The Northern Waters Complex proposes to dam three rivers
in Norther Quebec, and divert the spring runoff south to the
St. Lawrence River for hydroelectric generation and water
sales to the U.S. (click image to enlarge in new window)
Credit: Rachel Heckl.

The Montreal Economic Institute announced a plan to divert the spring runoff of three Northern Quebec Rivers down to the St. Lawrence River. According to the proposal, the plan would make 70 million cubic meters of freshwater newly available, provide 14 terawatt-hours of energy each year through hydroelectric generation, and generate $7.5 billion to $20 billion of revenue from water sales annually and another $2.3 billion of revenue annually from energy sales.

And, the author argues, all without any environmental damage.

The plan involves building dams across three rivers that drain into James Bay, collecting the spring runoff and storing it behind a newly flooded area of 1,100 square kilometres. Throughout the year the water would be pumped over the divide between James Bay and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin and into the Ottawa River, which drains into the St. Lawrence River.

The proposal suggests that this water could ’save’ Great lakes water by introducing 800 cubic metres per second of water to meet the needs of users downstream of Lake Ontario. This would also help raise water levels in the Great Lakes and counteract climate change. The author also suggests this new water could be sold to the Midwest and southern U.S. states by sending it through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

At first glance this scheme may seem to be a joke. But such grand schemes to exploit the waters of Northern Quebec to solve the problems of the Great Lakes – and make a fortune at the same time – have a way of gaining traction. The most famous of these was the Grand Canal Project. This $100 billion project, which first came forward in 1959, proposed a dike across James Bay, separating it from Hudson Bay, and collecting the freshwaters from northern Quebec and Ontario. Having turned a saltwater bay into a freshwater bay, the water would be diverted to the Great Lakes to help stabilize water levels in the Great Lakes and to pipe water to the southern U.S. A side benefit was that it would flush pollutants out of the Great Lakes. The enormous price tag meant the project was never built, but it still has political powerhouses behind it who bring it forth periodically.

The author of the Northern Waters Complex proposal describes it as much more modest and realistic than the “grandiose” Grand Canal Project. How modest is it really? The estimated construction cost is $15 billion – money that they figure they could recover very quickly through the sales of energy and water.

But how realistic is this? First, the legal barriers are gigantic. The economic viability of the project depends on making a fortune by selling water to the southern U.S. by shipping it through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The movement of water at Chicago is strictly controlled by a U.S. Supreme Court decree. It would take gigantic efforts to make changes to this. Also, there is a question of whose water it is that would be sold from the Great Lakes since the Quebec water would not be diverted into the Great Lakes.

Secondly, the political barriers are huge. There could be powerful political forces behind the project, e.g., Hydro-Québec, and possibly the Quebec government. But likewise, there could be huge political forces opposed to the concept. For example, the New York State Power Authority and Ontario Power Generation are likely to be opposed to the idea. Afterall, reducing the amount of water flowing through their power plant at Cornwall-Massena would reduce their ability to generate power and would cut into their revenues.

Thirdly, the environmental consequences are probably impossible to fully assess. The first obvious tragedy would be the damming of the last three free-flowing rivers in the Quebec part of the James Bay watershed.

This project is still in the dream stage, but we must now show our disdain for it and remain vigilant to make sure that it never gains traction.

“The Great Lakes are at a crossroads. We’ve closed the door to large-scale diversions, but the greatest threat still remains: our own reckless and wasteful use of these fragile waters,” said Stack.

The Great Lakes Water Conservation Initiative builds on the momentum of the provinces and states to protect and conserve the waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.

The United States and Canada are the world’s most profligate
water users. (click image to enlarge in new window)

Under the same agreement that stopped large scale diversions of water to outside of the basin, states and provinces also agreed to adopt conservation programs to stem our own wasteful water use. A three-year, four-pillar program, Great Lakes United will be developing a model water conservation plan, seeing this plan adopted and implemented, working with two communities facing water shortages and helping them use conservation as a solution, and raising public awareness of the actions that can be taken to protect and conserve the Great Lakes.

It was this fourth pillar that brought Stack to Toronto. The announcement of the initiative was made at the unveiling of the Toronto Waterfront Nautical Festival, and introduces a unique partnership forged between Great Lakes United and the American Sail Training Association. Next summer, over 25 tall ships will race between seven Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ports, bringing millions of people to the waterfront in the region’s major cities. The Great Lakes United Tall Ships Challenge will be a chance to educate the public about the Great Lakes through fun and interactive programs amid a festival atmosphere.

“This partnership with the American Sail Training Association gives us an opportunity to talk about the importance of Great Lakes protection by engaging with people on the waterfront,” said Stack. “To truly understand how powerful, but also vulnerable, the Great Lakes are, you must see them and you must experience them.”

The Great Lakes Conservation Initiative is a four pillar
approach to changing the ways Great Lakes water is used.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

The Great Lakes contain an astounding 6 quadrillion gallons of water, but less than 1 percent of this is renewed every year. It is this sliver of renewable, sustainable water that must meet the needs of 40 million people and the environment. But, those who live in the Great Lakes are the most wasteful water users in the world. Per capita, only the United States uses more water every year.

With the states and provinces committed to developing a conservation plan, there is already momentum toward rethinking our water use.

“This is a real opportunity for the provinces and states to become world leaders in water conservation,” said John Jackson with Great Lakes United. “Conservation is about more than just using less water. When we reduce our demands on this ecosystem, we relieve the stress on overburdened wastewater infrastructure, use less energy, and produce fewer greenhouse gases. Water conservation is the foundation to any long-term effort to protect the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.”

Sidebar: Get Involved

We’ll be working with our coalition members throughout this program to see the four pillars of this program through. To learn more about how you can become involved in this effort, please contact us:

Building and implementing the conservation plan and the model communities:
John Jackson
519-744-7503
jjackson@glu.org

The Great Lakes United Tall Ships Challenge:
Brent Gibson
613-867-9861
bgibson@glu.org

This report has set off a new round of controversy about whether actions should be taken to control the flow of water through the St. Clair River in order to make water levels higher in Lakes Michigan and Huron.

The IJC’s International Upper Great Lakes Study Board’s draft report “Impacts on Upper Great Lakes Water Levels” [www.iugls.org] found that the difference in water levels between Lakes Michigan-Huron and Lake Erie was 23 centimetres (9 inches) less in 2006 than it was in 1962. They found that this relative change is the result of a major erosion event in the mid-1980s – possibly as a result of an ice jam in 1984 – climate change, and the on-going rebound in the earth’s crust as a result of the glacial retreat 10,000 years ago.

Because the changes since 1962 are not the result of human activities, the IJC’s Study Board concluded that no actions should be taken now to restore or protect water levels on Lakes Michigan and Huron.

The Georgian Bay Association Foundation says that its assessment of the IJC Study Board’s data and the data of some consultants shows that the change between 1962 and 2006 is substantially more – at a minimum 50 percent more. They also bring forward evidence about on-going erosion in the St. Clair River that is making the disparity in water levels between Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie ever greater. This relative dropping of water levels in Lakes Michigan and Huron is resulting in major loss of wetlands, especially in Georgian Bay.

The GBA Foundation objects to the IJC Study Board’s recommendation not to consider remedial action at this point to protect Lakes Michigan and Huron. They assert that the damage is ongoing and increasing; therefore, there should be no further delay in determining what actions could be taken and implementing these actions quickly, after an appropriate assessment.

Other environmental groups have not yet commented on the IJC study board’s report because the supporting data has not yet been released by the Study Board. The Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United and the National Wildlife Federation have raised alarm that it’s impossible for them to carry out thorough assessments because the full scientific and technical reports supporting the IJC’s report and peer reviews have not yet been publicly released. The IJC has indicated that it will extend the public comment period to allow time for the release and review of these reports.

This report on the St. Clair River is part of a five-year study being carried out by the IJC on water levels on Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie. By the end of the study, they will decide whether changes should be made to flows of water from Lake Superior to Huron through the St. Marys River.

To commemorate the signing —and the hundred years of water cooperation it ushered—the Consulate General of Canada, the United States Consulate General, and the International Joint Commission are hosting Boundary Waters Week from June 5 to 14 in Niagara Falls, New York and Ontario.

With the anniversary of the signing this weekend, they have launched the official website of the centennial celebrations at www.oursharedwaters.com.

During the week in June, communities along the Niagara River and the Boundary Waters Treaty Centennial Committee will host a series of water-themed conferences, festivals, exhibits and events featuring distinguished environmental speakers and dignitaries.  Highlights include a special ceremony on the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls on Saturday, June 13.

To help mark the event, Great Lakes United is hosting several activities during the Boundary Waters Week, including a workshop for activists working on cleaning up toxic hotspots, a tour of environmental hotspots along the Niagara River, and a meeting of the coalition to discuss campaigns for 2009.

In a release, Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter, Honorary Chair of the Boundary Waters Treaty Centennial Committee said, “This summer we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the world’s first environmental agreement, the Boundary Waters Treaty. To this day, this historic accord remains a model of binational governance and a guide for two countries working to protect their shared natural resources for future generations.”

Her comments were supported by Niagara Falls, Ontario, Mayor Ted Salci, who is also an honourary chair of the committee: “Municipalities along the Niagara are pleased to honour this treaty by seeking new ways to protect, preserve and celebrate ‘our shared waters.”

“Seaway acts to flush Great Lakes invaders”
– Muskegon Chronicle, May 6, 2008

After years of watching new invasive species arrive in the ballast tanks of ocean ships, the St. Lawrence Seaway has finally put in place measures to address ships that arrive in the Great Lakes with “no ballast on board” but still harboring residual water—and invaders—at the bottom of their tanks. In addition to ballasted ships flushing their tanks out in the open sea, these ships are now also required to flush, killing or purging many invaders that may be lurking. While this is not an 100% effective measure, and we must continue to press towards ships meeting national discharge standards, it represents a significant step forward in protecting the Great Lakes.

“IJC abandons gutless plan for dam”
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 18, 2008

Activists from across the region rallied to prevent the International Joint Commission from implementing a management plan for the Moses-Saunders Dam that would have damaging effects on coastal habitat. “Plan 2007” would maintain the status quo for managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River levels. American Rivers has suggested that these management practices have made the St. Lawrence one of America’s most threatened rivers. The IJC is now working on a broader, more inclusive, process for developing a water levels plan that would benefit the environment after suffering 50 years of damage.

“Montreal Selects New Sewage Treatment Technology”

On January 30, 2008, the city of Montreal announced that, after years of study, ozone will be the disinfection technology implemented at its sewage treatment plant. According to the Mayor of Montreal, Gérald Tremblay, it is a big step forward in improving the water quality of the St. Lawrence River and for the benefit of Montrealers and residents downstream.

The ozone technology meets the requirements of Montreal wastewater, in addition to dealing with emerging substances. The Montréal sewage treatment plant treats 2.5 million cubic meters of water daily, about 50 per cent of all wastewater in Quebec. From the perspective of sustainability, this disinfection process takes into account the elimination of viruses and bacteria, emerging new compounds, including pharmaceuticals and surfactants (detergents).

“Congress Passes Great Lakes Legacy Act”
–Targeted News Service, October 1, 2008

Before adjourning for the fall, Congress reauthorized the Great Lakes Legacy Act, providing $54 million per year to clean up toxic pollution across the region. Funding from the legislation is being used to clean up such pollution as contaminated sediments Indiana’s Grand Calumet River (an Area of Concern) and Milwaukee’s Kinnickinnic River.

Congress passes historic Great Lakes protection
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 23, 2008

After seven years of negotiating the agreements and passing them in the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Quebec, the Great Lakes Compact and its sister international agreement became law this fall. The agreements represent the strongest protections in Great Lakes history against harmful diversions and introduce strict conservation standards for the regions most wasteful water users.

“Minnesota Voters in 2008 Approve $5.5 Billion to Protect Land and Water”
Marketwatch, November 5, 2008

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Cultural Heritage and Natural Area amendment to Minnesota’s constitution was passed on November 4, raising $300 million every year for 25 years. The funds will go toward cleaning up polluted waters and lands, establishing conservation easements, and other projects to ensure a environmental legacy for future Minnesotans.

In the months leading up to the Congressional approval of the U.S. Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, media headlines have focused on opposition to the Compact and its companion International Agreement, signed by the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, and the eight Great Lakes governors. Concerns are that these Agreements are entrenching water commercialization, particularly for bottlers, and undermining the public trust doctrine.

The Compact and the Agreement give us a whole range of valuable new tools to address large water withdrawals and diversions from the Great Lakes. These agreements have limited takings in the U.S. Great Lakes for bottled water to water cooler sized containers for the first time. Most importantly, each state has the ability to strengthen, but not to weaken, the Agreements.

Concerned groups would be better focused if they improved information on how much water is allocated daily, and who this water has been allocated to in each of their states and provinces. Tangible information flowing from the data requirements in these Agreements will eventually lead to identifying unsustainable use. For example, going into the discussions on these Agreements, Michigan knew less about water use within their boundaries than any other jurisdiction.

Concerned groups could be focusing campaigns now to get stricter water conservation programs that enshrine reduction targets into permitting and water allocation systems. Water conservation can do more than any other single action to assure the future resiliency of the ecosystem. New measures are widely needed to charges for permits in order to better reflect risks from increased volumes extracted, and to require reporting on return flows.

Others could follow the lead of Ontario and Minnesota and improve the Agreements thresholds for permitting and reporting. These jurisdictions dropped the minimum reporting level to 50,000 litres (13,208 gallons) —the use by a small to medium farm. These measures would go much farther to discouraging water bottlers and their over-allocation of water, as well as that of other profligate users.

In Ontario our permitting system has started to give us good information on who is given the greatest volumes and larger sectors of consumptive users, but that information is still spotty in some states. Groups need to put their energy into improving their state and provincial laws in this crucial time.

Some groups target and demonize the Compact and the Agreement as entrenching the commercialization of water. The Compact and the Agreement are the wrong place to lay the blame. These Agreements explicitly state that they cannot undo or override historical precedents and existing laws. Bottled water has long been regulated under the Food and Drug Act as a beverage. Bottled water was also listed as a beverage in schedules to the trade agreements in North America. As we all know, it gets dicey having special rules for water bottling that do not also apply to juice, beer and soda pops. None of us like this because of its implications for water in its natural state, but the reality is that these other complications will need to be dealt with if water is to be no longer commercialised.

There is a real risk in down-playing the importance of these Agreements. I fear all of this controversy is dangerous and leads others astray. It will be a mistake to limit arguments against water taking applications to principles and doctrines without focusing on the ecological and social implications of unsustainable aquifer depletion. Arguments about commercialisation and public trust, while important, will not be enough. We have a real legal framework (granted, with some loopholes that favour near-basin neighbours) to require strong conservation, return flow, cumulative impacts, climate change considerations and sound scientific proof for the first time in legal challenges. Overall, we have a basin-wide ban on bulk water withdrawals which the U.S. states maintained was impossible initially.

These gains, made over the past decade, are huge and should be celebrated and quickly implemented.

Sarah Miller is a researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association and has sought stronger controls over Great Lakes St. Lawrence River water use since 1985.

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the historic Great Lakes Compact, ensuring the strongest protections ever to stop water diversions and to regulate large-scale water use. The final step is for President Bush to sign the Compact, as he has already pledged to do.

“The Great Lakes are a region of incredible beauty, but also tremendous fragility. Passage today shows that the Great Lakes are at the front of the minds of legislators across the United States, and that they are ready to act to protect this ecosystem,” said Derek Stack, Executive Director of Great Lakes United.

“Seven years ago, citizens from across the region demanded that their leaders shut the tap to large-scale diversion of Great Lakes water,” said John Jackson, Director of Clean Production and Toxics at Great Lakes United. “After painstaking work between eight states, two provinces and countless citizens and stakeholders, we have the laws that will protect these precious waters for generations to come.”

The Compact, formally known as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, stems from a binational Agreement of the same name forged between the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Quebec. The Agreement promises strong water conservation standards across the region and a set of rules that will prevent harm to the environment when local business and governments use water. Great Lakes citizens and environmental groups will have to be actively engaged to ensure that these new standards and rules live up to the promises made by Ontario, Quebec and the states in their international Agreement, and now, pending President Bush’s signature, U.S. federal law.

“In the coming world where water is more valuable than oil, forward-looking agreements like this compact are indispensable for protecting the economic livelihood and environmental health of a region like the Great Lakes,” said Reg Gilbert, formerly Director of Sustainable Waters for Great Lakes United, who led much of the coalition’s work on the Agreement and Compact. “Passing the U.S. Compact is an absolutely critical step, but our collective work has just begun. The states and provinces still must implement the Agreement and Compact and bridge substantial differences to assure that the waters of our region benefit our great grandchildren.

The legislation was prompted when, in 1998, the province of Ontario approved a proposal to take water from Lake Superior for the purpose of shipping it to Asia in a tanker. The action outraged citizens across the region and highlighted the need for strong protections for Great Lakes water. As policymakers grappled with just what a new binational agreement would look like, Great Lakes United served on the Advisory Team to the Agreement and led public engagement to build consensus on critical and fundamental positions, such as how to define the Great Lakes ecosystem and consider groundwater in this landmark international agreement.

For more information:
Derek Stack, Executive Director 613-797-9532
John Jackson, Director of Clean Production and Toxics 519-744-7503
Reg Gilbert, 716-883-5504

In a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Irene Brooks, U.S. Chair of the IJC, writes, “the Commission has determined that Plan 2007 is not a practical option for implementation and concludes that the regulation of water levels and flows should be based on a revised set of goals and objectives and criteria, specifically moving towards more natural flows to benefit the environment, while respecting other interests.”

A central criterion for the current management plan of the Moses-Saunders dam is to minimize water level fluctuations above the dam in order to protect property owners along the shores. However, seasonal water fluctuations are critical for the health of near-shore marshes. The IJC’s proposed plan did little to address this issue, essentially maintaining the status quo.

Great Lakes United, its allies and citizens from across the region favoured a different plan, termed B+, which better maintained seasonal fluctuations while also protecting property owners.

In response to the public comment, the IJC will be forming a working group composed of government representatives from Canada the United States. The working group will draft a new plan that reflects the comments of the public calling for a more natural flow to water through the dam.

While the decision by the IJC is a win for those working to protect Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River ecoystems, the about-face by the IJC has some questioning the competency of the organization. In an editorial, the Watertown Daily News writes,

“The International Joint Commission’s decision to shelve its own controversial Plan 2007 to regulate Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels comes as a relief, given the long-term repercussions of the plan. However, the latest development in an eight-year saga casts doubts on the IJC’s efficacy, especially when coupled with a simultaneous report questioning the quality of a second IJC-funded study.”

In a report released earlier this year, John Jackson and Karen Kraft Sloan discussed the diminishing role of the IJC. In it, they write, “Unfortunately, there is currently a strong and near unanimous opinion that the IJC is not adequately fulfilling its responsibilities.” According to Jackson and Sloan, a key challenge for the IJC has been to negotiate its role to protect the environment while dealing with the political nature of its existence.

A picture of the future of the Great Lakes? The dark blue shows a possible
outline of the Great Lakes in 2008, while the light blue shows the outline
of the Great Lakes today. Click for larger image.
Credit: Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

Interns for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative have pulled together a possible outline map of the Great Lakes in 3008 – if the trends in water levels were to change in a pattern similar to that that has occurred over the past 30 years.

In the map, the current outline is shown in light blue; the dark blue shows what the lakes would look like in 3008.

The most dramatic change would be at the western end of Lake Erie and the connecting channels between Lake Erie and Lake Huron. Toledo would now be 75 kilometres distant from the shores of Lake Erie, and Detroit, Windsor, Sarnia and Port Huron would at most be along a minor stream.

Lakes Michigan and Huron would be the other lakes most severely changed. The southwestern end of Lake Michigan would have retreated 25 kilometres away from Chicago and Calumet Harbour.

The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative carried out this exercise to show the significant potential effects that could result from the impacts of climate change on water levels in the Great Lakes and to show the potential impact of human-generated climate change on the Great Lakes.

For more information, contact Melissa Soline, program manager at the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative at melissa.soline@glslcities.org.

The Compact is now in front of the United States Congress. Environmental organizations from across the Great Lakes region, including Great Lakes United, as well as national organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, are working with the Council of Great Lakes Governors to ensure that Congress acts quickly to ratify this historic agreement.

On July 23, Senate Joint Resolution 45 and House Bill 6577 were introduced to grant consent to the Compact. Congressional consent is required by the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution and is generally given by passing a joint resolution or a bill, which is then signed by the president.

The proposed legislation has broad support from U.S. legislators representing the Great Lakes region. The Senate resolution was introduced by the co-chairs of the Great Lakes Task Force, Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and George Voinovich (R-OH), and is co-sponsored by all of the other Senators from the region. The House bill is sponsored by Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and has 33 co-sponsors from the region as of July 24. More representatives are expected to show their support.

President Bush issued a statement on July 28 calling the Great Lakes a “national treasure” and urging Congress to provide “rapid approval.”  Both presidential candidates—Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ)—have also declared their support.  In announcing his intent to be an original co-sponsor of the Senate resolution, Senator Obama called the Compact “perhaps the most significant legal action to protect the Lakes in the last 100 years since the Boundary Waters Treaty between the U.S. and Canada.”

Both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees have scheduled hearings on the Compact for July 30. Supporters hope that the Compact will clear Congress by the end of this session, or at least by 2010, when a new census will likely cause the Great Lakes region to lose congressional seats to the south and west. Both of these areas suffer water shortages that may worsen in the face of global warming.

The Compact is a proposed agreement among the eight Great Lakes states to manage the region’s water resources. Together with the agreement between the states and Quebec and Ontario, the Compact prohibits diversions with limited exceptions and directs each state to create a regulatory program for in-state withdrawals consistent with a minimum conservation standard. Some states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, enacted state programs at the same time as they ratified the Compact.

Minnesota became the first state to adopt the Compact in February 2007. Illinois adopted the Compact in August 2007, Indiana in February 2008, New York in March 2008, and Wisconsin in May 2008. In a flurry of legislative activity before the summer break, Ohio ratified the Compact on June 27, Pennsylvania on July 4, and Michigan on July 9, 2008. The Compact was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and many of the legislatures passed the Compact unanimously.

As of June 2008, 41 interstate water compacts have been consented to by Congress. 45 states and the District of Columbia belong to at least one interstate water compact, while many states belong to more than one.