damage done to thc railroad industry had ever been addition, higher transportation costs could have a severe impact on done‘? the steel industry, on iron ore and coal mining and on grain prices. Reply by Commissioner Bulen: ’Thc High Plains project concluded The IJC should recommend that the U.S. Congress, working that diversion would be absolutely infeasible, economically, at this with their Canadian counterparts, begin to develop guidelines to time. control consumption. TheAssociation does not oppose all increases Nuncy Martl: With all the talk of water shortages in the southwest, in consumption. because the Great Lakes are an under-used asset. has anyone done acost-benefit analysis of shipping water from However, thehealth of our region and industries should not be places like theGreat Lakes versusdesalinization of the Pacific weakened by indiscriminate siphoning of our life’s blood. Thereis a Coastal waters‘? need to develop strict but fair guidelines before there is a crisis. Commissioner Bulen: Most information on desalinization suggests that it is even more costly, by far, in the amountsthat are anticipated, Mimi Becker, Great Lakes Tomorrow: than the transfer of fresh surface water. Great Lakes ‘Iomorrow concurs in general with the study findings. There is, however, at least one proposal to divert water in large Walter Hoag, City of Euclid, Ohio: quantities for the Powder River Coal Company. IJC should assess The so-called “hundred-year storms”, such as that of April 6, this proposal before reporting to the Governments of the United 1982, have caused billions of dollars in property loss each year. States and Canada. Whatever the public sector can do to alleviate the hardship of these The IJC should detail a specific monitoring strategy for both hundred-year storms, which,by the way, have occurred three times diversionsand consumptive uses, includingthe specific respon- in the last decade, will be an investment in some of the most valuable sibility for this monitoring. There should be a standing board on property in this nation. The IJC should support legislation regarding Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses with the following Coastal ZoneRevenue Sharing, which is currently being considered respoqsibilities:update data on GreatLakes levels and flows; in Washington, D.C.

70 Mrs. Gerry Armstrong, League of WomenVoters, Geauga Board or the work groups. IJC should include New York State in its County: future planning and management of the Great Lakes. There is a major need for laws and regulations to prevent diver- Federal legislation for coal slurry pipelines has been proposed. sion of water toothcr areas of thecountry and indiscriminate For many years there has been speculation about the diversion of consumptive uses of Great Lakes water. These regulations should be Great Lakes water to recharge the High Plains aquifer. A procedure made as soon as possible and not after it’s too late. should be developed to evaluate the effectsof these proposalseven if the proposals are not definite. Kenneth Scott For some time essential environmental baseline information has Back as tar as your records show, until they built the power been lacking. TheIJC andCorps of Engineers continually undertake stations on the Niagara Rivcr, the lake lcvcls were stable. Thcn the studies that only use availableinformation. TheU.S. Fish and powcr stations took more water and there were a few years of really Wildlife Service, in co-ordination with the Great Lakes States, has low levels. ‘Then diversion canals were built to allow thc watershed identified the environmental studies that are required. of part of Canada to be diverted into the Great Lakcs. There have been numerous other divcrsions and control dams built which are Scott Lilly, New York Power Authority (NYPA): now all controlled to the benctitof the power and shipping interests. NYPA charges very low rates for power generated at hydro- Looking back on the monthly reports, it seems that the level of electric plants. If somebody had to replace it, it would cost twelve Lake Erie is considerably higher and going up each year because times as much at today’s prices. This is not the 1JC’s responsibility, your averaging has a higher level added to it each year. If the lake but somebody should devise other remedies for those parts of the level could be left as it was originally for numerous centuries, there United States facingwater shortages andget them working on those would be no problems. Sincethe levelsare being raised beyond their alternatives before they come around trying toconnect their pipes to natural levels, the shore owners should be protected. Those who the Great Lakes. rcceive the benefitsfrom the higher levels shouldpay for raising the The Board noted the benefits to power production from the level and also for the damage caused. increase of the Welland Diversion. Those figures should be re- examined in light of thepossible expansion of our facilities at Roy Curtis, Property Owner on Middle Bass Island: Niagara. Thelikelihood of the matter is that it would be better to put The lake levcl has steadily increased since 1 bought my property that water through a highgate plantthan a lowgate plant. The Board in 1968, and 20-some feet of beautiful land has disappeared into the must have reached its conclusion on the assumption that there lake. ‘There arcproblems withinliltration since sewer lines are wasn’t room for it at the high plant. constantly under water. Certain things about the Board’s report are just not credible. It says that the outflow of Lake Erie is increased, RobertBerggren, Monroe County Human Relations but docs not say that the Row throughthe Welland Canal was Commission: reduced when it was repaired. If acid rain is menacing the quality of the water in the Great Response by Ben DeCooke, US.Army Corps @Engineers: What Lakes system, asindicated by scientific investigation, it might merit bappened is that more water was put through the Welland Canal further investigation by the IJC. prior to that so that when the closing occurred, there would be no Peter W. Frank, Lake Bay Association: impact on Lake Erie. Existing diversions have produced changes in the Great Lakes Roy Curtis: Theregulation of theDiversion at Chicago was levels to the detriment of riparian owners. The Lake Ontario Land instituted because too much water was being taken. It took years to Development and Beach Protection Association instituted a lawsuit do andnobody has bothered to change it now that the lake levelsare against the Canadian government for damages caused by the Long high. Look seriously at the future economics of this region and Lac andOgoki Diversions. The association won and was paid seriously challenge projections for consumptive uses. twenty years later. It was proven in thespring of 1973 that 350,000 cfs can he ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, June 14, 1983 released by openingLong Sault Dam with the Canadian rivers running full downstream. That is a passage for letting out 800,OOO cfs. There is no reason for high water unless somebody wants it. Edward J. Rutkowski, Erie County Executive: Water is not and never will be a problemin the GreatLakes basin, Erie County has over90 miles of Great Lakes shoreline when the which hastoo much water. Water should be diverted to the southwest Niagara River is included. Erie County’s location has created an United States to prevent flooding on the Great Lakes. economy that is heavily dependent upon Great Lakeswater. The Port of Buffalo generates over ten million dollars a year to the local Paul F. Fox, Rochester, N.Y: economy, andlocal industrial productiondepends heavily on hydro- The last communication rcceived from the IJC provides answers electric power. to a listof questions previously raised by various concerned riparian The IJC should undertake three very important initiatives: First, owners. Theresponse came back saying only what cannot be done. the IJC should follow throughon the recommendations oftheBoard A positive approach should be taken by the IJC and its Boards to and undertake a comprehensive study of water consumption in the come up with answers that people can live with. Great Lakes basin. Second,the IJC should prepare or participate in Is it possible to work toward controlling the lake at some intel- a water resources management plan for the basin or lobby Govern- ligent level and say that it may be off by a certain percentage? A ments to undertake a management plan. Such a plan must describe periodic report could beproduced factoring in trends when there are mechanisms for controlling consumption and define actions the going to be several yearsof wet weather or dryweather. By knowing variousgovernments should take to minimizethe impacts of how much it may be off, riparians could decide whether to build increasing consumption. Third, several studies, most notably the floating docks orstationary docks andwhat kindof a calculated risk Six State High Plains Ogallala Ayuijer Regional Resources Study, to take. have indicated how critical the need for water is in the arid southwest. The IJC should undertake an analysis of the effects of large- John B. Sheffer, New York State Assembly: scale diversions of Great Lakes water out of the basin. Since Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are the most downstream of the Great Lakes. thecumulative effect of diversions out of the Great John A. Finck, for Commissioner Henry Williams, New York Lakes basin would have more of a devastating impact onNew York State Environmental Conservation Commission: than on any other state or province in the basin. An “over my dead The IJC did not appoint anyone from NewYork State to the body” approach to diversion proposals is necessary. Serious work

71 must be done to have the legal foundation and political clout to manipulating diversions and to establish a monitoring mechanism protect this huge asset. so policies can be formulated on future impacts of diversions and While water alone cannot solve all economic problems, the consumptive uses is supported. Great Lakes can provide the impetus for a sound and enduring economic recovery in the state of New York. The production of a Tony O’Donohue, Environmental Probe Limited: single automobile requires about a hundred thousand gallons of Water problems are political more than anything else. Sale of water and thcnthirty thousand more to produce the tires. The Great water isn’t advocated but more attention should be paid to seeing Lakes region will truly be the most logical place for many such what can be done with “this wonderful resource.” Engineer Tom Kierans’ plan to redirect water intothe Great Lakes and then drawit industries. It takes nearly fifteen thousand gallons of water togrow a “It single bushel of wheat and twenty gallons of water to get an egg on off for sale should receive more study. pains me to see billions of gallons of fresh water flowing into an empty ocean and just swal- the breakfast table. Agriculture is the number one industry in the lowed up when there arc millions of people without water in the state of New York and the resource that makesit thrive must never be world. ” given up. William Mayer: William I,. Clink: “Disturbed” to read the paper that a member of the Commis- The lake level is too high again. It is being used for hydro. A lot in of residents up and down the lake front have cellar pumps running. sion was quoted as saying Great Lakes area residents wished to These residents insist that lake levels be lowered. “hoard” one-fifth of the world’s fresh water. The “illogic” of the statement merits a rcply because the figure of one-fifth of the world’s Martin J. Manchalla, for Donald J. Riley, Supervisor of the water is, essentially, a red herring. Town of Greece, N.Y: Regulating the levels of the Great Lakes to thc extent necessary Brian Charlton, Member of the Provincial Parliament: by managing existing diversions is not feasible. Plan 1958-D, even The Board’s recommendations not to use diversions for regula- with its discretionary authority to make small deviations from the ting water levels and to monitor diversions and consumptive uses plan, does not provide enough flexibility to itsmanagers to account should be supported. It is important to develop a water management for major changes within the Lake Ontario basin such as have been strategy because thc myth of superabundant water supplies has made experienced this spring. A revision of Plan 1958-D to allow for Canadians careless in the use of the resource. It is impossible to greater flexibility in dealing withthe level of Lake Ontario is ignore rumours of “more ambitious” diversion proposals, and needed. Take the necessary steps to initiate a timely study on the Canadians would be “singularly unprepared if presented with a matter so that all interests may be servedsatisfactorily by the proper major proposal from the United States”. Water management has not regulation of lakc levels. been given the attention it deserves by either government. New diversions could present other than economic problems to the Great Lakes region. Of serious concern are the environmental TORONTO, ONTARIO. June 15, 1983 repercussions, “particularly slow water flows which would affect the abilities of the Great Lakes to cleanse themselves.” Alan Pope, Minister of Natural Resources, Ontario: CANDU reactors are a cause for concern as they could have The Province concurs with the Board’srecommendation against adverse impacts on Great Lakes water.Any major diversions of trying to manage levels by manipulating diversions and agrees that watermust be strongly opposed. In addition. the Commission consumptive uses should be monitored. The Province opposes any should look at theeffects on water quality of such consumptive uses additional direct or indirect diversion of water from the Great Lakes as that for nuclear power plants now under construction. system. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Great Lakes to Lois James, Save the Rouge Valley System: Ontario. The economic valueis “staggering”. Wetlandmust be The public would like to know that someone is in charge when preserved and “...the system is of fundamental importance to the diversion projects are being considered, and it wants to know what ecology of our province and a part of our lifestyle.” criteria the IJC has to guide the assessment of such projects, The Chicago diversion is “a sort of wildcard” providing poten- especially at the local levels. “ln turn, 1JC could request that the tial for unilateral U.S. withdrawal of waters from the system, environmental assessment procedures in a state or in a province bypassing the processes of balancing interests and uses. Ontario is shall include consideration of the implications for the whole Great concerned about the long-term implications of the imbalance in Lakes system, as well as the local impacts.” IJC support for the Consumptive uses between Canada and the United States. “We do ecoystem approach will encourage the province to assume a plan- notusc the system equally, but we share losses equally.” Itis ning co-ordination role. “Theecosystem approach on the local level important to resolve oustanding questions dealing with equity of use will result in great benefits for the Great Lakes basin ecosystem and the potential for unilateral withdrawals. as a whole. ” Everyone, including the International Joint Commission, must become more concerned with public information. This is necessary J.A. Curtin, Planning Consultant: in order to resolve issues and face challenges as they emerge. Changes in the demand for electric power could have a very large effect on the projections for consumptive uses and on the economic Doug J. Symington, Great Lakes Power Limited: figures of the Board. The Lake Ontario area has a particular claim Any consumptive uses or diversion of waters upstream of Sault for the Commission’s concern because it is the end body of water in Ste. Marie will directly and adversely affect the availability of water the Great Lakes chain and suffers cumulatively from diversions, and for power generation and penalize a considerable portion of North- the effect is the same as far as toxics are concerned. “Make a major ern Ontario residents through higher costs for electricity. Great distinction (in your reports) between diversions within the water- Lakes Power emphasizes its opposition to any move thatcould allow shed, from lake to lake within the watershed, as against diversions water tobe diverted from the Great Lakes basin or otherwise from the Great Lakes basin out of the basin.” irrecoverably used. Sarah Miller, Stop Contaminating our Waterfront group: M.H. Pryce, Ontario Hydro: Thereare concerns about the water quality at the Toronto Ontario Hydro opposes any increased diversions from the Great lakefront and these problems will be amplified if water levels are Lakes basin as it would mean higher costs for users of electricity in lowered. Toronto may be a microcosm for what might happen in at Ontario. The Board recommendations notto manage levels by least every port in Lake Ontario should lake levels decrease signifi-

12 cantly. All harbours will have to have busy dredging programs to Increased consumptive use of lake water could adversely affect the maintain navigation if lake levels are reduced and this will add to water quality of the St. Lawrence Kiver, which has been showing water pollution problems, not just in the harbours but in the entire signs of improvement. Thequality of the riverhas a very great effect lake.The Commission should pay considerable attentionto the on the quality of life for those in the area. long-term cffects of increased dredging. Bernard Harvey, Government of Quebec: Henry Kegier, University of Toronto: The forecast increase in consumptive use of Great Lakes water The perception of the Great Lakes asa vast storehouse of water is will have grave economic and environmental consequences for the a misconception. “The important consideration is the flow, not the province of Quebec. Hydro production andshipping will be hit very amount, and the flow is not that great.” The Great Lakes shouldbe hard economically. Lowered water flows could impact adversely on thought of as an aquifer, not a river. There is apossibility that Quebec’s efforts to improve water quality in the St. Lawrence River. decreased llows in the St. Lawrencebrought about by increased Quebec supportsthe ideaof monitoring diversions and consumptive consumption could affect the fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, uses so that the effects can be assessed on a regular basis. and someone should look at this. Quebec believes that any reduction of water supply to the Great Lakes due to consumptionshould be offset by a corresponding Judy Bush: increase in diversion toward the lakes or else an increase in the Has the problem been studied of what might happen if the real retention capacity of the Great Lakes. source of wealth in North America - our water and our agricultural

capabilities ~ is undermined? Growing of food requires water and Richard Spencer, Great Lakes United Save the River: our priorities should reflect this. Water should not be used to do jobs Great Lakes United adopted a resolution at its annual meeting which the railroads can do. such as the transportation of coal. calling upon the governments of Canada and the United States to send a reference to the International Joint Commission requesting it CORNWALL. ONTARIO, June 16, 1983 to monitor consumptive uses of Great Lakes water and to study possible control measures for managing consumptive uses. Such a Billy WoRivers, Mohawks of Kahnawake: study should include acommitment noto future diversions out of the The Mohawks of Kahnawake are encountering a problem with a Great Lakes basin. project called Project Archipel. which is a hydro-electric and water Under the Boundary Waters Treaty, the IJC does have the legal management plan in the Montreal area. “We are in total opposi- authority to regulate, to make plansthat will alter consumptive uses tion.. .becauseit would forever destroy the last natural rapids within as well as diversions.Alternatives such aswater conservation should the whole Great Lakes system.” be given achance before considering diversions to stoppeople in the NorthAmerican society’s need for water uses and electrical West “dying of thirst”. dcvelopment “always seemsto fall, the burden alwaysseems to fall, on Indian people.” Somecontrol must be put on the governments of Statement Tabled by the Government of Canada the lJnited States. Canadaand the provinceof Quebec. “We have no The Government of Canada noted the Study Board’s conclusion, more to sacrilice.” that it is uneconomical to alter existing diversions to reduceextreme John Adam, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: high lake levelsand impractical to do so to raise extreme low levels. The diversion of water needed to opcrate Seaway locks is very The Government also reiterated its view that increases in the diver- smalland will remain so even in thedistant future if forecast sion from Lake Michigan at Chicago should be considered only shipping increases arc realized; it is never expcctcd to rise above after consultations and agreement between Canada and the United 1,000 cfs, even it’ the proposed additional locks are built. Lowered States.The statement endorsed the Board’s conclusion that levels in Lake Ontario would mean significant losses to shipping, periodically all diversions, regardless of size, should be monitored and the Seaway Corporation is vcry concerned about such a pos- and theiraccumulated effects estimated, evaluated and reported sibility. upon so that appropriate public policies can be developed. The statement also referred to the increasing concernin the basin Edward R. Beane, 1000 Islands Association: over thepotential formajor new diversions and to three 1982 The Association is concerned about the environmental evalua- resolutions of the Great LakesGovernors and Premiers with which tion of thc Board’s maximum effcct scenario., There is reason to the Government of Canada is in general agreement. “question thc use of the word ‘lirnitcd’ insofar as the cnvironmental The Government of Canada expressed considerable concern impact is concerned ...a total overall drop (of water levels) regarding possible economic losses to power and navigation inter- would.. .create enormousimpact environmentally on.. .wetlands.” ests andany adverseenvironment impacts that would result from the Abase change would also have disastrous effects insofar as Board’s projected increase in water consumption. resolving riparian law, which is already “an extremely grey area”.

Appendix F

EXCHANGE OF NmES AND MEMORANDA RELATING TO THE LONG LAC AND OGOKI DIVERSIONS, AND AKI'ICLE 111 OF THE NIAGARA TREATY OF 1950

Exchange of Notes and Memoranda and Article III of the Niagara Treaty of 1950

I have the honour to refer to the third paragraph of your note of Exchange of Notes October 14, concerning the Great Lakes-%. Lawrence Basin pro- On October 14, 1940 the United States Secretary of State ject, in which you state that to assist in providing an adequate supply of power to meet Canadian defence needs and contingent upon the sent the following Note to the Canadian Minister in Wash- Province of Ontario’s agreeing to provide immediately for diver- ington: sions into the Great Lakes System of waters from the Albany River I have the honor to refer to the conversations which have taken Basin which normally flow into Hudson Bay,the Government of the place recently between officials of the Governments of the United United States would interpose no objection, pending the conclusion States and Canada in regard to the desirability of taking immediate of a final Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin Agreement between the steps looking to the early development of certain portions of the two countries, to the immediate utilization for power at Niagara Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin project. These conversations have Falls by the Province of Ontario of additional waters equivalent in indicated that there is apprehension in both countries over the quantity to the diversions into the Great Lakes Basin above referred possibility of a power shortage; these apprehensions have been to. heightened by the necessity for increased supplies of powerin I am instructed to inform you that the Canadian Government has consequence of Canada’s war effort and of the major national received appropriate assurances that the Hydro-Electric Power defense effort in the United States. Commission of Ontario is prepared to proceed immediately with the In the light of these considerations the Government of the United Long Lac-Ogoki diversions and that this action has been approved States proposes that each Government appoint forthwith a Tempo- by the Government of the Province. rary Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin Committee consisting of not TheCanadian Government is therefore giving appropriate more than tive members. These two Committees would co-operate instructions to authorize the additional diversion of 5,000 cubic feet in preliminary engineering and other investigations for that part of per second at Niagara by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of the project which is located in the International Rapids Section of Ontario. the St. Lawrence River, in order that the entire project maybe undertaken without delay when final decision is reached by the two Governments. The Government of the United States is prepared to On November 7, 1940 the United States Secretary of State advance the necessary funds upto $1,000,000 to pay for these sent the following Note to the Canadian Minister in Wash- preliminary engineering and other investigations, on the under- ington: standing that their cost shall ultimately be prorated by agreement I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your NoteNo. 340 between the two Governments. Meanwhile, to assist in providing an adequate supply of power to of October 31, 1940, stating that the Hydro-Electric Power Commis- sion of Ontario is prepared to proceed immediately with the Long meet Canadian defense needs and contingent upon the Province of Ontario’s agreeing to provide immediately for diversions into the Lac-Ogoki diversions of waters from the Albany River Basin into Great Lakes System of waters from the Albany River Basin which the Great Lakes System and that this action has been approved by the Government of the Province. normally flow into Hudson Bay,the Government of the United States will interpose no objection, pending the conclusion of a final 1 note also that the Canadian Government is giving appropriate Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin agreement for power at Niagara instructions to authorize the additional diversion of5,000 cubic feet Falls by the Province of Ontario of additional waters equivalent in per second of water at Niagara Falls by the Hydro-Electric Power quantity to the diversions into the Great Lakes Basin above referred Commission of Ontario. to. I shall be glad if you will let me know if your Government is in accord with the foregoing proposals. Exchange of Memoranda On October 14, 1940 the Canadian Minister in Washington sent Note No. 316 to the United States Secretary of State: On October 20, 1941 the Canadian Legation at Washington I have the honour to refer to your note of October 14, in which sent the following Memorandum to the United States Depart- you proposed that the Governments of Canada and the United States ment of State: take immediate steps looking to the early development of certain The Canadian Legation has been asked to discuss at the same portions of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin project. time the use of water permitted under the Exchange of Notes of I am instructed to inform you thatthe Canadian Government is in October 14th, 1940. It enabled water, equivalent to that which was accord with the proposals which you have made. being diverted into the Great Lakes System from the Albany River Basin, to be utilized by the Province of Ontario for power atNiagara On October 31, 1940 the Canadian Minister in Washington Falls. It now appears to be essential, in order to carry out the broader sent Note No. 340 to the United States Secretary of State: program, to make this water available for utilization by the Province of Ontario at Niagara or in the Welland Canal. It would be appreci- treaty as modified by subsequent exchanges of’ Notes between the ated if‘ the State Department would confirm this understanding. two Governments.

On November 14, 1941 the United States Department of State sent the following Memorandum tothe Canadian Legation at Washington: The Niagara Treaty of 1950 Kefcrence is made to a memorandum dated October 20th, 1941, Article I11 from the Canadian Legation in which it was stated that it would be appreciated if the Department of State would confirm the under- The amount of water whichshall be available for thepurposes standing of the Canadian Governmentthat water diverted under the included in Articles IV and V of this Treaty shall be the totaloutflow exchange of Notes of October 14, 1940, might be made available for from LakeErie to the Welland Canal and the Niagara River (includ- utilization by the Province of Ontario at Niagara or in the Welland ingthe Black Rock Canal) less the amount of water used and Canal. necessary for domestic and sanitary purposes and for the service of The Departmentof State is glad to confirm theCanadian Govern- canals for thepurposes of navigation. Waters which are being ment’s understanding as stated above. ThisGovernment’s consent to diverted into the naturaldrainage of the Great LakesSystem through utilization through the Welland Canal of additional water which the the existingLong Lac-Ogoki works shall continueto be governed by Province of Ontario is permitted to divert forpower purposes under the notesexchanged between the Governmentof the United Statesof the exchange of Notes of October 14, 1940, shouldnot be interpreted America and the Government of Canada at Washington on October as constitutingrecognition of any rightsof diversion around Niagara 14 and 31 and November 7, 1940, and shall not be included in the Falls for power purposes in excess of those established by the 1909 waters allocated under the provisions of this Treaty.

78 Appendix G

NEW DIVERSION PROPOSALS

New Diversion Proposals

The following is a brief summary of proposals and studies conservation to intcrstate and inter-basin transfers. With respect to that have recently received press and public attention. these transfers,the U.S. legislation authorizing the study limited the investigation to sources in “adjacent areas”, which meant sources The Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) on the Missouri River and streams in Arkansas. Canal Concept. The GRAND Canal concept proposes the con- The study found that the durationof availability of water from the version of James Bay into a freshwater lakewith the construction of Ogallala aquifer can be cxtended through a variety of conservation a 160 kilometre(100-mile) dike separating it fromthe sea,and measures. However, without massive inter-basin transfers, ground- recycling the fresh water recovered from the tributary rivers into the water levels will continue to decline, with ultimate exhaustion in Great Lakes. According to its advocate, T.W. Kierans, the total some areasof the region. Major shifts in irrigated cropping patterns, volume of associated runoffwould bemorc than11,300 crns both in type and distribution,will occur. It appears that adjustments (400,0(H cfs). The transmission of water from the new freshwater to dryland farming are already being made and that further adjust- lake to the GreatLakes storage area wouldpossibly involve a ments will be made when required. number of James Bay rivers combined with theOttawa, Mattawa and The principal findings regarding thepotential for water transfers French River valleys. Stepped pumping and Row control structures to the High Plains from the adjacent states shows that very large would be required in thetransmission system.The distribution amounts of energy for pumping costs would far exceed the users’ system from the Great Lakes would include new two-way channel repayment capability, certainly for agriculturaluses. Consequently, and pump transfer arrangements connecting the major rivers that massive subsidies would be required; moreover, there appcars to be drain the mid-continent and the Canadian prairies. significant political resistence to any diversions from the adjacent Reliable estimates of the economic costs and benefits of the areas. The findings of the study have sparked considerable concern GRAND canal concept arenot available. Kierans has estimatedthat among Great Lakes jurisdictions which fear mounting pressure for cost would be $79 billion with a construction timeof 8 years for the the large-scale diversions that the study found were the only way to numerous elementsof thc project.While some assert that the project avert exhaustion of the groundwater resource in certain areas. would have multiple economic and other benefits, others argue that The study will be completed whcn the U.S. Secretary of Com- the direct costs areastronomical and that the project is likely to have mence transmitshis report to the Congress. as required by the devastatingand irreversible ecological effects, particularly for legislation. inhabitants of northern Canada.

0 The North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA). A Preliminary Study of Three Great LakesDiversions. A study NAWAPA was first presented in 1963 by Ralph M. Parsons and Co., recently completed by Professor J. W. Bulkley at the University of a firm of engineering consultants. The NAWAPA scheme would Michigan looks at the preliminary costs and energy requirements divert water southward from rivers in Alaska, Yukon and British associated with a large-scale 1280 crns (10,000 cfs)] diversion from Columbia by means of a massive reservoir canal river system. In Lake Superior into the Missouri River basin to make up for water 1963 NAWAPA’s total cost was estimated at about $100 billion, with diverted to the Ogallala region. This study was undertaken for the construction taking about 20 years. Thcproponents suggested that sole purpose of discovering whether such a diversion was reason- 33 U.S. states, seven provinces and territorics in Canada and three ably feasible from an economic point of view and was not intended northern states in Mexico would benefit directly. The total list of as a diversion proposal. benefits is cxtcnsive, asare the dimensions of the project. However, The capital cost of this Lake Superiordiversion conveyance has since the project was first conceived no additional work has been been estimated at about $20 billion, with a total length of 9x4 done to address the technical feasibility, the en~rmouseconomic kilometres (611 miles) and a total static lift of 1130 metres (3,700 costs and suggestedbenefits, the institutional obstacles, and the feet). It is also estimated that 18 pumping plants wouldbe required to social and ecological effects. NAWAPA was an in-house design lift the water from Lake Superior and transport it to the Missouri exercise by the Parsons firm and has never been and is not now being basin. In addition, the equivalent of seven 1,000-megawatt power considered by either federal government or othcr possible propo- plants would be required to provide the energy needed to pump the nents. water. These seven power plants are estimated tohave an initial cost of$l billion each. Thus the conveyance system itself, plusthe initial .The Ogallala AquiferStudy. This study was undertaken pri- cost of the power plants, totals more than $27 billion. The average marilybecause of c~ncern ~verthecontinuing depletion of the cost at theMissouri River would be morc than $285 per cubic groundwaterresources in theHigh Plains of thecentral United decametre ($350per acre-foot)of water. This contrasts with a typical States and the resultant effect on the regional economy. This study rangeofcostsof $15-$50percubic decametre ($20-$60peracrefoot) area comprises over 570,000 square kilometres (220,000 square forother irrigation water. All operatingand maintenance costs, miles) overlying the Ogallala and associated aquifers. It extends which are expected to be significant, would be additional. from west Texas and eastern New Mexico northward through west- Bulkley and others have also examined, in similar fashion and ern Oklahoma, western Kansas, and eastern Colorado through cen- for the samepurpose, thepossibility of increasingthe Chicago tral and western Nebraska. Over 90 per cent of the regional water diversion and building a new diversion from Lake Erie to the Ohio supply is obtained from thc Ogallala andassociated aquifers. Since River. For the diversion outof Lake Erie, cost comparisons with the recharge is small in the southern part of the aquifer. current uses Lake Superior diversion indicate a total construction cost of $3.2 have severely reduced the amount of water remaining in storagc. billion, with an average cost of $35 per cubic decametre ($45 per A number of alternatives for augmenting or extending the avail- acre-foot).As above, operation and maintenance costs are not ability of water for irrigation were studied, ranging from voluntary included. No cost figures have hecn prepared for additional diver-

81 sion at Chicago since facilities are partially in place. It is assumed Slurry technology is not new. having been used in many parts of that costs would he somewhat less than the other two schemes. theworld to transportvarious commodities. Coal suspended in water was the first slurry system. constructed in England in 1914. Powder River Coal Slurry Pipeline Project. The Powder River Water is a popular slurry medium and wouldbc uscd in this projcct, Coal Slurry Pipeline Project is a proposal that has rcceived consid- but the amount required is rclativcly small - a fact not generally erablc attention recently. This is :I plan for a coal slurry pipeline recognized. For cxamplc, comments at the Commission’s public from the Powder Kiver Basin in Montana and Wyoming to serve mectings in June 1983 hypothcsizcd the need tor large diversionsof marketsacross the midwcst and in theGreat Lakes basin. The water from the Great Lakes to maintain thc slurry. Howcvcr, the proposed system would transport up to 33 million metric tons (36 pro.jcct would require only an estimated 31.000 cubic decamctres million tons) of coal per year. primarily to electric utilities and large (25.000 acre-feet) per year, or about I cms (35 cfs). The source of industrialusers and,depending on theselected route, would bc surface wateris a key clement ofthc project.and although originally about 2,100 kilometres (1,300 miles) long. ‘fhc proponr:nts bcljevc thought to require diversionof Great Lakeswater, thc project21s now there is ;I need for such a coal slurry pipeline due to the expanding conceived will dischargewater into the Great Lakes, and water use of coal in the United States. the rising cost ofrail transportation, quality effects may be of more concern. and anticipated environmental advantages ovcr rail transport.

Table 10 SUGGESTED DIVERSIONS THAT HAVE INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Volume of Estimated Year DiversionCost in Identi- in MillionsBillions Proposal (Author) Proposal fied Water Source of acre-ft. of $ Grand Canal Plan (Kierans) 1959 James Bay dyked rivers “recycled” to Great Lakes ‘? 79 Great Lakes-Pacific Waterways Plan (Decker) I963 Skeena, Nechako & Frascr of B.C., Peace, Athabaska, Saskatchewan of Prairie Provinces 115.0 ‘7 North America Water & Power Alliance (NAWAPA) I964 Primarily the Pacific & Arctic drainage of Alaska,Yukon &also B.C.; 110.0 IO0 tributaries of James Bay Initially Magnum Plan (Magnusson) I965 Peace,Athabaska & NorthSaskatchewan 25 .O > A lberta at border at in Alberta Kuiper Plan (Kuipcr) I967 Pcacc, Athabaska & North Saskatchewan in Alberta 150.0 50 Central North America Water Project (CeNAWP) (Tinney) I967 Mackenzie, Pcacc, Athabaska, N. Saskatchewan, Nelson & Churchill 150.0 30-50 Western States Water Augmentation Concept (Smith) I963 PrimarilyLiard & Mackcnzicdrainages 38.0 7s at border NAWAPA + MUSHEC or Mexican-States I968 NAWAPA Sources + LowerMississippi & 158 + 129 Hydroelectric Commission Sierra Madrc. Oriental rivers of southern NAWAPA Mexico MUSHEC