"Seven with one blow"

Taking a page from the classic Grimm Brothers fairy tale, the International Joint Commission (IJC), which oversees the St. Lawrence Seaway and controls Lake Ontario water levels, has proposed the adoption of new discharge management plan D+(as revised) to become effective next year. In doing so, the commission promised that in two years environmental groups and recreational boaters could have the plan they favored (plan B+), but only if they first successfully complete three rather daunting tasks.

The tasks are mitigation measures IJC says will be needed if B+ is implemented:

1 - Create and implement shoreline protection (high water) for all at-risk areas, and demonstrate that the measures are in place and working as designed. Among these measures are breakwaters, beach nourishment and other habitat restoration measures.

2 - Deepen channels that would be at risk during low water conditions by dredging and other measures.

3 - Convince federal, state, provincial and local governments to act as follows: public acquisition of properties that can not be otherwise protected from high water; low interest loans where at-risk properties can be protected; institute stricter floodplain and land use programs; zoning changes.

Both plans D+ and B+ are descended from a five-year $20 million study commissioned by the IJC and completed in 2005. The study recommended three possible plans of action; plans A, B, and D. All three represented a distinct departure from the plan then in effect (plan 1958DD).

The study clearly stated any of the new plans could be implemented without the prior implementation of mitigatory measures.

The commission did accept the final report, but promptly appointed another group to review it and suggest better alternatives. This second very distinguished group of scientists and researchers produced revisions; plans A+, B+, and D+, all of which came closer to the IJC’s plan (1958DD) and were thus more acceptable to the commission – but apparently not yet close enough to be totally so.

Additional study and consideration commenced, resulting in last week’s March 28 introduction of proposed “Plan 2007.” Although nominally a derivative of plan D+, plan 2007 is virtually identical to plan 1958DD. This is not surprising as both were developed with the interests of commercial shipping and power generation in mind. It appears the commission – from the tone of its documents reluctant to undertake the study process in the first place – has managed for the most part to deflect change.

Plan B+ is favored by environmentalists and boaters because it results in both higher and lower extreme water levels than the other plans. Plan B+ would favorably impact wetland areas adjacent to Lake Ontario proper by narrowing the transition line from submerged to upland plant species, thus improving spawning habitat and the diversity of marshlands. Specifically, occasional very low water levels would dry out marshes and reduce the dominance of cattails that crowd out aquatic grasses and other plants. Boaters supported this concept, even though the same low water conditions could make things difficult for them.

Last week’s decision was not unexpected. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established an order of precedence in the IJC’s management of its assets: uses for sanitary and domestic purposes; uses for navigation; and uses for power generation, and the commission is bound to uphold its responsibilities under the treaty. This it has done, stating that it is now the responsibility of the governments of New York State, the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the joint federal governments, and the governments of waterfront cities and counties to implement whatever mitigation processes they please.

Like the little tailor in Grimm’s fable, who after having miraculously swatted seven flies with one blow, cried “I killed seven with one blow” - just as the king asked who in his kingdom could kill the two giants - environmentalists, boaters, and shoreline communities stood up and were counted when invited, only to be handed the task of slaying the giants. Is it possible? Yes, but not only have no sources of funding been identified, no organization seems ready to step forward. Even if funds were available immediately, it might take two years just to compile a list of potential impact sites. IJC has to know this as well as anyone. For an international organization to establish such a set of conditions in the face of the recommendations of its own study, which categorically stated no remediation actions were needed, seems cynical indeed. 

The IJC - left to right: Jack Blaney; Irene Brooks; Herb Gray- chair; Allen Olson