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 con- duct 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