Living With The Lakes: Challenges and Opportunities

Annex C Interests, Policies, and Decision Making: Prospects for Managing the Water Levels Issue in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

~----------------------­~

'

l !

I I \ 1

LIVING WITH THE LAKES:

CHALLENGES

AND

OPPORTUNITIES

ANNEX C

INTERESTS, POLICIES AND DECISION MAKING: PROSPECTS FOR MANAGING THE WATER LEVELS ISSUE IN THE GREAT LAKES - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN

PREPARED BY FUNCTIONAL GROUP 3 FOR THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM

International Joint Commission Water Levels Referenc~ Study

JUNE,. 1989

.....

' f

PHASE 1 REPORT OUTLINE IJC FLUCTUATING WATER LEVELS STUDY

MAIN REPORT

ANNEX A - PAST AND FUTURE WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS

ANNEX B - ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, PROCESSES AND IMPACTS: AN ECOSYSTEM PERSPECTIVE ON THE GREAT LAKES - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER SYSTEM

ANNEX C - INTERESTS, POLICIES AND DECISION MAKING: PROSPECTS FOR MANAGING THE WATER LEVELS ISSUE IN THE GREAT LAKES - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN

ANNEX D - THE GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER LEVELS MANAGEMENT

ANNEX E - POTENTIAL ACTIONS TO DEAL WITH THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF FLUCTUATING WATER LEVELS

ANNEX F - EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

ANNEX G - PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM

'Dlis document reflects oantrib.It:ians fran a large l'DJid::)er of people, includin;J memhem of FGJ, imividuals affiliated elsamere in the Reference study and with cxx::perat:in; agencies, and membem of the p.lblic at large. An inventoey of FGJ participants is provided in ~ 5, am the numerous contacts and infonuatiat swrc:es enployed in this exercise are documented in ~ 4. We gratefully ackncwleek;Je these substantive materials, d::lsel:vatioos, criticisms am S\lg(JE!S'tions, many of whidl \tt'ere sq:plied within tight time OCilS'traints and ll1'X1er other ocnii.tians whidl \tt'ere far fran ideal.

Sectiat 7 of this Report is largely based at the workin] doc:::uments prepared by joint u.s. - canada teams, listed in ~ 4. '1he cc:upilatiat of these documents am the intel:pretatioos in this Annex in=luded extensive involvement with representatives of various interests. sectians 5 and 9 draw heavily upa1 the work of Mike IDlahue. Various sections of the Armex benefitted fran critiques by imividuals outside FGJ, notably Reid K:ruetzwiser, Bd::> Roden, Pearl z.t::Keen, Doog Brown, Rdoert Spargo, Bruce Mitchell, and Ruth Edgett. '!be cc:upilatiat of the manuscript was greatly assisted by Madeleine ward.

We sin=erely thank all these who oontril:::utecl to this Armex. Of ocurse, the document, in=ludi.n;J its cq::proach, intel:pretations, cx:n:l.usians and erro:rs, remains fully the responsibility of the authors. '1he autho:rs are:

c-i

Section·

1. .

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Dtll!iRBS'lS, :Rl'IJ:C!'IES & ~=­lHOSt"B!lS J.I[R IIMWmC 'lBB 1lld'f2 IBV£[S :mstlE

. D 'lBB GR!'A'r IAB1!S - In. I.M1R1H:Z RI.'VBt 11\SDf

INll:'QXJCI'ION

M'AW\GEMEN1' ~ 2 .1· Int::roduction 2. 2 Fhysical Set:t.i.rg 2. 3 Socio-Ecx::lnanic Set:t.i.rg 2. 4 Governaroe. Setti.rg 2. 5 Decision Maki.rg Set:t.i.rg 2. 6 Inplications For '!his Report

1HE INIERESIS

MFASURES 4.1 Classification and Types of MeasUres 4.2 Who Inplenents the MeasUres? 4. 3 Who Pays for the MeasUres?

R>LICY' 'lHEMES OF GOVERNMENI' REIAT.ED 'R> 1HE IAl(E u.vELS ISSUE 5.1 Int::roduction 5.2 I..cx:::us of Authority for Policy Maki.rg 5. 3 General Policy 'lhemes 5. 4 Specific Policy Related to the lake I.svels Issue 5. 5 SUlmlal:y

lNI'.ERPREl'ING lNl!.ERES'IS' IQSITIOOS 6.1 Int::roduction 6. 2 '!he Basis for Interests' Decisions to

!.ocate and Use the Lakes 6. 3 '!be Formation of Expectations 6.4 Interests Petition Govemments

c-ii

Page

c- i

c- v

c- 1

c- 3

c- 6 c- 6 c- 6 c- 14 c- 15 c- 16 c- 17

c- l9

c- 22 c- 22 c- 24 c- 25

c- 29 c- 29 c- 31 c- 33 c- 37 c- 47

c- 49 c- 49

c- 5o c- 52 c- 53

Secticm Page

7o R:Srri<N; OF ntiERESI'S c- 56 J 7o1 Introducti.cm c- 56 l

' 7o2 Riparian c- 57 1 7o3 Environmental Interest GrCl.1p c- 67 f 7o4 Electric Pc:Mer c- 72 ; 7o5 ·Transportaticm c- 78 i 7o6 Qmnercialjindustrial c- 82 i 7o7 Recreation c- 88

7o8 Omne.rcial. Fi.shin;J c- 94 7o9 Agriculture c- 97 7 o10 Native Nations C-100 7 oll Gove.mments c-104 7 o12 SUnlnary C-109

8o FUroRE UNCERrAIN1'IES C-113 8 o1 Introduction C-113 8 0 2 Rlysical Environment C-113 8o3 Eoonanic Activity C-114 8 0 4 Government l:'olicy C-115 8 o 5 Plannirq in the FUture C-115

9o GOVERNMENrAL <l'RGANIZATI~ AND 'lHE DECISI~ MAim«; mx:::ESS C-117 9 o1 '!he Role of Government Organizations C-117 9 o 2 Inventocy of Government Organizations C-118 9 o 3 '!he Issue of CQ!plexity C-124 9 o 4 '!he CUrrent Decision Mald.n:J Process C-127 9 o 5 Toward Enhanced Decision Mald.n:J capacity C-129

10o FINDn«;S & ~~ C-138 10 o1 S\mmal:y of Fin:lin;Js C-138 10 o 2 Rec::c:mnemations C-140

APPENDICES

1o RIPARIAN SURVEY'

2o GlOSSARY

3 o BIBLIOGRAPHY

4o SCXlRCES OF INPORMATI~

5o LIST OF PARI'ICIPANTS m FG3

c-iii

Iml' OF miD.S Page

c-4-1 leVels of Goveznment to Il'lplement Actions c- 24

LIS!' OF F.IQlRES

c-2-1 Great Lakes - st. Iawrenoe Navigation System c- 7

c-2-2 .lake Erie water I.evels am Precipitation c- 11

c-2-3 Frequency of Oocurrenoe of levels c- 13

c-4-1 ltllo Pays? c- 21

c-7-1 Distr:ib.Ition of Pop.ilation c- sa

c-7-2 Electrical Pc1.<1er Lines am Generati.n;J stations c- 73

c-7-3' Profile of Great Iak'.s - st. Lawrence Navigation System c- 79

c-7-4 Enployment am In:lustrial structure c- 83

c-7-5 Recreation c- 89

c-7-6 I.ani use c- 98

c-7-7 Distr:ib.Ition of Native Nations C-102

c-iv

••~·-~ca~~-·-•. ~,~~-•:•:a•~---~-~--.. ·~-~--~u .. ~.-:•.•-•u•z ..... , .. a•e• ... ~ . .t•u•zwa•u•a•.~-•~.tlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

'lbe broad pnp:lSe of the IJC water IBvels Refererx:x! Sb.xly is to examine the recurrin:J prt:blems posed by fluctuati.rq water levels in the Great lakes - st. I.awJ:enoe River Basin am to assist gcverr'lllet1t: in dec:icii.n;J what might be dale to deal with the issue. 'lhis upnt z:epresents a di.stiJx:t ocntril::utioo to the achievement of that p.u:pose, by see1ti.D) to better underst.ard the scx::ial, eoaxmic am political dimensiCilS of the issue ani the al-90in:J challen;Je to gcMm'1lllei'Its. It fOCilSes a1 interests' ClCI'D!mS, their views of the prt:blems ani solutiCilS, ani how these relate to the z:espa15:ibllities of governments. 'lbe intent is to identify the key elements of the political challen;Je to govemment:s1 in particular, the reasa1S why interests petition governments for acti.at, ani what government :respalSe, if aey, is called for. '1hese ooncems ani positialS of interests are CXIIpared to the stated mandates of governments, together with the cuneu.t kncwled:;Je abcut fluctuati.rq water levels ani associated ecological pz:ooesses. 'lbe f.irx:lin;Js :fran this awroach provide a basis for identifyin:J actioos of govemment.s which can address the management issues associated with fluctuati.D; water levels.

Within the Great lakes - st. I.awrenoe River Basin there are Dlll.tiple interests 'Who have made decisialS to use the lakes in anticipation of receivin:J certain benefits. 'lbe interests have been categorized into the follCM:i.rq classes: riparians (shoreline property owners), envi.ra1mental gro.JpS, electric power, transportation, (X'II'IIIAl"Cial ani irx!ustrial c::nrpanies, recreationists, (X'II'IIIAl"Cial fishirg, ani agricultural interests, native natialS, ani agerx:ies of governments. When interests' expectatiCilS abcut gains ani costs associated with their use of the lakes are nat met, they often petitioo govemments for actioo. At ather times, interests may perceive that sane actiCI'l by governments can :i.Jiprave or worsen their situatioo, even if they have nat experienced ~ :fran their dec:isioo to use the lakes. As a result, these interests may petitioo governments to adept or reject measures that will affect their welfare. Gavemments beo "e particularly sensitized to the issue \hm interests petitioo for actioo.

'lbe analysis shc:7Ns that the experiences, factual ~ ani values of the interests vary greatly :both cmrn:J ani within interest classes. 'lhis situaticn makes it extnmely difficult to establish a basis for evaluati.rq the merit of interests' petitialS am the ~iateness of goveuauent actialS. O:nlequently 1 the awroacn taken in this investigatial has been to distill exi.stin;J policy t:belles or guidinJ principles of government, am use them to guide the analysis rather than to establish entirely new jndgenent en government respcns:ibllity 0

InvestigatiCilS reveal that disoemiJ:)le am 0' Filii n ten:Blcies in policy exist between the govemment:s of the two countries. 'lbe policy t:belles pertinent to the water levels management issue have been identified as follows:

0 Gavernaents seek to pt:UIDte "infoz:med" dec:isial mak:in;J by interests.

o GoveJ:nments seek to pz:awte "z:espa1S:ible" dec:isioo mald.n} by interests.

o GoYeuiDE!I'Its seek to assme nsilierq' of inteJ::ests to adapt to natural haza%ds.

o GoYeJ:DDents seek to prc:mote the devel.op~ent of the eccmauy, subject to the J.Dperatives of laq teJ:m envircnDental protectim

o GoveJ:riDents seek to pzCD:Jte, and expect to have, an "cpen" pl.anni.rg process, qivin;J Dllltiple inteJ::ests ao:ess to decisiat liBkinq pzocesses.

~ policy thalles provide the foundatiat for int:.el:preti.n the positioos of the interests, and for isolatin;J these instances where gcvemment actia1 is wan:anted, msed upcn policy.

~ ~ used to intexpl:et the positials of interests in light of the policies arxl respcx15ibilities of gavemments has SCU3ht to \.1l'lderst:am the decisiat process interests go t:hrc:u;Jh, either ccn;ciously or sul:x:xxlsciously, when c:hoosin;J to use the lakes am related land resources, am how am when sucn use results in calls for gcwerrment actia1. 'lhis study has identified foor areas wilere petitiarl.n;J relates directly to the established :respa'lSibility of federal gcwermoents. 'lhese are when the interests' position seems to be re1.ated to:

o sw::prise due to inadequate infcmnatia1,

o lack of msilierq' to natural hazards,

0 benefit enhancement,

0 cost shiftin;.

~analysis of Wrly the interests take their positioos am how their concerns am BJti.vatioos re1.ate to the policies of qavemments reveals that many of the interests were "suzprised" by saoe element of the Great lakes system, sudl as the levels, the degree of flood.iD3 or erosia1, or the failure of qovemments to do sanet:hil'g aba.1t these t:hin;Js. 'lhis "smprise" is relevant to gcwen"IIIE!nts because of their cxmni'bnent to "infonned and responsible" decision makin;J. Also a CCX'lCem to govemments is lack of resilierx:y by interests to the costs of natural hazards, when this lack of resiliency reflects a failure in prtiiDt.in:J infcmued invesbDent decisioos or when it threatens an eoonani.c sector or creates wide:spzead hardship. Salle petitiCI1S by interests seem to seek a shiftin;J of costs associated with an invesbDent to others, in partiall.ar the envira1ment or the general talcpayer. Gavemment policies di.soan'age cost shiftin; and seek to protect the env.izalllellt. other interests SUAXJlt"t measums that would enhance their investments. 'lhis is SCillethin;J govemments might~ of, but nat if it requires DOii.fication of the P'IYsical system at pmlic expense or at oost to the envi.ra"ment.

Investigatims fam:l that measures to regulate levels an::l flc:7NS (Type 1) receive the DOlt attentioo freD interests, with SlJRX)rt. CXIl1i.nl ~ly fran riparian gra.JpS am with qp:15itial pranmced in envi.ra'1mental interests. 'lhose nat seekilx] Type 1 measures petition for the status quo or m:>re

c-vi

localized respa'lSes. Generally, there is limited lcmwlED:je of, ani little widespread Sl.JRX)rt for measures which directly restrict (Type 3} or irxtirectly influence (Type 4} the uses of laJ:d and water. However, there does awear to be general, if unfnotsed, Sl.JRX)rt for measures enhancin;J infcmuaticm, particularly aba.tt the physical systan.

'lhe .insti.t:utialal. analysis reveals that the pmoess for ~ :resc:uroe use decisicms has grown increasin;Jly ocmplex. Fiscal and envira'mental oc:nrtraint:s em governments are m::u:e pi'a'DlOOSd, and a m::u:e active ];Ublic daDan:Js a place in the decisicm p:ocess. Despite governments' cxmni.tment to ];Ublic involvement, sudl participaticm is mt adli.eved within the current decisicm mald.nq structures. HJch of the di sagzeemeut aver the issue can be traoed to the cuuent instituticma.l ~ which are not designed to facilitate DUtual leamin:j or ntSOluticm of disp.Ites. l!lrlle the gavemance settin:;J is ext.raDely ocmplex, this ocmplexity does mt awear to be the primal:y instituticma.l prcblan, which seea& to lie m::u:e with the traditiCilal. tedmical methods of evaluaticm. Artj decisicm ~ process DJJSt recognize the dynamic ani unoert:am nature of the system and 'WOrk within its' cx:aplexities. SaDe alternative decisicm makin;J p:ocesses are available which work towards OCI'lSe11SUS l:W.l.din;J as an awroac:h to deal with ccmflicts inherent in the water levels issue and decisicm ~.

~ l"iendaticms to federal governments have been organized into six broad categories which together make up an acticm progxam. '!he main reoc:mnemations are that:

o GoveJ:nments ocmfirm/articulate their policies and respa'lSibilities.

o GaveJ::nments det:emine specific infoz:matial needs aba.tt the Great Lakes Basin systaD ani develc::p awzcpriate infomaticm bases.

o Govemments establish vehicles for, ani OCIIIIdt to, the use of 0CIIIIIll1icaticms.

o GaverriDents make clear that new Type 1 measures are extumely unlikely to be illplemented in the foreseeable future.

0 GovenDent cxmni.t ~te resan:oes to the design ani develqment of meaSIJl.'e other than regul.at.OJ:y works.

o GaverriDents establish oattinqency plans for exb:eme events.

e-vil

FtRKR)

'1be canadian am United states federal govemments . sent a ReferetX:e (August ·1986) to the Intematiooal Joint Omni.ssicm to stuiy the recurrin;J problems posed by fluctuatin;J water levels in the Great Lakes - st. I.awrelx:e River Basin an:i to report al actiCI1S which governments might take to manage the issue. '!be stn1cture established for this st:u:!y was a Project Management Team, OCIIprised of five FUnctional Grc:Alps, dealin;J with such dimensions as hydrology, coastal ecology am rescm:oes, social am eoonanic ill'pacts, plblic participation, am system synthesis. 'lhe products of the st:u:!y are captured in a series of Annex repor:ts, which correspord to saoe degree to the F\mctimal groops, am a main report.

'Ibis dncnment ioool:porates the prin::ipal products of F\mctiooal Groop 3 (FG3) , Socio-Ec:::x:n:IDic and Envircnmental. Assessment. '1be initial n!SpOI'lSibilities of FG3 incl'LKB:l developin;J a framework to assist in the evaluaticm of CD.JrSes of actim, designi.rg an invento:r:y of neasw:es, identifyin;J relevant interests, assessi.n;J socio-eoonanic am environmental inpacts, am considerin;J the policy am institutiooal context within which decisions are made. Prelllnina:r:y investigations in:iicated that conventional ~roaches to assessi.n;J .llrpacts, develq81 largely for specific projects, were irJawropriate for :r:esolvin;J the management dilemnas associated with fluctuati.n;J water levels. 'Ibis report adq)ts a different ~roach, in which an ~ of the perspectives am responsibilities of the :r;ublic am of govenmmts is :fu1'x:1amental.

Gavemments make decisions abaJt the laws which regulate am constrain in:iividual behavioor am those which det:el:mine the raisin;J and spendin;J of revenues. '!be management of water am related lam resources for the Great Iakes - st. ~ River Basin requires continuirq attention to these governmental roles, as dalaiSb:ated by the issues am concerns expressed un:ler the cun::ent water Ievels Refererx:lP study. '1be necessity for joint decisions aver the inte:rnational waters of the Great Iakes cx:uplicates the govemmental decisim challeR]P. To facilitate decisions where joint action between canada am the united states is neoessa:r:y, the Ba.Jrnary waters Treaty of 1909 created the Intematicna.l Joint Ccmnissian (IJC) am enpcwered it with specific autnorities for facilitatin;J bi-national decision makin;J an water resoor:ces. 'lbe snooess of the IJC has been associated with early actions that addressed the potential am merit of lake levels management, am the resultin;J inplement:atial of such actiCI1S. !b:e :receJJt IJC 81P1asis has been placed uPon water cpll.ity CXIO!mS. However the issues associated with lake levels ocntinle to be assigned to the IJC for review.

After the high water pericxl of 1985-86, the canadian am united states federal gcyenaents requested that the IJC report to them on the pl:Oblems posed to basin interests by fluctuatin:J lake levels am that it provide an assessment of measures which might be CXIlSidered for addressin;J such problems. In this J:ega:rd, this. latest referetX:e is part of a lcxq traditial of bi-naticmal. efforts to define a strategy for managin;J the lakes am human uses of the Basin.

C-1

'j

[ ; t'•

HcJwever, in recent decades them have been dlan;Jes in the manner in llhlch gcvemments make J:eSCm'Ce management am investment decisioos. SUch decisions have been c:pened up to a larger p.Jblic. As 'Well, criteria used by goverrunents to cbaracterize the nature of water resan:oe problems arxi to dlccse a;prc:priate actioos have been mcclified. 'lhe a.u:rent decision !~~akin] system is r0t1 far DDre c::xmplex than was the case at the time of the Boundary waters Treaty. 'Jhis c::xmplexity is evi.derx:8i in an array of :reswroe management :policies, numera.u; governnental instituti.oos llhlch have sane authority on lake and shoreline use, and widely expamed c:::gxrturrl.ties for interests • aooess to and influence em decisicm JDalcin.;J. Today, more is required than an evaluaticm of hydrology, En}ineerirq, oosts am eoaxmic develcpnent :benefits, SlJR)lemented by a plblic infomaticm functicm, in order to establish the extent of the prcblan, the cgx:ntunities for managirq the issue, am the merits of specific measures. Evaluaticm is l'10ii done as a process of p.Jblic (interest) interactial, whic:n llllSt be~ by tec:tmi.cal analysis.

.. . -'lhe water levels issue demarxJs a new type of management. By themselves, the conventional ·cptions of resc:m:oe management {attenptirY;J to control the P1ysical envirament to suit human activities) or shoreline management (attenpt.in;J to caJLtol human activities to acx::amtodate the }ilysical envirament) are insufficient to actiress the situation in the Great Lakes Basin. 'Jhis xeport adepts a broader, issue management perspective, llhlch focuses upon the OCI'10el:l'lS of interested parties am relates these to the :responsibilities of gcwen1lllellts and the decision mak:irg process. Resalrce management and shoreline management represent possible actions within this broader management dlallen;Je. '

In :respcn;e to this new plannirx] environment, am :reflect.in;J the nature arrl scope of the water levels issue, this :report is stJ:uctured to identify the .i.np;diments arrl prospects for iltproved issue management. 'Ihis involves establi.shin;J the c:xntext within which interested parties respord to c:::han1in;J oonii.tians arrl interact with gc:Mm'1111el'lt. It involves an exploration of the gove.tTBDent policies and the i.nsti'bltions through llhlch ·decisions a:re :reached. It involves gai.nin;J an l.1D:ierst.anti of how the interests view the problem arrl why they adqJt certain perspectives. '1hls analysis leads to a synopsis of the responsibilities of i.n:iividuals, organizations arrl governments, am provides specific directions for govexnment action to help manage the water levels issue.

C-2