Water Levels Management Plan – A Canadian Perspective of the Current Status

The International Joint Commission (IJC) formed a Study Board in 2000 to research and produce a new water level management plan to replace the current plan which was developed in 1958. Five years and $20M later the Study Board produced 3 different plans: Plan A+, B+ and D+. Each struck a different compromise between interests and elements of the system such as the environment, Montreal flooding, recreational boating, hydroelectric power, shipping concerns and riparian rights. Plan B+ was widely accepted as the best plan as it was best for the environment, hydro power, shipping, and boating. The IJC has stated that they would like to adopt plan B+. The problem is, B+ is not good for the south shore (of Lake Ontario) residents. In fact, these flood plain dwellers threatened to sue the IJC. So the IJC took it upon themselves to ignore the $20M worth of wisdom and conjure up their own plan - Plan 2007. This new plan takes good care of the flood plain dwellers by lowering water levels in the fall at the expense of all of the other interests. The sad fact is that of all of the interests, the boating interest suffers the most. The bottom line is that some people who have built houses in precarious flood zones are holding the tens of millions of other users hostage! They have their lawyers cocked and ready to fire. And this is what is holding up true progress for all of the other interests. 

The IJC says they can move toward Plan B+ once sufficient mitigation is in place. They are considering shoreline protection measures, buyouts and insurance packages. The problem is, who will pay? The IJC won’t, nor will the flood plain dwellers that created the problem. It is expected that state, federal and potentially the provincial governments will have to foot the bill. How much you ask? Nobody has stated a definitive number but it has got to be in the hundreds of millions. It is going to take a huge amount of public pressure to convince the governments to cough up that kind of money for that kind of issue.

The good news is that the environmental interests closely align with the recreational boating interests – they are our allies. The environmental interests are supported by a strong lobby group. Furthermore, the IJC would like to adopt Plan B+ to help reverse the 50 years worth of damage to the environment that the current Plan 1958 has caused if it wasn’t for the lawyers. If you wish to delve deeper into this topic, go to http://ijc.org/en/activities/losl/index.php. 

So, what can we (you) do you ask? We need to make noise, lots of noise. Enough noise to drown out the lawyers. At best, this would prompt the IJC to adopt Plan B+ in the best interest of the vast majority. At the very least, intense lobbying would drive the IJC into a state of paralysis, unable to make a decision for fear of repercussions. In this case, the old Plan 1958 would continue which is better than the proposed Plan 2007.

Tell them that you are appalled that a limited number of Lake Ontario south shore residents are holding the rest of us and the environment hostage and standing in the way of a sensible water level management plan that is in the best interest of the vast majority.

I urge you to take action to protect your boating interests and help keep boating affordable by helping to prevent marinas from incurring massive dredging expenses.

How Did We Get Here?

You have to ask, “How is it that people were allowed to build in flood plains?” The answer is interesting.

New York State government policy gives each town jurisdiction to determine where people can or cannot build. You would think that not allowing people to build in a flood zone or too close to the shoreline would be a no-brainer. No. The problem is that same town has a conflict of interest in that it is the beneficiary of property taxes generated by expensive shoreline properties. You might think that the town would be concerned about lawsuits by property owners that get flooded out. But alas, FEMA the Federal Emergency Management Agency will come to the rescue with flood insurance to bail out the homeowner, and, in essence, protect the town from any flood liability. The result is a positive feedback loop working to exacerbate the situation and produce more downward pressure on water levels.The IJC admits this is the case but clearly states that it is not in its jurisdiction to make any change. 

How does it work on our side of the border? In Ontario, there are 36 Conservation Authorities that grant or deny permission to build based on a rigorous set of rules that are driven by flood plain elevations. Each authority is funded by the numerous municipalities within their region as well as by the provincial government. There is no direct link between an individual’s property tax and the coffers of the Conservation Authority. Hence, their decision making is not influenced by a would-be homeowner’s property taxes.

The question that I ask is why is it that I have had to spend well over $1M on dredging to solve my water level issues and these people won’t spend a fraction of that amount to solve their water level issues. This is an unfair situation and Plan 2007 would make it worse.

Most people pulled their boats out by Labor Day. Some boats were sitting in the mud further out in North Bay. The water was so low that the T-dock was removed.

It put a real damper on Fall boating for those of us who are retired and enjoy Fall in the area. Normally the rocks of North Bay are covered with water; in the Spring of 2007 the water was more than half way down.

We really need a different plan - Plan B!

I have been coming to the river since 1951. This is not the way to take care of such a beautiful body of water. We have just enough water from May to mid August and then they pull the plug Labor Day. I have been a member of the IWLC since it started. At one of the IWLC meetings I attended one gentleman mentioned a group of people off a point in Rochester who wants to keep Lake Ontario at a certain level because they built in a flood plain, so we pay for it. This is ruining the river, the fish population, causing pollution and the list goes on. It's time something is done once and for all; there is no need for this.

My family has had a cottage on the river for over 55 years. In that time we have never seen the water.levels so low. Our dock is currently on the bottom of the river, our water line this spring will have to be extended to draw usable water from the river, our boat in storage will have to stay there because the marina solid ramp is not long enough to reach launch depths. In addition stores that we shop at in Alexandria Bay will no longer be reachable, especially those up Otter Creek.

The IJC continues to operate off Plan 1958-D when we all know it is not workable. A new commission report is published, after years in the making, and millions of dollars of expenditure, and you ignore it. The IWLC calls to adopt Plan "B+" and you brush that suggestion aside. You now are considering a "hybrid" plan, I guess because you feel the million dollar survey, and the IWLC plan are made by individuals incapable of understanding the issue at hand. So we live with 1958-D and an IJC that has decided not to decide. (Perhaps you feel if you ignore it long enough it will go away.)

The area around the Thousand Islands has an economy that struggles to survive. Employment and business profits made in the summer must carry many through the winter months. Unemployment in the cold weather is as high or higher than many other parts of the U.S. If your current approach continues summer employment and business profits will be a disaster. Please come to your senses and "Wake up and smell the roses."

This started in August and I no longer can take my boat out. This is a DISASTER for recreational boaters and fishermen. I no longer have waterfront property. This is by far the worse it has ever been.

This is a man made problem and man can fix it if the desire and will to do it is present. We must not accept old excuses and political rhetoric.

Please influence the powers that be to make a change!!

I am attaching a picture of the dock and floating dock at our cottage on Grenell Island taken October 25. The water level is lower than we have ever seen for this time of year. By way of contrast, when my wife and I purchased the cottage in early November 2000, we went over to see our cottage. Water level was no problem, only the cool temperature.

As a result of the drastic drop in water level, my wife and I and most of our neighbors closed our cottages around Labor Day. Ordinarily cottages would not be closed until mid-October. We have all missed two months of beautiful weather and I am confident the fragile economy of the Thousand Islands (the marinas, restaurants, grocery stores, golf courses, shops, etc.) has suffered enormously.

I am very concerned that our water level will be lower than normal next spring and that as the level drops over the summer low water levels will be attributed to weather conditions and the low water in the Upper Great Lakes.

I implore the IJC to act and adopt a new plan so water levels will be regulated using current technology and take into account the interests of everyone on or near Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. In the interim, I would hope that the Board of Control would show some concern for what is happening to the residents and people who enjoy the Thousand Islands region.

I've been encouraged by the I.W.L.C. to correspond to your office regarding the serious situation of the water levels in the Thousand Island region throughout the 2007 year. I would like to explain that my time at my vacation cottage located on Grenell Island in the town of Clayton, N.Y. has been reduced drastically due to the low water that is throughout the Thousand Islands. Additionally, I was unable to utilize my larger boat (25' Lyman) after August 2007 due to the fact that the water at its berth at my dock was insufficient to accommodate its draft. I was obligated to haul my Lyman prior to the Labor day holiday of 2007. I would encourage the IJC and Board of Control to kindly re-evaluate your current policies regarding the water level issues throughout the Great Lakes basin and its tributaries so that there might be enough natural resources to enjoy our Thousand Islands as well as our investments.

Thank you for your anticipated concern with this distressing experience.

In 1972 my family and I bought a home on the south shore of Wilsons Bay in Cape Vincent, NY. That year we had our shore dynamited to install a shore well. For the past 35 years the well has served us without any problems until this year. Due to the very low water in the bay we ran out of water. With the combination of the low water and the drought we had to make a decision about use of the water in the well. We are using the water for domestic purposes in our home, and we had to cease using it for our gardens, trees, shrubs in mid August.

Of course, the result was that we lost all of the vegetables in our large garden in early September, most of the flowers and the stressed trees lost almost all of their leaves. Next spring will tell how many of these trees survived.

Since the water level was so low the mass of algae that washed ashore caused a terrible smell and a discoloration of the water coming in the well. Since we could not function under these conditions, we had to have an automatic chlorination system put in the well and a large carbon filter put in the basement to eliminate any chlorine in the water coming into the house and to eliminate the smell. This new system cost us $2418.

We now have looked into installing a new and much deeper shore well that will cost approximately $8000. For two retired people depending on our pension and Social Security, the cost of this low water problem will cause a major financial burden for us if this low water problem persists and we have to install the new well.

The infusion of water into the Montreal, Quebec area on October 12 or 13 to allow the sailboats that were stuck in the mud to be freed was just another slap in the face for all the businesses along the Ontario and St. Lawrence shores that saw what was happening to the water level and hauled their boats out before Labor Day. It was a total disregard for the thousands of homeowners using shore wells in these areas. To put sail boats before the needs and well being of thousands of people living on the shore property and using the water for domestic and gardening purposes.

Priorities must be rethought and the health and well being of people who use the Great Lakes water to live where they do balanced with commercial needs must be better fine tuned so we all can live and prosper here.

I am writing in regards to the lowest water we have had in a very long time. This year I have ruined three propellers on my boat. Two of them were damaged just trying to get to my dock. I have eighty five feet of dock in Densmore Bay just to have decent water in normal times. Yesterday I tried to bring in my floating docks only to find that they are stuck in the mud and I cannot get them to shore. This will mean probable ice damage in the spring when the Ice Breakes start running and causing the ice chunks to pile up in the bay.

After twenty million dollars and a lot of hard work by many people, I find it hard to believe we still have water problems. What would be the harm in adopting the IWLC Plan "D"*if only for a year or two in order to find out if it would really work. I realize there are flooding issues along the Lake Ontario shores but many of these people built their homes on a flood plain years ago so they should hold some responsibility for their own problems.

I grew up in the Rochester area and I remember some of the homes being damaged by high water back then, especially those build right on the beach at the end of Lake Avenue. I'll bet that there has been a turnover of owners in the past sixty years and flooding has also occurred. Should all of us on the river be held hostage with these outrageous low water levels because people want to live as close to the water as possible. q Frank, I and many others would appreciate any help you could give to try and get Plan "D"* adopted or at least tried for a year or whatever it would take to see if it would work. Anything is better than what we are doing at present. We can never recover the water we have wasted.

Note: *October 12, 2007 follow-up e-mail from James Rowley, "… if plan B is the one Dalton (IWLC) recommends that is the one I support also."

These are Labor Day pictures taken in front of my camp on the St. Lawrence River in Chippewa Bay. Not very encouraging, is it? Makes me rethink my family's 50 year investment in seasonal ownership.

If this were your property, what would you be thinking? Would mismanagement of water levels come to mind?

We are writing this letter in the hopes, that along with many other frustrated River folk, we can effect some positive changes in the way that the St. Lawrence River levels are managed.

We are all witness to the terrible consequences of following the current management plan, Plan 1958-D, and the decisions made throughout this season to remove more water from Lake Ontario than the plan dictates. We have been seasonal waterfront residents for the past 11 years. During the past 5 years, we have noticed a marked decrease in water depth that occurs every August. This happens irrespective of the amount of rainfall we receive. There have been times when the water level will drop several inches in the course of 2 to 3 days. Now, if it is possible to drop the water level that much within that short a time, then why is it necessary to worry about the levels on Lake Ontario being too high IF we should have more precipitation than normal? In a day or two the Lake can be drained to normal levels judging from what happens on the River. There is always the concern that the Lake is too high, but never a concern that the River runs dry. We wonder if it could have something to do with the wealth and power located on the south shore of the Lake around Rochester, and a similar situation in the Port of Montreal? It would appear that this beautiful River is being used as a conduit to serve those two ends, and shipping and power generation. The rest of us be damned.

How about the cost of low water levels -

• We and many others pay hefty tax bills because we are lucky enough to own some waterfront. We all know what has happened to the value of waterfront property. But, why are we paying for waterfront property when we have no waterfront? It's more like muck front, as is evident in the attached photos. We should bring this to the attention of our assessor because we are being unfairly assessed.
• We had to move our boat to a nearby marina so that we could keep it in the water after Labor Day. Of course, we had to pay the marina for the boat slip for that period of time. If the boat were at our dock, where is should have been, we would not have had this added expense.
• We have enjoyed Muskie fishing in the fall for the past 23 years. Until now, we have been able to fish well into November, weather dependent. There will be no Muskie fishing this year because we had to pull our boat in September. The marina's water levels were getting so low that they were forced to close early. How do you put a price on the loss of enjoyment? We're sure the fishing guides can provide plenty of documentation for their loss of income during the Muskie season.

The only way you and your staff can truly understand my concerns is to tour the St. Lawrence River shorelines, talk to the property owners, and meet the marina and repair operators, as soon as possible.

Please accept my personal and sincere offer to show you what has happened- unusable docks, boats which had to be removed two months prematurely, and a propeller repair shop which is enjoying a large surge repairing propellers and outdrives. Also, the boat owner who sustained over $7200.00 in hull damages to his 2007 boat, when it pounded rocks at his slip, which had not been previously visible.

I await your arrival. You will see and learn a great deal.

In anticipation of the IJC's decision to be announced on Sept. 17, I would like to offer the following comments. I believe that they are reflective not just of my concerns but those of the approximately 70 other families with seasonal cottages or homes on Grenell Island (off Wellesley Island) and those of residents of nearby islands such as Murray.

This past Monday, August 27, my wife and I were forced to close our cottage prematurely. We ordinarily close Columbus Day weekend. The water level has become so low that not only am I unable to dock at our fixed dock, but it is difficult even to reach our floating dock. There is great danger from the numerous unmarked shoals and rocks which now threaten our boat's propeller and lower unit. The water level at our marina-Spicer Bay outside Clayton-is becoming dangerously low.

In the past, these problems did not arise until later in September at the earliest. I could not afford to remain at our cottage any longer since any further drop in water level could make closing very difficult.

As a result of our early closing the local economy will suffer greatly-no food shopping, restaurant use, golf and enjoyment of the many pleasures on the US and Canadian sides of the 1000 Islands.

I implore the Commission to adopt Plan B+ and maximize water levels from late summer until mid-October. Already many cottages owners are talking of selling if our season is cut short again.

I plan to attend a public meeting after the tentative plan is announced and also intend to share my concerns with my US Congressional representatives at home in New Jersey.

I understand the importance of the shipping and hydropower interests, but hope the economy of the 1000 Islands region and its many visitors will be considered in your decision-making.

The cost for me is more of a 'potential' nature, such as not using our boat more, dangers of damage to boat from rocks & personal injurys, spending less money & time in Jefferson County, property is worth less, using smaller water craft which are more prone to waves...these are the ways the low level affects me.

Enclosed please find low water picture from my cottage on the St,Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, New York. The water levels being the lowest in 80+ years, have created problems of navigation, boat and prop damage, inaccessible properties, excessive growth of seaweed. I urge the IJC to adopt a workable plan soon. Or at least have qualified personnel in charge of water levels, as the mistakes of this past year need not be repeated.

I am writing this letter to protest the policies and actions of the Board of Control and the IJC in their control of the St. Lawrence Seaway water levels.

Unfortunately, I bought a summer home in Goose Bay a couple of years ago. I say unfortunately because it's gotten to the point where I can't even use the place all summer because there isn't enough water now to get my boats in and out of my dock. Every year I keep hoping that something will be done about this situation but this year has been the worst. When I came up in June to open the place, much to my consternation the water level was lower than it usually is in September. The water level was in fact so low that I hit an uncharted shoal and trashed the lower unit in my I/O. As you can see the bill was close to $2,000.

And that doesn't include the hundreds of dollars I've spent for refurbishing stainless props. And I may as well mention now the people who took vacation weeks to come up and couldn't because I was no longer there because there wasn't enough water to stay." I just want to say, thanks for everything.

I would like to register a formal complaint concerning water levels in the upper St. Lawrence River. Since I purchased my summer home in Hutch's Haven on Wellesley Island in the St. Lawrence River in 1997, the water levels have been impossibly low at my dock from early August until the end of the boating season in late October. The water level at my dock is usually down to 18 inches in depth by early September. This year it is only about 12 inches and there is not enough depth for my boat. My dock can usually only be used until early August each year. This low water situation not only precludes using my boat, but also has a very significant, adverse effect on my property value.

Subject: Document Low Water Costs

This August the Water Levels Summit in Clayton experienced a large and angry attendance. Some were there just to vent their frustration with the unacceptably low water levels, but most were also looking for something they could do to stop it from happening again. If you are interested in preventing another summer like 2007 then we need your help.

A look back at the last two years:

In February of 2006 we had an early spring, resulting in the water level surge we usually see a few months later. The board of control opted to deviate from plan 1958D and let most of this extra water out in order to forestall flood conditions. The result, as we all remember, was a start to our summer in drought-like conditions. Fortunately, we had an unusually wet summer and the board of control was able (by once again deviating from plan 1958D) to restore our water levels to normal by the end of July.

The unusually wet summer turned into an unusually wet fall and then into a wet and warm start to winter. Once again water levels surged to higher than normal levels, and once again the board of control chose to deviate from plan 1958D in an effort to prevent a flood. This time, however, their efforts were followed by a dry spell. Unlike in 2006, when by slowing the outflows the excess rain was able to raise the water levels, in 2007 we did not get the excess rain. The board once again deviated from plan 1958D (noticing a pattern yet?) and slowed the outflows; this time, however, they were only able to slow the rate at which the water dropped. It did continue to drop, because without rainfall the board of control has no means with which to raise the water levels.

A lot of anger was generated on the upper St. Lawrence River this summer. As residents read press releases claiming several inches of water had been "restored" to the lake they saw the water at their docks dropping. The press releases, of course, were referring to what the water levels would have been if plan 1958D had been followed; residents were more concerned with what was actually happening on the river, and "it could have been worse" was no comfort.

The problem this summer, as you may have noticed by now, was not with plan 1958D. The problem was with the way the board of control chose to deviate from the plan. Regardless of which new plan the IJC chooses to adopt there will be circumstances when the board will deviate from the plan. If they continue their current tendencies we will have many more summers like 2007. To prevent this, we must change these tendencies.

High Water and Low Water:

Everyone understands the devastation a flood can cause, and both the IJC and the board of control are aware of the monetary cost of a flood. Consequently they are very sensitive to high water levels and react quickly to prevent disaster. You may recall that in the spring of 2006, while the St. Lawrence was so low, both the Susquehanna River and the Delaware River suffered costly floods. It was our ability to regulate the water levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River which prevented a similar disaster in our area. The board, however, overreacted.

We have all experienced the ability of the board of control to drop our water levels quickly. Every August our water level plummets as they replenish Montreal harbor. A few years ago the eastern sea board was hit with a massive blackout and increased outflows helped restore power to our area quickly, but caused a sharp drop in water levels. (In fact it was this event which led to the board of control considering a water surplus on the lake and the deviations enacted this summer. "It could have been worse" in this case really is true.) Because of this ability, the board's reaction to high water levels do not need to be as quick or as drastic as the current policy.

Fearing a flood, the board of control reacts immediately and drastically to any high water situation. The current policy is to keep water levels at or below normal. If water levels get above average, they deviate from plan 1958D to drop levels below normal and then return to plan; once they return to plan they give nature a chance to restore levels to average and only deviate from plan when the shipping lanes are threatened. Unfortunately for us, they have no way of raising the water level without nature's cooperation. To the board of control, low water is only an inconvenience, while high water is a disaster. It is this misconception we must correct to prevent another summer like 2007, and it is in correcting this misconception that we need your help.

What you can do to help:

We need to document what damage the low water levels have done to you. Only by showing the board of control and the IJC what their current policies are costing can we start to change those policies. Write a letter to the board of control and the IJC explaining (without expletives) how serious a problem this year's water levels are for you, and send us a copy. Including pictures can be helpful. We will collect the letters and forward them as a bundle to elected officials at the state and national levels, so that they learn what the current policies are costing their constituents. Together, we will get them to treat low water levels with as much concern as high water levels and to reevaluate what they classify as low water.

Contact information for the IJC, Board of Control, and IWLC are below. Remember, if we do nothing then we guarantee nothing will happen. Only by becoming pro-active and uniting, can we have an impact.

Sincerely,

Bill Hooper, President IWLC

IJC Contacts:
U.S.: Frank Bevacqua at 1250 23rd St., NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20440
Phone: 202-736-9024, Fax: 202-467-0746, or Email: bevacquaf@washington.ijc.org

Canada: Greg McGillis, 234 Laurier Ave. West, 22nd Floor, Ottawa, ON K1P 6K6
Phone: (613) 947-1420, Fax: (613) 993-5583, or Email: mcgillisg@ottawa.ijc.org

Board of Control Contacts:
U.S.: John Kangas, ISLRBC Secretary, US Section, 111 North Canal St., Chicago, IL 60606-7205
Email: John.W.Kangas@usace.army.mil

Canada: Reg Golding, ISLRBC Secretary, Canadian Section, 200 Kent St. Ottawa, ON K1A 0E6
Email: goldingr@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

IWLC Contacts:
U.S.: P. O. Box 316, Clayton, NY 13624
Canada: P. O. Box 44, Brockville, ON K6V 5T7
Email: nlfoster@twcny.rr.com

SUBJECT: Delay in releasing draft decision on water levels study

PLEASE PUBLISH ON COMMENTS PAGE OF WEBSITE AND FORWARD TO ALL COMMISSIONERS

I am a seasonal (seasonal now defined as May through late August due to the IJC’s failure to properly maintain adequate water levels through the fall) resident of Grenell Island in the US Thousand Islands. I am a member of the IWLC and Save the River and am a kayaker and boater.

As a former government attorney, I have urged patience on the part of my friends and neighbors in the Thousand Islands as the IJC pursued its five year study and subsequent eighteen month delay since the study was published in March 2006. I explained to them the lengthy process the IJC needed to comply with. That fivestep process is clearly outlined on the IJC website at http://www.ijc.org/en/activities/losl/process.php.

This summer, I urged my neighbors to await the September 17 release of the draft plan while water levels continued to drop and seasonal residents left the Thousand Islands. I was dismayed to see the press release on September 10 on the IJC website which in full was as follows:

“IJC extends consultation period with governments on New Regulation Plan for Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels and flows.”

No mention of a new date for release of a draft decision. This action completely contradicts the IJC’s own schedule and “process.” Step 1 (comment period) was supposed to end on September 15, 2006 but had been extended until this month. Step 2 (development of a draft decision) is what the IJC has supposedly been doing since the study’s release eighteen months ago and a draft decision was scheduled for September 17. Stage 3 (public hearings and comments on the draft decision) were scheduled for October and Nov ember. Step 4 (consultation with governments) was not to take place until after a draft decision had been release, public hearings held and comments obtained. Step 5 is supposed to be a release of the final decision.

Instead of following its own protocol, schedule and “process” the IJC leaps from Step 1 to Step 4 and appears to intend to be going back to Step 2 after that (despite Step’s 2 and 3 already being scheduled for this fall). More disturbing are IJC Public Information Officer Frank Bevacqua’s comments in a September 16 interview published in the Watertown Times: 1. “In my view, the commission will not be able to issue a decision by the end of the year.” 2. The IJC needs more time to discuss the outflow options with state and provincial governments. 3. The IJC needs more time because it has concerns about providing compensation if a new plan were to cause any damage on the lake or river It appears to those seasonal residents who enjoy the St. Lawrence River that the IJC is simply buying itself another year of regulation “by hand” using outdated data and without the use of modern technology or science. The IJC apparently is unmoved by the fact that its use of the outdated 1958 plan has shortened the 2007 vacation season in the Thousand Islands by approximately two months and will cause irreparable harm to the economy of the region. Based on its current schedule, it appears water levels for the 2008 season will be similarly mismanaged by failing to make use of the results of a five year, $20,000,000 study released eighteen months ago.

There has been absolutely no reason given as to why the IJC cannot release a draft decision and allow the process to continue under the IJC’s own schedule. Interestingly, other than the press release, the IJC website continues to publicize the process it is now ignoring as though a draft decision is imminent.

I intend to urge my fellow residents of the Thousand Islands to contact their state and federal government representatives to intervene and take control of the process which the IJC is apparently unable or unwilling to move forward for the benefit and protection of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River region and its residents.

Steven Wallach

Grenell Island

Clayton, NY

LOBBYING by Christopher Fearon

Lobbies have a bad reputation in some circles. People view with alarm the influence they exert on Congress and State Legislatures and one hears occasional calls for laws to limit that. The bills to that effect rarely go anywhere because lobbies serve an important function in democratic government: they provide legislators with vast amounts of specialized, detailed information on their fields that nobody else has the time or money to research and present.

Many registered lobbyist, like lawyers, represent their clients honestly and well, but they emphasize only one side of the story. Even in a criminal trial, there are always two sides.

It is not surprising, then, that many people have taken such a view in reacting to the IWLC. However, attending its monthly meetings might surprise them.

Although this writer joined IWLC out of concern with end of the summer shortfalls in the water levels he needed for his boating school and marina in South Bay at the east end of Wellesley Island, he has seen a Board of Directors that debates the various proposals being now considered for regulation of the St. Lawrence River water levels with even-handed objectivity and detachment. They carefully consider the often conflicting interests: the power companies, the south shore of Lake Ontario spokesman, the recreational boating people, the Save the River supporters of the ecology, and the Seaway Authority itself, which speaks for international shipping.

The discussions of which proposal is the best option is not based on presenting a case for any one of these interests. Consistent with IWLC's mission is which proposal provides the fairest compromise between them all.

Recently this has come down to varying interpretations of the statistical data gathered painstakingly by the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River (LOSL) Study Board. Here IWLC is fortunate to have on its Board more than one source of competent analysis. Dalton Foster is well known for his expertise, but discussions are enriched by Professor William Hooper's independent statistical studies. Two Clarkson University students, under the direction of Professor Hooper, are analyzing the LOSL study data as a senior project and considering all interest groups.

IWLC is a deliberative, serious, publicly minded group un-beholden to any one of the interests. Unlike an attorney, they are volunteers committed by their mission to fairness for all parties. Yes, they are lobbying, but lobbying for the common good.