International Joint Commission
Transcript of Public Hearing
International Upper Great Lakes Study Board Final Report
Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
RICHARD HARVEY (Mayor, Township of Nipigon) Thank you very
much. I really appreciate the opportunity…
JOE
COMUZZI
(Chair,
Canadian
Section,
International
Joint
Commission): What’s your name, young man?
RICHARD HARVEY: Mayor Richard Harvey, Township of Nipigon,
here speaking both as Mayor of Nipigon, of course, but also as somebody who
has very much spent my lifetime on this lake. I grew up on the lake, the lake is
the water.
Just to give you a little history of where I’m coming from as well, Nipigon
is at the mouth of the Nipigon River, which actually is the largest diversion in the
lakes: 12.8 billion litres of water a day is diverted from the Arctic watershed into
the Great Lakes. I always tell the Mayor of Chicago we’re waiting for his cheque
for all the water we send him, but he hasn’t sent it yet. But so water levels are
very important to us, and this is something that is very integrated (?).
A couple of things that in looking at this, that we’re very pleased to see.
Very happy that we’re talking about dealing with a multi-lake approach. In the
1
past, we have recognized that there have been times when we in northwestern
Ontario have felt that the emphasis has been on all of the areas in the lower Great
Lakes, and Lake Superior and our water levels seem to be neglected. And I think
it’s very important that we remember that any decisions that impact any lake, we
have to take into account what’s happening here on Lake Superior.
As well, with the adaptive management strategy that’s spoken of there, I
think that’s another thing that’s very important. One of the things that as we read
through this, a concern that is there is…I’ve seen, as I’ve looked through the
small amount – and I will admit I haven’t had as much time with it as I’d like to –
but we talk about very much the idea of balance, talking about the environmental
impacts, about the economic benefits and the ease of regulation, one thing that I
know that we have struggled with low water levels – and I know the City of
Thunder Bay has had issues, whether it’s low or high water levels – is with
potential impact on municipal infrastructure.
There are a number of municipalities throughout the region that have their
water intakes at locations that the cost of relocating if we start getting out of the
working area would be very expensive.
I think it’s very important, in that
adaptive management strategy, that the whole issue of municipal infrastructure
and the impact…and that includes, there are a lot of areas throughout our area,
First Nation and others, where they are on septic systems that may be close, and if
we have flooding issues, those could potentially be issues as well, so I think it is
very important.
2
And municipalities, we desire to address these issues, we want to work on
these issues, we want to make sure that we are being responsible citizens, but at
the same time we need assistance.
And so recognizing the important role that municipalities play in this plan,
recognizing in dealing with the infrastructure issues that could be potentially
affected, when we look and we talk about the fact that there are considerable
uncertainties remaining regarding future climate and its impact on the Great
Lakes hydrology, with that in mind, I think it’s really important that the role of
municipalities be really highlighted and a very strong voice for the municipalities
be there.
And I think that it needs to be voices from throughout the entire area, not
just from one particular small little zone, you need the rural voices, you need the
urban voices, you need the northern and the southern, and we need to be looking
at the Great Lakes as a whole.
So those are just a couple of the things that I want to make people aware of
and to really encourage. Good things in here. The multi-lake approach, thank
you. This is something we’ve been asking for a long time. Every time the water
level goes super low, we saw it this spring, St. Mary’s, they opened it up earlier,
it was the 15th I think they opened it, it was one of the earlier years they opened it,
and we watched our levels just dropping, and we have concerns with our
recreational uses and navigational uses in our marinas and areas up here.
3
Taking all of this into account I think is very important. So with that in
mind, we appreciate it, let’s make sure the municipal voice is there. Let’s make
sure we’re looking at a balance between environmental impacts, economic
benefits, ease of regulation, and the impact on municipal infrastructure as well.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you, Keith. Thank you, Richard. And that
was a very good report, very much appreciated.
RICHARD HARVEY: Thank you. And thank you for all of the hard
work you’re doing, and keep it up.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Did you get your secondary treatment plant?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes. I have…one of the things that is so important
to us…and anyone who knows me, and people around the Great Lakes, all of the
mayors around the Great Lakes know, and Mayor Hobbs and I have had some
very extensive talks recently about the importance of dealing with the issues of
combined sewer systems.
We have done two things, Commissioner. We have both separated, so we
have total sewer separation now. Our waste water and our storm water are totally
separated, so if there is a rain event, that water and the waste water is not going
through our sewer system anymore.
And we also have completed our treatment plant. Thank you very much to
the hard work…I know as our MP previously, you worked very hard trying to get
that moving…
JOSEPH COMUZZI: I didn’t ask you the question for that. (LAUGHS)
4
RICHARD HARVEY: But no, I want to give you that credit, and so we
are in the process now of going through the delisting process as an area of
concern.
I am also proud to say that when we built our sewage treatment plant, we
recognized that by having addressed the problem of combined sewers – because
that’s no longer a problem – we have set up our plant so that we cannot have a
bypass, because we are convinced that we will never need to bypass our system
because we have addressed the concern with that. So we will never again have
any sewer being bypassed our plant and going into the Great Lakes.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you very much, Richard. The next presenter
will be Mayor Hobbs from the City of Thunder Bay. That mayor from Nipigon is
a tough act to follow.
KEITH HOBBS (Mayor, City of Thunder Bay):
Thank you very much.
Mayor Keith Hobbs, from Thunder Bay. I also sit on the board of directors for
the Great Lakes North Cities Initiative, just elected secretary treasurer of that
initiative. And we just finished meetings in Quebec City, we talked about some
of these very things.
A few months ago, I believe it was back in March, Mayor Harvey and I
met with Minister Bradley on the Great Lakes Protection Act as well that’s
forthcoming, and what I would like to see is a concerted effort between the
federal government, the provincial government and the U.S. government as well
when formulating that angle, what’s going to (inaudible). But municipalities, we
5
spoke about municipalities being involved at the ground level. You know, we
have a lot to say and a lot to add to those kinds of things when they’re being
formulated.
Storm water management program…(inaudible)...climate change and we
spoke about it in Quebec, Thunder Bay, as you know, was hit with one of the
largest natural disasters that I can remember since I’ve lived in Thunder Bay, and
Duluth shortly after that were hit with the same thing. So climate change is here
to stay, and if that’s the way it’s going to go, then I don’t think we have to worry
about low water levels, I think we’re going to have to worry about the opposite,
but we don’t know that.
Invasive species as well - and I know that’s not the topic here, the topic is
water levels – but there has to be a coordinated effort. The Asian carp was
probably the biggest threat to not only Lake Superior, but all of the Great Lakes.
So what’s happening in Chicago basin is going to have a great effect on Thunder
Bay, Lake Superior, and all of the fishing industry that goes with that.
So we all have to be on the same page on that. So we have to coordinate
our efforts – federally, provincially, municipally, and with our U.S counterparts
as well. So that would be the biggest thing.
I think we need some storm water management programs. Thunder Bay is
working on separation. Richard Harvey, the Mayor of Nipigon, has already
spoken on that. We have been working on that for 15 years and we still have a lot
6
of work to do on that, but we’re trying to make our city’s storm waters separated
from waste water.
One other thing I wanted to touch on too is clean-up funds. And Mr.
Comuzzi, you are well aware of (inaudible) and that situation. We have a lot
more of those issues (inaudible)...lot more contaminated areas that haven’t been
addressed, they’re called areas of concern.
And definitely, we need funds and we need help to clean up those areas. I
know I’m covering a lot more than what we’re talking about here, but I think it’s
important to get that out.
And that’s about basically it. I just think that we have to coordinate our
efforts and make sure that we’re on the same page, especially with (inaudible)...I
don’t want to see them overlapping or duplicating what the Great Lakes Cities
Initiative is doing and what this committee is doing.
DERETH GLANCE (Commissioner, U.S. Section, International Joint
Commission): Actually, Mayor Hobbs, thank you very much. And I wanted to
address…aquatic…invasive species is actually something that the Study Board
took at look at.
Especially when water levels are lower, there’s an opportunity for native
species to come back that haven’t seen that kind of environment, when the water
levels are down, but there’s also an encouragement that folks may have
(inaudible) look, my beach is bigger, I’m going to groom it, I’m going to do
something else.
7
So I think there’s some really significant land use issues that are
completely outside of the IJC’s jurisdiction, but something that municipalities
definitely have a role in how you manage what happens when water levels
fluctuate, if there is, you know, if we have low water levels for a number of years
and then high water levels, what those practices that folks are doing right there on
the beach.
Asian carp, as you know, Canada just helps support a significant
contribution towards the effort to reduce the threat of Asian carp, crossing over
the Chicago sanitary ship canal into Lake Michigan and getting into the system,
and so that continues to be an issue that we’re monitoring outside of the scope of
this particular report.
But I do want to go back to the multi-lake issues, and the proposal of the
Board is this adaptive management or water levels advisory committee, and I
really think that the points…I want to make sure that you understand that we
heard your points loud and clear about the importance of municipalities being at
the table and dealing with municipal infrastructure issues.
We also recognize that adaptive management is not coming out of one
single budget of any agency, and so we’re going to all have to play together, in a
collaborative way, to make sure that we are making informed decisions and learn
as we continue to address the realities of climate change. Thank you very much
for your comments.
8
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you. The next presenter is Levina Collins (?)
from Nipigon.
LEVINA COLLINS: Oh, I’m not presenting, thank you.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: You’re not?
LEVINA COLLINS: No…
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Levina, this is the first time I’ve ever been to a
meeting where you haven’t done something. (LAUGHS)
LEVINA COLLINS: I am listening.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Oh you’re listening today. Okay, so you’re just an
interested observer and you want to be sent updates in the mail. Thank you. How
about Bill Hryb…do you want to make a presentation, Bill? Bill, you know, was
a tremendous support on one of the committees that was involved in this five-year
report. I thought he was living in Ottawa there for a little while.
BILL HRYB: Thank you very much for providing me the privilege of
being involved in the five-year study with the IUGLS. I have been a commercial
navigation representative for Canada, and it’s an honour to represent that group.
Now as you know, Thunder Bay is a maritime community. We derive our
importance from commercial navigation. We have been a maritime community
since the fur trade.
Now the Port of Thunder Bay, as you know, is the gateway to the west, to
the east, and it’s very important for us for the IJC to recognize that commercial
navigation interests – not only in Thunder Bay, but throughout all of the St.
9
Lawrence Seaway system – is vital to a very important economic base for the
entire continent.
And it’s great to have Mr. Comuzzi, who is from Thunder Bay, to head the
Canadian chair of the IJC, and thank you for doing that.
Basically, basically, the commercial navigation interests, we represent…or
the Shipping Federation, that I am a part of, represents the owners, the operators,
and agents involved in the Canada international trade. So it’s really crucial that
the IJC puts us…we’d like to be front and center of this whole study. However,
we know that we are an integral part of the other areas, and there has to be a
balance in this study.
And as you know, commercial navigation is…the efficiency of marine
traffic is vital and it’s something that we have to look forward to for years to
come. And all I can say is please put commercial navigation on the front burner,
not only for Thunder Bay, but for the rest of the seaway system. Thanks again.
JOSEPH COMUZZI:
Bill, just before you leave, I mean, there’s a
tremendous future here, and you know about it more than anyone else in the
room, with respect to the mining development that’s going north of us, the Ring
of Fire, and the necessity of transportation of the mining industry that’s going to
be coming out…what is it, the chrome…the additional iron ore that’s…well, they
all need maritime transportation (inaudible)...
BILL HRYB: Absolutely.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: So do you just want to talk about that for a minute?
10
BILL HRYB: Certainly. (inaudible)...I wrote an article for the Canadian
Sailing Transportation magazine highlighting the importance of Thunder Bay and
what it could look like when the Ring of Fire development gets over the hurdles
that they have. And of course, the people involved have very legitimate concerns
about their welfare and their ways of life.
So when these hurdles are addressed and looked after, I think Thunder Bay
has a tremendous future, in particular the Port of Thunder Bay, to have access to
these materials. And we certainly could develop a mode of shipping tremendous
amounts of product very safely, cheaply, economically I should say, and really it
could be the start of something really important for Thunder Bay.
As you know, the grain industry has taken a hit over the last five or six
years. We used to average, as you know, Mr. Comuzzi, in the 80s, early 80s, late
70s, we were averaging between 11 and 17 million tonnes of grain.
Of course, when the Soviet Union collapsed in ’92, that all went the way
of the dodo, per se. But anyway, we’re averaging 5-6 million tonnes of grain
annually. It’s a far cry from what we did.
But this new development certainly is something that we will look forward
to. I know the Port Authority, with Tim Heney and his group there, have been
looking at this with a very keen eye, and hopefully we could be partners in this
development.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you very much, Bill, thank you very much.
11
DERETH GLANCE:
And of course, commercial navigation is listed
second in order of preference right behind our domestic and sanitary uses,
followed by our power and irrigation, in the order of preference in the Treaty.
And so, well, Tammy Cook, you filled out a card, would you like to make a
comment?
TAMMY COOK: No…
DERETH GLANCE:
Okay, thank you.
Shirley, you indicated
that…Shirley Dolph, you indicated that you wanted to be kept up to date, but
we’re hoping that you might want to speak (inaudible)...
SHIRLEY DOLPH: My name is Shirley Dolph. I am (inaudible)...it’s on
Birch Beech Road, and we overlook (inaudible)...it’s a sleepy town but it’s a
wonderful view. But we’ve been there since the early 1960s, and in 1970 we
started building our cottage.
But anyway, we always had lots of water to play in and swim in and boat
in, and we were able to keep our boat docked at a dock all the time. But in recent
years, we haven’t been able to use our boat and I had to sell it because the water
was so low, we couldn’t go boating anymore. And now it’s gotten to the point
where we can’t even go swimming because we have walk out about 300 metres
out there to get into deeper waters.
So I thought I should bring that to your attention, because our
grandchildren, they’re just 12 and 9, they were in yesterday, and they were
12
(inaudible)…out there trying to find in an area to swim in a little deeper water,
and they’re not that tall. So again, it’s really bad now.
And I noticed…like, for years, though, we had a really low water level,
and we had lots of rain in August and the first part of September, and the water
went right up to our dock, and that (inaudible)...dock in recent years, of course.
But anyway, the water was right up there, and then one week later, it’s right down
to nothing.
So I think they’re letting way too much water wherever it is, St.
Mary’s River, wherever they let all that water go, or is it the bottling companies
that take all the water.
Of course, every fall, the water drops about a foot and a half, and that’s a
big drop. And we used to get lots of fish that come to spawn in front of our basin
(inaudible)...but they’re not coming to spawn anymore because there’s
(inaudible)... to come up to. They would come about 20 feet close to shore to
spawn, and now you don’t see them anymore. And so those are all my concerns.
Thank you.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you very much. Well, thank you for...
DERETH GLANCE: Thank you very much.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: That’s your job, you thank her.
DERETH GLANCE: Commissioner Knott, is there...
LYALL KNOTT (Commissioner, Canadian Section, International Joint
Commission): Yes?
13
DERETH GLANCE: I wanted to make sure I had the opportunity to
recognize you. Do you have any comments?
LYALL KNOTT: Thank you. No, just taking notes and doing a lot of
listening.
DERETH GLANCE: Excellent.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: The Whiteside family...do you want to make some
comments or do I understand that you just want us to carry on and find out who is
responsible for the levels?
ROBERT WHITESIDE: I’ll speak.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Well, yeah.
ROBERT WHITESIDE: My name is Robert Whiteside. I am a small
businessman in Thunder Bay. First, I want to thank you for having this, because
it would have been so easy to overlook...because your jobs are very, very
involved, a lot of moving parts that have to be brought together. So I really
appreciate the opportunity to hear what you guys actually have to (inaudible).
My concern...as I say, I’ve lived in Thunder Bay all my life, and I am a
small business person here, and I have an interest in the Lake Superior level. I
would like to, you know, have this expanded. It’s been said there that they would
like to get the municipalities more involved in the...in what’s going on.
Well, I would like to expand that to include the provincial ministries, okay,
because I know that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the
Environment, you know, have representation on your board or have input, but I
14
don’t think that’s getting through to the local offices, the district offices, because
when the lake level was down about three feet or thereabouts a few years ago, the
local offices were very, very concerned. And I when I suggested to them that
they talk to the IJC to find out what’s going on, they just threw up their hands, oh,
gee whiz, that’s like a fortress in the sky, no one talks to them, you know.
So I think that if there was a way of incorporating comments from the
district managers, all of a sudden you would get the concerns that the biologists
on the ground are having. And I think that this is important, because these are the
people who watch the fish habitat, who watch what’s happening.
And you know, like I said, I think...I know that you have some
representation from all of these agencies, but I think if there was a more direct
effort to get the people who are on the ground involved in these agencies, it
would be much more effective. That’s basically the message I’d like to get across
to you.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you. Just to comment on what you have
said, I’ve been around there a couple of years, I noticed what you noticed, is that
the Ontario Government wasn’t playing an active role in the management of the
Great Lakes...or let me rephrase it, not doing as much as they should have been
with the Great Lakes. They came out with a new legislation a couple of months
ago.
But I’ve got the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural
Resources with their people, we’ve met with them in Ottawa now about five
15
times, they are getting more active on the boards that we have, and I think you’ll
see a substantial change there in the very near future.
ROBERT WHITESIDE: I certainly hope so because when I talked to the
local offices, the biologists I am talking to seem to be quite disjointed from the
system here.
DERETH GLANCE:
And Mr. Whiteside, I really appreciate your
comments because I think it’s really important to make sure that the top dogs are
engaged, but the folks that are on the ground doing the work need to be just as
engaged.
And I think that’s really what I’m hearing, is your comments are in support
of the binational task force on adaptive management that the IJC has just tapped
some really smart folks to pull together. And I just got a chance to review their
draft work plan, which I was thought was really good, before I got to the meeting.
And I really think that those are key people that need to be engaged in this
process.
So I really appreciate your comments, and they were definitely heard and I
believe they will be incorporated, so, moving (?) forward. Thank you.
ROBERT WHITESIDE: Thank you. And I like what you said, and I am
optimistic things are going to improve.
DERETH GLANCE: And the most important thing is, you know, we
don’t control the wind or the rain, but it’s being able to be smarter with the wind
and managing the water, and that’s being informed and making sure that we have
16
the right monitoring, that we have the right information, and that all of the
agencies are working together at every single level on the ground and in Ottawa
and in Washington, D.C., and everywhere in between along the watershed.
And I think this is the common theme that I keep hearing from you, and
it’s what we’ve been saying to you, so I think this is a very important point in
Great Lakes governance, which all of us working together.
I think those are the end of the cards, and we would...
JOSEPH COMUZZI: I’m not sure, do you want to just check?
DERETH GLANCE: Okay.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Is there someone that we’ve missed?
DERETH GLANCE: Peter Workman, would you like to still receive
updates or would you like to speak?
PETER WORKMAN: Oh, I filled a card out (inaudible)...to speak but I
want to say something (inaudible)...
DERETH GLANCE: Well, excellent, we look forward to hearing from
you.
LYALL KNOTT: I didn’t catch your name?
PETER WORKMAN: My name is Peter Workman, and I am a camper in
an area that is Schreiber Township. Our camping area consists of what is called
Grandview Beach, Silver Beach, and Silver Harbour. And I am a member of the
campers association in that area and I have been given the task of monitoring sort
of what’s going on with lake levels, and we started monitoring in 1985.
17
So I am kind of an old hat that’s sort of attending these meetings and
looking at reports and trying to make sense of them. And a couple of things that I
can tell you, is that our campers association has been very impressed with the
amount of work that has gone into this, the depth of the work, and just the
sincerity that everyone involved, trying to deal with a very difficult set of
circumstances.
Our particular campers association, I guess they started thinking that they
could solve the problems of the world, and soon into this they realized that this
was way beyond their capability, and so they headed in a different path. And
what they tried to do is they tried to keep informed as to what was going on so
that they could be as adaptive to low levels and adaptive to high levels as they
possibly could.
And Shirley Dolph mentioned a failure to sort of launch boats, well, we
were fortunate enough to be able to get the Lakehead Conservation Authority to
put in a really sophisticated launch system so all of our members can take the
boats off the beaches and put them on the trailers and they can continue to enjoy
the lake. So that’s the kind of adaptive thing that we have been doing.
Low levels, we have experienced.
Low levels on the lake...now I’m
quoting my imagination here, it’s about 1926 levels. We’ve had them, we didn’t
like them. If I understand your data there, which I’m not sure that I do, I see it
possibly that I might have to contend with about a metre less water than I have
18
now. If that is my understanding, the sand dunes that we experienced with the
1926 levels will be very significant.
Part of our, I guess, geography, is beaches, shallow bay, maybe two thirds,
and a third rocky shoreline. The folks on the rocky shoreline are never really all
that (inaudible)...because the water level comes up and down, really they don’t
see it because it’s quite deep off their areas.
But where most of us are, in shallow bays, as the water level goes down,
we’ve got sand dunes. And we’ve laughed a couple of times, how are we going
to deal with this? Well, we’ll get an old school bus and we’ll cut the back off and
have all of the seats, and we’ll start a new bus line and we’ll run the bus line up in
front of all of the cottage owners, get all of the swimmers aboard, and we’ll
shuttle them out to the edge of the water.
So we’ve played jokingly, like this, but at these meetings, if we’d been
asked about lake levels, we have said that we do not want lake levels that are
terribly low. Okay, we’ll do our best to deal with the 1926 level, but if it goes
lower than that, we’ve got troubles because our whole recreational properties start
to change with what happens there. We’ve got massive sand dunes, blowing
sand, all sorts of things. That’s the low level.
High level, this is what started this in 1985, we were losing our cottage lots
because the water level was so high. And on a particular day around 1985, we
took a swimming wrap (?) out of the lake and put it on the shore. And so all of us
19
now can see where we put this shipping wrap onto the shore and we can see the
water was there as compared to the water that is, you know, there much now.
So high water levels, you’re talking another metre above those 1985
levels, I sure would dread to see that...
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Mr. Workman, in keeping with the policy of the IJC
in answering questions that you’ve answered...that you’ve asked tonight, we’re
going to provide an answer for you, and I’ve just been told that we have
somebody standing by in Ottawa that can respond to your concern, and that’s
Paul Pilon. Am I right? Paul, are you with us?
PAUL PILON (Engineering Advisor, Canadian Section, International Joint
Commission): Yes, can you hear me?
JOSEPH COMUZZI: We can hear you. We didn’t know that you were up
there, you’re so quiet.
PAUL PILON:
Well, thank you, thank you very much.
I am an
engineering advisor with the Canadian Section of the Commission, and I’ve heard
a few comments from the public.
One was about the current low water levels and the water levels we’ve
been experiencing, and this is similar to the climate change work, these are the
types of things that are happening as observed in the climate change work, where
water temperatures are warmer than normal.
And as well, there’s less
precipitation occurring over the Lake Superior portion of the upper lake basin.
20
This results in lower water levels. This results in lower water levels over the
area.
The second comment, which I believe you just made, Sir, was about
having water levels possibly one metre lower with the new plan. Actually, I
believe during the presentation, there were some simulations that showed that
when conditions are in drought, such as the most severe that have been observed
historically in the recorded record, that the plan will actually preserve or keep
more water on Lake Superior than the old plan or than would have occurred if
nature was still controlling the outlet of Lake Superior.
And when flows get much more severe than what we’ve actually
experienced in our recorded history in the last 100 years or so, the new plan that’s
being proposed would actually maintain water levels higher than...much higher
than either of those two approaches, one being the current plan – 1977A – that’s
in existence and is being used today, or if we had a naturally regulated system
with a natural outflow at Sault.
So I just wanted to say that the new plan does safeguard Lake Superior for
those low extreme conditions. And as well, it also spoke to...the presentation also
spoke to when there were floods in that it also performed very well for protecting
Lake Superior in those areas. I hope that helps to address some of the points that
were raised.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thanks, Paul. I think we’ve heard from everyone
that wants to make...
21
DERETH GLANCE: Do you feel like your question was answered, Sir?
Mister, do you feel like your question was answered?
PETER WORKMAN: Yes, I am sure that it has been.
DERETH GLANCE: Okay.
PETER WORKMAN: It’s a little bit beyond my understanding, how it’s
going to work, but I’ll know by following what’s going on.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you, thank you.
DERETH GLANCE: Excellent. Thank you very much.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Richard, you had something else you wanted to
add?
RICHARD HARVEY: Just...once again there, Richard Harvey. Just one
further question I had. As we look at this plan, one thing I’m wondering if it was
considered is the possibility of increasing inflow into Lake Superior.
One of the things is I go back to our former MP, and he was very
passionate about the possibility of trying to look at the Ogoki watershed, the
Ogoki diversion, the possibility that since the ’30s, it’s become clogged, it’s
become dated, and that the proposal was that there could be a real potential for
increasing the water flow in from the Arctic watershed. Unfortunately, that
particular MP is no longer an MP, he’s now with another organization, and we
haven’t really gone anywhere further on that.
And I’m wondering, is that something that’s being considered? The Ogoki
diversion was put in in the ‘30s to increase – the ‘40s, I should say, excuse me –
22
to increase water flow to the lower Great Lakes and to Niagara Falls at that point
for the war effort, for producing electricity. Do we have a time when we could
have better regulation of the water levels by cleaning up the degradated (?)
watershed that’s flowing from the Arctic watershed down through Nipigon
system and the Long Lake watershed.
Has that been looked at and could that be looked at as a possible solution
to be able to use... we’ve talked about this, too, we keep on talking about we have
to adapt, we have to adapt and mitigate. You have both of those in your plan.
You talk about mitigation and adaptation. That brings both of those in.
DERETH GLANCE:
So I’ll Paul speak to whether or not that was
considered. I am also not entirely clear, because the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River Water Resources Agreement that both the United States and Canada have
agreed to, that’s outside of the IJC jurisdiction but we interact with the regional
body, there’s a ban on diversions outside the Great Lakes...
RICHARD HARVEY: Diversions out, not in.
DERETH GLANCE: Yeah, it doesn’t specifically deal with (inaudible)...
(VOICES OVERLAP)
RICHARD HARVEY: We are diverting right now 12.8 billion litres.
DERETH GLANCE: It’s the largest diversion into the system.
RICHARD HARVEY: It’s amazing (inaudible)...
23
DERETH GLANCE: But Paul, can you speak to whether or not additional
diversions or increasing flows into the system was considered as part of the Study
Board?
PAUL PILON: Yes, I’d be happy to address that in a brief answer, and the
answer is no. The Study Board basically...excuse me, the Study Board as well as
the Commission receives its mandate through the application process, and this
was a review of application in terms of the regulation plan of the system, and the
original application did not call for any increased discharges or diversions in or
out of the system.
So those were not considered. That would be probably for governments to
consider and not the Commission. So that’s the answer, in short.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Okay, Richard, did that...that’s an undertaking that
the newer generation of politician is going to have to undertake, clean up the
diversionary routes that are coming from the Albany into the Nipigon and
Nipigon through the Ogoki. I’m sure you’ll find an increased flow of water.
And I’ve asked the question and I’ve not really got a satisfactory answer,
should there more diversions in? In the event that...because the Albany is running
pretty high and the other rivers are running pretty high...anyway, but that’s...
RICHARD HARVEY: And even just improving the diversion...
JOSEPH COMUZZI: But I understand that you’re a politician, so you
may want to get on to that.
RICHARD HARVEY: I keep trying.
24
JOSEPH COMUZZI:
Thank you.
Yes, Ma’am?
Come on down,
something like that program. (LAUGHS) What did they call that program, come
on down? (LAUGHS)
DERETH GLANCE: The Price is Right. (LAUGHS)
JOSEPH COMUZZI: The Price is Right.
UNIDENTIFIED: Oh, she could win a car? (LAUGHS)
DERETH GLANCE: Maybe.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: (inaudible)...
PAT INCH: Hi, my name is Pat Inch, and I’m not here in an official
capacity as a Ministry of Environment employee...
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Can you spell your last name, please?
PAT INCH: Inch, i-n-c-h. And I did fill out a card because...just to keep
up with the information. Just to address Mr. Whiteside’s issue, there were two
local people involved in the IJC study: Alan Chow, who is with MNR, who was
on the board and would also be a good source for you, Mayor Harvey, because he
is with MNR and would be dealing with water levels; and myself, and I was
involved with the municipal and industrial water uses group and the survey.
And thankfully Thunder Bay did respond to the surveys that we did ask
about water levels and the impact on municipalities. We didn’t get all of the
municipalities to respond, unfortunately, and it was very clear that from the
responses, that they were more worried about higher water levels than lower
water levels. And I mentioned, it was for the municipal and industrial users
25
group. There was the recreational and boaters and coastal and navigation and
other groups, so our focus was on the industrial and municipal users.
So just wanted to clarify, since it was mentioned that there should have
been more local membership, and there was. And unfortunately, I guess the
message didn’t get to the right people.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you very much for that intervention. On
your way back to your seat, why don’t you introduce yourself to Mr. Whiteside
there and set up a conversation and exchange of information? Will you do that?
PAT INCH: Sure. Thank you very much.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you, thank you.
DERETH GLANCE: Is there anybody else that would like to share any
comments at this time? This is your last call. There you go. And just please
state your name for the record and any affiliation, if you have one.
ANDREW DOLPH:
I don’t know if a microphone is absolutely
necessary, I’m a bit of a loudmouth. My name is Andrew Dolph, I have been
living in Thunder Bay all my life.
As my mother pointed out, in the early ‘60s, they bought a piece of
property at Eldorado Beach. I spent my childhood there swimming and the water
levels were always very high.
We had great boating, canoeing, fishing,
swimming.
And in the last 10-12 years, the water has been so low that like my mom
said, swimming is harder, we can’t boat, no more fish. It’s a problem. The water
26
goes lower, lower, and then when it does rise, it’s gone in a week or two. It
doesn’t make much sense.
Evaporation...not that much is being evaporated, I’m sorry, to account for
how quickly the water goes down. A supernova by the sun maybe would dry up
the lake that way, but I’ve also heard rumors that, you know, there’s a hole in
Lake Superior. (LAUGHS) That doesn’t sit well with me.
My biggest question is the regulation of water usage, for instance, the
water bottling companies. To my understanding, there’s absolutely no regulation
as to how much they can use, and everyone knows how much - I’d like to say
millions, but I don’t know for sure - millions of gallons of water in every single
grocery store in plastic bottles. Where’s the water coming from? It’s coming
from Lake Superior, obviously.
Also, there has been dredging of the St. Mary's River, which...you make
the bottom deeper, it’s got to be filled. So that would also explain why the water
levels would be lower.
But I firmly believe that the regulation of how much water is taken out is a
key step in keeping the water levels high. I appreciate your time and I appreciate
everything everyone’s doing. Thank you.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Thank you. Those are very, very interesting (?)
comments. Let me just take this opportunity to thank the commissioners that
came from a long, far away to be with you tonight to be part of this information
centre. Dereth is on her way to Duluth and Superior tomorrow, and I think
27
Commissioner Knott is coming into some place...I go to Ottawa tomorrow, so
(inaudible)...
LYALL KNOTT: Sault Ste. Marie.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: I’m sorry?
UNIDENTIFIED: Sault Ste. Marie
LYALL KNOTT: Sault Ste. Marie.
JOSEPH COMUZZI: Sault Ste. Marie, Sault Ste. Marie. Anyway, so
those hearings are being conducted right across…information sessions by the IJC
to inform the public of what we’re trying to accomplish, and we really...I think
our scientific community that works within our organization is second to none,
and we’re always trying to improve not only its capacity, but its level of
knowledge with respect to fresh water that is getting to be a serious problem, as
we hear tonight.
So I want to thank you folks for coming out tonight. Stay in touch with
the IJC. And we’ll continue hopefully to try to be of assistance to all of you.
You know that Lake Superior, you know is always ahead of the lakes, it’s the
head water, it’s the head water...
DERETH GLANCE:
Yeah (inaudible)...right now.
Just before we
completely wrap up, I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight. Our
public comment period goes until August 31st, so I encourage you to...you know,
if you’ve gotten through the executive summary and you’ve gotten through the
full report, let us know formally again or tell your friends and neighbours what
28
you think of the proposed plan Superior 2012 to replace plan 1977A, as well as
that lake levels advisory board that is being proposed. I think those are the two
big issues, as well as the other ones that you’ve raised.
We have captured everything because you spoke in the microphone for our
transcript. And if you want to catch us on the rest of our road show, these are
formal public hearings and we will be moving down the road to Duluth next. So I
want to thank everybody very much for coming out tonight.
*****
29