*14

. P 9^/(0

SHORELINE EROSION ALONG LAKE O N T A R IO ^ \

GOVERNMENT

Storage

KA NS AS

uments

? C T 2 p i y / b

H E A R IN G

rA BEFORE TH E

■ ? OMMITTEE ON WA TE R RESOURCES

UT)

! r - OF TH E

■ 3 1MITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 

g S UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FO UR TH CONG RESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

ON

S. 3548

A B IL L TO PR O TECT TH E SH O RELIN E OF LA KE ON TA RI O

JU N E 15, 1976—ROCHES TER, N.Y.

SERIAL NO. 94-H50

P ri nte d for th e use of th e Com mitt ee on P ub lic W or ks

75-421 0

U.S. GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTO N : 1976
(V*

HOWARD H. BAKER, J r., T enne ssee 

JAM ES L. BUCKLEY, New York 

ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermo nt 

JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho 

PE TE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

JENN ING S RANDOL PH, West Virginia, Chairma n *

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

JO SE PH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico 

MIK E GRAVEL, Alaska 

LLOYD M. BENTSEN, Texas 

QUE NTIN N. BURDICK, No rth Da kota 

JOH N C. CULVER, Iowa 

ROBERT MORGAN, North Carolin a 

GARY HAR T, Colorado

M. Barry Meyer, Ch ief Counsel and Chief Clerk

Bailey Guard, Mi nority St aff Directo r

Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, Senio r Pro fessional St af f Members

J ohn W. Yago, Jr., As sistan t Chief Cl erk; P hil ip T. Cumm ings, Ass ista nt Chief Counsel

Harold H. Brayman, Se nio r Pro fessional Staff Member (Mino rity)

Profe ssional and research sta ff: Karl R. Braithwaite, J ames W. Case (A ssista nt Counsel), P aul Chim es , Trenton Crow, Kath erin e Y. Cudlipp, Paul F. Ebeltoft, Jr.,

George F. Fenton, Jr., Randolph G. F lood, Kathaleen R. E. Forcum, Ann Garrabrant,

Richard T. Greer, Richard M. H arris (A ssista nt Counsel), Wesley F. Hayden, Ric hard E. Herod (A ssista nt Counsel, M in or ity ), Veronica A. Holland, Ronald L. Katz,

J udy F. P arente, J ohn B. P urinto n, Jr ., J ames D. Range, W. Lee Rawls, Charlene

A. Sturbitt s, E. Stevens Swain, Jr ., Sally W. Walker, and Haven Whit eside

Sub co mm itt ee on Water Resources

MIK E GRAVEL, Alaska, Cha irma n

LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas PE TE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, No rth Da kota JAM ES L. BUCKLEY, New York

JOH N C. CULVER, Iowa ROBERT T. STAF FORD, Verm ont

ROB ERT MORGAN, North Ca rolin a JAMES A. McCLURE, Ida ho

GARY HAR T, Colorado

(n )

I
CONTENTS

Buckley, Hon. James L., U.S. Senator from th e Sta te of New York, opening P a s

e

statement of__________________________________________________ 1

LIS T OF WITNESSES

Campbell, Hon. Vincent, Monroe County legislator, Seventh District-------- 9 Conner, Robert, residen t manager, St. Lawrence Falls project, Power Au­ tho rity of the State of New York________________________________ 62 Horton, Hon. Fra nk and Hon. Barber B. Conable, Representatives in Con­ gress from the Sta te of New York, presente d by David Lovenheim, adm inistrative assis tant________________________________________ 12 Ives, Brian, commodore of Sodus Bay Yacht Club------------------------------ 88 Kennedy, William, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp----------------- 65 Ketchum, Donald F., vice president, Lake Ontario South Shore Council— 67 Marcellus, W. J., director, Lak e Road Association------------------------------ 86 Moore, Brig. Gen. Robert L., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Chair­ man, U.S. Section, Internationa l St. Lawrence River Board of Control— 51 Moxham, Judg e Jane B., president, Niagara-Orleans Shoreline Protection Association __________________________________________________ 89 Riley, Hon. Donald, superviso r, town of Greece, N.Y--------------------------- ■ 5

Smith, Hon. Henry P., Il l, Chairman, United States Section, Intern ationa l Joint Commission______________________________________________ 15 Stoddard, Glen, preside nt, Butterfly Shores Property Owners Association. 90 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Appendix, statement, communications, and photo gra phs: Daly, John B., assemblyman, State of New York Assembly------------- 95 Babcock, Mrs. Henry _________________________________________ 96 Blino Sodus Bay Improvem ent Association___ ___________________ 97 Brim, W. Alfre d_____________________________________________ 99 Carr. Howard_________________________________________________ 101 Cayuga, county of_____________________________________________ 103 Diez, Russell_________________________________________________ 104 Glaser, George________________________________________________ 106 Heveron, Norman C____________________________________________ 107 Hood, Arthur J _______________________________________________ 108 Humphrey, Ing rah am __________________________________________ 109 Lake Bay Association__________________________________________ H l Lake Ontario South Shore Council, Inc___________________________ 114 Mandeville, Dene S____________________________________________ 116 Manners. R. D_______________________________________________ 117 Monroe, county of_____________________________________________ 118 Niag ara, county legisla ture of __________________________________ 121 Nicholson, Mrs. Thomas________________________________________ 123 Pivot Punch Corp______________________________________________ 124 Punch. Raymond M_____________________________________________ 125 Renshaw Bay Corp_____________________________________________ 126 Pa rrat t, Royden S_____________________________________________ 127 Smith, Carl G________________________________________________ 128 Staudenmayer. W. J ___________________________________________ 132 Stenglein, Albert N_____________________________________________ 133 Sweeney, Dr. John F __________________________________________ 136

(in)
IV

Appendix, stat eme nt, communications, and photographs—Continued P a z

e

Swain, Bruce J______________________________________________ 137

Waterman, Rita M___________________________________________ 140

Woods, J ean M_______________________________________________ 141

Photographs submitted by:

Barns, Harold___________________________________________ 142

Greece, town of__________________________________________ 146

Sandy Pond Eastern Shores Associatio n________________________ 154

Intern ational Joint Commission, annual report of_____________________ 19

Monroe County, N.Y., resolution of the le gislature of__________________ 10

Romola, Joseph A., chairman, S t Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission,

telegram from________________________________________________ 90

S. 3548, reprint of_______________________________________________ 3
SHORELINE EROSION ALONG LAKE ONTARIO

TU ESDA Y, JU N E 15, 197 6

U.S . Senat e,

Committee on P ublic W orks, 

Subcommittee on W ater R esources,

Roche ster. N .Y .

The subcomm ittee met at 1 0:10 o’clock a.m., pu rsua nt to c all, in room 

238. New Fe deral Bu ild ing . Ho n. Jam es L. Buc kley, presi din g.

Pre se nt: Se nator Buckley.

OPENING STATEM ENT OF HON. JAM ES L. BUCKLEY, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM TH E STA TE OF NE W YORK

Senator Buckley. I would like to call thi s hearing to ord er.

I might point out th at the reason I am here alone is th at the ful l Com mittee on Publi c Work s is cu rre ntly me eting in Wash ing ton . I would like to than k all of the witnesses who have agr eed to step forw ard an d discuss a very s erio us problem. T he Senat e Subcom mittee on W ater Re sources has au tho riz ed to da y’s hea rin g in R och ester, N .Y., in order to inv estigate the pe rsist en t rep orts of res ide nts alo ng Lak e On tar io th at severe sho reline erosion continues unabate d due to the 

artific ial m aintenanc e of the lak e at abnorm ally high levels. Th e subcom mittee hopes to determine wh eth er the Fe de ral and in ­ tern ationa l agencies responsible fo r lake level ma nageme nt are ade­ quate ly equ ipp ed to deal w ith th e problem s o f p rotec tin g t he shoreline prop ertie s and wh eth er the t ar get levels the a gencies atte m pt to main ­

tain are the app ro pr iate ones. To focus th e discussion on the op tions availabl e, I have introduced a bill, S. 3548, which directs the Arm y Cor ps of E ng ineers to develop a plan fo r shoreline pr otec t’on an d beach erosion con trol alo ng Lak e On tar io. Th e rep ort which the corps mu st mak e to Congress is ex­ pected to develop recom mendatio ns for the vario us means of prote ct­ ing the shoreline, inclu din g a change in the ran ge at whi ch La ke O nta rio is m ain tained. I am aw are th at the pro blems invo lved are not going to be easily resolved, o r the y would have been long before now. Th e comp eting in ­ ter ests involved are stro ng. And all are leg itim ate . Bu t by draw ing att en tio n to this one most v exing problem of sho reline erosion , I hope 

th at some fr esh think ing can be b roug ht to bear on it. It is awesome to con sider th e courage , or folly, of m an ’s experi­ ments with tryi ng to manag e an d control his na tura l env ironm ent. Lake On tar io, even tho ugh the smalles t of all the Gr eat L ake s, is n ev­ ertheless an enormous body of w ater. It is no t su rp rising th at man’s
2

mastery over the effects of the waves and the w’eather are still beyond 

his reach.

I am happy to welcome the people who live here and the professionals who daily must cope with these problems to offer their 

insights and recommendations to the subcommittee. I trust tha t this 

hearing will mark the beginning of some real progress in protecting 

the lakeshores of Lake Ontario from furth er unnecessary destruction.

[The bill, S. 3548, follows:]
3

94th CONGRESS 

2d Session S. 3548

IN TH E SENA TE OF TH E UN ITED STATES

J une 10 (legislative day, J une 3), 1976

Mr. Buckley introduced the following bi ll; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Public Works

A BILL

To protect the shoreline of Lake Ontario.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresenta2 tives of the Uni ted States of Am erica in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act shall be known as the “Lake Ontario Pro4 tection Act of 1976 ”.

5 Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the

6 Chief of Engineers, is directed to develop a plan for shoreline

7 protection and beach erosion control along Lake Ontario, and

8 report on such plan to the Congress as soon as practicable.

9 Such report shall include recommendations on measures of

10 protection and proposals for equitable cost sharing, together

11 with recommendations for regulating the level of Lake OnI I
4

2

1 tario to assure maximum protection of the natural environ2 ment and to hold shoreline damage to a minimum.

3 Sec. 3. Until the Congress receives and acts upon the

4 report required under section 2 of this Act, all Federal

5 agencies holding responsibilities affecting the level of Lake

6 Ontario shall, consistent with existing authority, make every

7 effort to discharge such responsibilities in a manner so as to

8 minimize damage and erosion to the shoreline of Lake

9 Ontario.

10 Sec. 4. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry

11 out this Act such sums as may be necessary.
Senator Buckley. The first witness is the Honorable Donald Riley, 

supervisor of the town of Greece.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD RILEY, SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF 

GREECE, N.Y.

Mr. Riley. Thank you, Senator. It is indeed a bittersweet pleasure to be in the county of Monroe for this particular subject. 1 look forward to your return, by calling 

a hearing of this nature for the town. I have some prepared remarks for the sake of those in attendance and for the sake oi the record that, I think, will summarize, at least from the point of view of the town of Greece, what we have been going through, and with your indulgence, I will read those remarks 

for the record.

Senator Buckley. Please do.

Mr. Riley. As a result of excessively high water supplies into Lake Ontario in the last several years, combined with the mismanagement of outflow regulation since 1964, by the IJC, the shoreline of the town of Greece has been needlessly battered by Lake Ontario since 

the spring of 1973. The weekend of March 17 and 18, 1973, presented the town of Greece with one of the worst natu ral disasters in the town’s 154-year history. Eight- to ten-foot waves caused by a savage northeast storm, and an excessively high lake level of close to 247 feet, produced an extremely hazardous situation in a heavily populated residential 

neighborhood. Damage caused by erosion along the lakeshore and ponds’ shores was substantial. Edgemere Drive was inundated with up to 18 inches of water, and scores of citizens were forced to evacuate their homes, which incidentally, are year-round dwellings, not summer cottages. The damage to this neighborhood was calculated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But in terms of the blow’ dealt to the citizens of Greece, no amount of calculation can estimate the severity of the 

damage done. Since th at time, the residents of the Greece shoreline have invested heavily in rebuilding their homes and in fortifying against a vicious Lake Ontario. And also since that time, the high w’ater of Ontario has attacked. The most recent storm on April 25 of this year, once again flooded the residential streets of Greece, eroded the shoreline, 

crumbled breakwralls, shattered homes, and forced many to flee. Senator Buckley has indicated th at this subcommittee w ill consider instructing the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a plan for shore­ line protection and control of beach erosion along the lake. In 1973, the Army developed “Operation Foresight” for the same reasons. Certain proposals designed to hold back the lake would have proven to be prohibitively expensive for the town of Greece, or any other municipality to maintain. All of the other remedial measures of “Op ­ eration Foresight” failed dismally to provide shoreline residents with 

relief. The issue, as I see it, ladies and gentlemen, and many others will surely agree wfith me, is not how to hold back the high waters of Lake
Ontario, but rather, how to reduce the level of the lake and correctly 

manage its regulation.

My contention here, of course, is tha t for the past several years, the 

level of Lake Ontario has not been managed effectively, nor has it 

been managed in accordance with the Boundary Waters Trea ty of 

1909, which established the International Joint Commission and gave 

it the authority to control the levels of the G reat Lakes.

Let me, for a moment, gentlemen, direct your attention to some 

extremely pertinent information, which you should be well aware of 

as you proceed in your deliberations.

First, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between the United 

States and Canada, states in article 8, and I quote:

The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses 

enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be perm itted which 

tends materially to conflict with or res tra in any other use which is given pre ference over it in this order of precedence :

1. Uses for domestic and san itary purposes.

2. Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purpose of 

navigation, and

3. Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.

Second, criterion B of the IJC criteria governing the regulation 

of Lake Ontario states, and I quote :

The regulated winte r outflows from Lake Ontario from 15 December to 31 

March shall be as large as feasible and shall be maintained so th at the difficulties of winter operation are minimized.

Third, criterion G states, and I quote:

Consistent with oth er requirements, the levels of Lake Ontario shall be regulated for the benefit of property owners of the shores of Lake Ontario in the 

United States and Canada so as to reduce the extreme s of stage which have 

been experienced.

Fourth, criteria H, I, and J specify tha t the level of Lake Ontario 

shall be maintained between the levels of 242.77 feet and 246.77 feet.

And, fifth, criterion K states:

In the event of excessive supplies, the works in the Intern ational Rapid s 

section shall be operated to provide all possible relief to the riparian owners 

upstream and downstream. In the event of low supplies, the works in the 

Int ern ationa l Rapids section shall be opera ted to provide all possible relief 

to navigation and power interes ts.

Quite evidently, gentlemen, the evidence shows conclusively tha t 

the interests of the riparians of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence 

River are to be considered first and foremost in the management of 

Lake Ontario’s water levels. Also obvious is the fact that we are 

now experiencing a period of very excessive supplies as mentioned 

in criterion K.

Mr. Robert Conner, who we are fortunate to have with us today, 

is a member of the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control. Mr. Conner was in attendance at a meeting held on May 1 of 

this year in Sodus. When asked by riparians why the lake level 

couldn’t be held at a lower range, Mr. Conner was quoted by the 

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle as saying, “If we had done that, 

we would have stopped all shipping in the St. Lawrence Seaway.” 

He went on to say, “The two governments of the United States and 

Canada have a considerable investment in that navigation.”
7

Mr. Conner has finally confirme d wh at so m any o f us hav e belie ved fo r some tim e now ; th at is th at th e IJC and its bo ard s h ave blant an tly vio lated the provisions of the Bo un da ry W aters Tre aty of 1909, in regu latin g the levels of Lake Ont ario for the prim e benefit of navigatio nal and pow er inte rests. As fu rther evidence, let me r ef er you to the c ha rt of lake levels. Note th at from 1960, the year be ginn ing the reg ula tio n of Lake On tar io, to 1963, the year begin nin g extrem es of low sup plies, the level of the lake fluctu ated, on a con sistent basis, between a low level of 243 feet 

and a h igh level of 246 feet. In my opinion, the typ e of regu lat ion exhib ite d at th at tim e pr e­ sented an accepta ble ran ge o f leve ls fo r all int ere sts concerned. Ho w­ ever, in Ja nuar y o f 1965, as a resu lt of extrem ely low supplies in 1963 and 1964, the level of Lake Ont ar io reac hed the low po int of 241.8 feet, alm ost a foot lower th an the allowab le minim um level. In 1964, a Sen ate su bco mim ttee he ld heari ngs on the low level prob ­ lem. It was resolv ed th at the level of La ke Ontario sh ould nev er again be allowed to go to such low levels. Since t hat time, the IJC has m ade doubly sure th at the levels would not go so low. In fact, the y have assu red th at the levels will be con sistently hig h. Fr om 1965 to the presen t, t he level of Lake Ont ario has n ot been allowed to go below the 

level of 243.7 feet. Und er thes e con ditions, gen tlem en, and given the presen t tre nd of con tinued excessive wa ter inflow s, the res ide nts o f the tow n of Greece have no thing more to look fo rw ard to in th e foreseeable fu ture than con tinued hig h wa ter and ha bitual flooding. Th is sit ua tio n, needless 

to say, mu st not be allowed to continue. For the welfare and safety of the lak eshore res ide nts of both the United State s and Ca nada, th e Senate mu st or de r the IJC to own up to i ts l aw ful respon sibilities. Specific ally, I recom mend t hat the Sen ate orde r t he I JC to com ply w ith th e pro visions o f a rticle 8 of the Bo und­ ary W aters Tr ea ty o f i909, and with cr iter ia G and K of the c rit eria 

go verni ng th e reg ula tio n of Lak e On tar io. P ri or to th is time, gen tlem en, I hav e show n th at the IJ C has not com plie d with thes e pro visions. I have also recommended th at the reg ulate d outflows of Lake O ntario dur in g the la te sum me r an d wi nter mo nth s be such so as to provide for a low wa ter level of 243 feet, and th at th e outflows from D ecembe r 15th t o M arc h 31st be cons istent wi th the cri ter ion B of the cr ite ria go verni ng the reg ulati on of La ke 

On tar io. To sum up, gen tlem en, th e recommenda tion s are cle arly withi n the rea lm of possibility. Th ere is no dou bt in my mind th at they re pr e­ sent the cheapes t solution to our problem. Please do no t make reco m­ me ndations th at will, in effect, offer the prov erb ial pound of cure. W hat the shoreline res ide nts of Lak e Ont ario dema nd is th at sma ll ounce of p rev ention wh ich will solve th ei r dis astro us situation.

Th an k you very much.

Se na tor B uckl ey. M r. Riley, I g athe r from yo ur testim ony th at t he 

levels have been h eld h ig he r t ha n is p ru de nt?

Mr. Riley. Yes, Se na tor . Needless to say, I do n’t th in k anyone can quib ble th at we have ha d an excessive am ount of inflow. W hen we have winter and sp rin g sto rage we have to let th at water o ut. I guess th at
means in the summer and fa ll we let more wa ter out, so when we do 

get excessive runoff we don’t have t he situ ati on y ou witn esse d in 1973.

I have photo gra phs th at hi gh lig ht the stor ms th at we had, and 

since you were there in 1973, you see t ha t it is almost the exa ct situ ation, th e water on a r eg ular ba sis ba tte rin g the homes.

Th e Co rps of En gin eer s and the people them selves, the Sm all Business Ad ministrat ion, did help to reb uild af te r 1973, b ut it seems foo lish to us th at we allow th is situ ation to rep eat itself so soon af te r th at 

time and effo rt has been pu t in. An d the c ha racter o f the shoreline in 

Greece h as chan ged drastic all y.

We wou ld ask for th at r elief on a permanent basis.

Se na tor Buckley. Th an k you.

Would you have any aggreg ate estimat es of the an nu al shorelin e 

prop erty dam age and how ma ny people are affected?

Mr. Riley. In the town of Greece we have ap prox im ate ly 2,000 

res ide nts dir ectly affected, not only along the sho reline bu t we also 

hav e several ponds th at are immedia tely adjac ent to the lake th at 

received dam age. Du rin g the last storm we had four major incidents. 

I estimate d t ha t we had abo ut a hal f m illion dolla rs wo rth of prop ert y 

dam age.

Th at is almost impossible to pu t a definite figure on because I don’t 

know w hat the u nderm ini ng of the batte rie s has done to th e pro tective 

wor k th at people have spe nt in the Small Bus iness Ad ministratio n, 

and the C orp s of Engin eer s h as spent money.

We rece ived at least a ha lf million dolla rs wo rth of pr op erty 

dam age.

Se na tor B uckley. T hank you very much .

[The fol low ing was supplied fo r the rec ord:]

Onta rio, Canada, June 19, 1976. The Mayor of Greece,

City of Greece, New York State, U.S.A.

Dear Sir : Gre etin gs fro m Can ad a.

We liv e a fe w mile s ea st of Tor on to but ha ve a su m m er home at Co nse con on 

Lak e Ont ar io , di re ct ly ac ross th e lake from you r city. We ha ve been pl ag ue d by 

th is y ear’s high w ate r an d ha ve ha d to b att le to keep ou r sh or e from erod in g an d 

wh en th e w ate r lev el rec edes we will hav e to ag ai n re tr ie ve our ro ck s from the 

la ke an d pi le th em ag ai nst ou r shore, ot he rw is e ou r pr op er ty wi ll ev en tu al ly be 

in th e A tlanti c Ocean.

I ha ve w ritten to th e ne wsp ap er s to pu blicize th e high w at er , an d ha ve w ritten 

to my Fed er al mem be r as ki ng in fo rm at io n as to w he th er th e high w ate r is an 

act of God or a m isca lc ulat ion by th e Jo in t Co mm ission in co nt ro lli ng th e w at er 

lev els . In th e repl y fro m my go ve rnmen t, th ey qu ote ce rt ai n Jo in t Co mm ission 

fa ct s ab ou t th e hi gh w at er , it s ca us es an d w hat they ha ve do ne to allev ia te th e 

si tu at io n, an d th ey en d up in in fo rm in g me th a t if they had n’t been d ra sti c in 

re le as in g th e w ate r th e lev el wo uld ha ve been tw en ty inch es hi gh er. Twen ty 

inch es h ig h e r' Ye gods, we wo uld ha ve to tr a d e in ou r ho use fo r an A rk !

Kno wi ng go ve rn m en ts an d th eir ag en cies an d th eir pron en es s to bl un de ring 

err or, I ca nn ot be conv inc ed by th e reply fr om my go ve rnmen t until I ha ve som e 

in de pe nd en t in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g th e ac cu ra cy of th eir be ha vi ou r re gar di ng 

th e high w at er . I kn ow they cou ld m is ca lc ul at e th e ru n o ff ; th e am ou nt of w ate r 

he ld ba ck duri ng th e w in te r; or th ey co uld even be de ep en ing th e w ate r to 

fa vour th e sh ip pi ng in te re st s. I do no t kn ow w he re to go fo r accu ra te in fo rm atio n on th is side of th e bo rd er an d I am w on de ring if you people ar e as co nc erne d 

as I am co nc erne d, an d w he th er you ha ve been do ing an yth in g to sa ve your se lf 

fro m th e mill ions of doll ar s da mag e do ne to o u r la kef ro nt pr op er tie s.

Yours sincerely,

J oh n Livi ng ston e.
T own of Greece, 

Rochester, N.Y., Ju ly 12, 1916.

Mr. J ohn Livingstone,

Locust Hill RR No. 1,

Ontario, Canada

Dear Mr. Livingstone : Than k you for your letter of Jun e 19th, expressing 

your concern over the high water levels of L ake Ontario. The Town of Greece, for the past 4 years, has been brutally attack ed by the waters of Ontario. The damage which has occurred has reach ed into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The fact that the Greece shoreline is almost com­ pletely developed residentially makes this situ ation even more disastrous. I am enclosing a copy of a statement th at I made before a U.S. Senate Sub­ committee hearing held in Rochester, New York, on Jun e 15th. I am also sending 

a copy of your lette r to the following people: Mr. Donald Ketchum, 1550 Lake Road West, Williamson, New York, 14589 (Don is with the Lake Ontario South Shore Council) and Mrs. Kay Bolton. 1656 Edgemere Drive, Rochester, New York, 14612 (Mrs. Bolton is very active and inform ed in these m atte rs) If you would like to correspond with these very activ e and informed citizens, I'm sure that they would be most happy to h ear from you. I also will be sending your letter to Washington, D.C. to become a pa rt of the record of the hearing which I alluded to above. While it pains me to see t ha t our Canadian frien ds are experiencing problems with the levels of the Lake, I am pleased to note that you are ju st as willing as w’e are to do all that we can to a lleviate the problem.

Sincerely, Donald J. Riley, 

Supervisor, Town of Greece.

Senator Buckley. Mr. Campbell is next.

STATEMENT OF HON. VINCENT CAMPBELL, MONROE COUNTY 

LEGISLATOR, SEVENTH DISTRICT

Mr. Campbell. I will make a brief statement on legislation which the Monroe County Legislature adopted in April of 1976, pertaining 

to high water problems of Lake Ontario. On behalf of myself, my fellow colleagues of the Monroe County Legislature, and those among my constituency who have been the un­ fortunate victims of the high water problems of Lake Ontario, may I take this opportunity to express our appreciation for your presence here today, and of your concerns in seeking an effective solution to the serious high water conditions of Lake Ontario. High waters with gusty winds have caused havoc to the entire south­ ern shoreline of Lake O ntario, and in many instances has resulted in the erosion of precious land along the shoreline and the demise of homes. To date, this problem persists, vexing homeowners with no 

appreciable signs of relief. I strongly urge you to review the present lake level guidelines estab­ lished by the Internatio nal Join t Commission to determine whether they are contributing factors to the high water problems that have occurred. I f so, new guidelines should be established which must have as the ir foremost concern the protection and preservation of shoreline properties. In addition, we must effect appropriate legislation aimed at the immediate compensation of those damaged by the recent high 

water conditions. In April of 1976, the Monroe County Legislature, at my request, unanimously adopted legislation aimed specifically at requesting var-
10

ious Fede ral and State agencies to seek an immediate solution to this 

problem. It expressed the concerns of the entire county of Monroe, 

not just lakeshore residents, that priority must be given to maintaining adequate lake level a t ap prop riate depths so tha t homes and properties may be saved.

Let us not, as responsible representatives, sacrifice the constitutional 

rights of shoreline property owners for shipping and hydroelectric 

concerns.

I urge you to move ahead with all possible speed and effectuate an 

immediate solution to this very serious problem.

Thank you.

[A resolution from the county legislature of Monroe County, N.Y., 

follows:]

Clerk's Office, County Legislature

MONROE CO UNTY, N .Y .

Rochester, N.Y., May 5, 1976. To Whom it May Concern:

I Hereby Certify, That at a Session of the County Legislature of the County of 

Monroe, held in the County Office Building on April 8, 1976 a resolution was 

adopted, of which the following is a true copy and appears on page 258-260 of 

the official proceedings.

By Mr. Nagle—

Intro. No. 191

RESOLUTION NO. 12 1 OF 1 9 7 6

Resolution Memorializing the I ntern ati onal Joint Commission Regulating Lake 

Ontario Together with Governor Hugh Carey, the New York Sta te Legislature 

and the Congress of the United Sta tes to Undertak e Immediate Action to Stop 

Pro perty Damage Along the Southern Shore of Lake Ontario.

Whereas, the outflow ra tes which direc tly affect the level of Lake Ontario are 

determined by the Intern ationa l Jo int Commission according to guidelines it has 

established, and

Whereas, such Commission has the responsibility, amongst other things, to 

regulate such water level in a manne r t ha t will not jeopardize th e lives and property of homeowners residing along the southern shore of Lake Ontario, and

Whereas, the level of Lake Ontario is rising at an alarming rate to the point 

where such level may exceed the historic high level mark of 1973 w’hich resulted 

in serious property disaster and losses of millions of dollars, a nd

Whereas, as late as April 5, 1976, the Lake attain ed a level of 246.62 feet, for 

an increase of six-tenths (6/10) of a foot from the prior measurem ent of March 

27,1976 of 246.02 feet, and

Whereas, the Lake level has a forty per cent (40%) chance of risin g even 

higher tha n its maximum of 246.77 feet, according to the United States Corps 

of E ngineers, and

Whereas, if such Lake level continues at its current level or exceeds the curren t level, sub stantial property damage may resu lt, which could cause damage in 

the millions of dollars : Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Leffislature of the County of Monroe, as follows:

Section 1. This Legislature strongly urges the following remedial action be 

underta ken forthwith to remedy the problem of excessive lake level on Lake 

Ontario:

a. That the Intern ational Joint Commission immediately unde rtake a review of its guidelines to determine whether or not such guidelines are the 

contribu ting factor to the high water problems tha t are occurring in 1976.

b. That the Int ern ational Joint Commission review its existing criteria and 

immediately implement outflow’ rates that will reduce lake levels so as to 

avoid property damage along the southern shore of Lake Ontario.

c. That the Inte rna tional Joint Commission establish a more r ealis tic basis 

to project lake levels th at the projection system presently being utilized, as 

suggested by Congressman Horton.
u

d. That Governor Hugh Carey take all preliminary steps tha t will be re­ quired to declare the affected southern shoreline a Federal Disaster Area in the event of flooding due to high lake level. e. That the International Joint Commission establish as a “first priority’’ in making its determination of lake level the preservation and protection of 

southern shoreline properties. f. Th at the Clerk of this Legislature is directed to forward certified copies of this resolution to the International Joint Commission, Governor Hugh Carey, the Senate Majority Leader Warren Anderson, Speaker of the Assem­ bly Stanley Steingut, the Honorable Frank Horton and the Honorable Barber

Conable.

Sec. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Intergovernmental and Community Development Committee, April 8, 1976— 

CV : 5-0. (File No. 76-300.) Intro. No. 192

MOTION NO. 61 OF 1 9 7 6

Providing tha t Intro. No. 191 of 1976 (Resolution Memorializing the Inter­ national Joint Commission Regulating Lake Ontario Together with Governor Hugh Carey, the New York State Legislature and the Congress of the United States to Undertake Immediate Action to Stop Property Damage Along the Southern Shore of Lake Ontario) be amended. Be i t moved, that Intro. No. 191 of 1976 (Resolution Memorializing the Inter­ national Joint Commission regulating Lake Ontario together with Governor Huge Carey, the New York State Legislature and the Congress of the United States to Undertake Immediate Action to Stop Property Damage along the Southern Shore of Lake Ontario) be, and hereby is, amended to include 

Irondequoit Bay. Adopted : Ayes 29, Noes 0.

Adoption of Intro. No. 191

RESOLU TIO N NO. 12 1 OF 1 9 7 6 — AS AMENDED BY MOTION NO . 61 OF 1 9 7 6

Resolution Memorializing the International Joint Commission Regulating Lake Ontario Together with Governor Hugh Carey, the New York State Legislature and the Congress of the United States to Undertake Immediate Action to Stop Property Damage Along the Southern Shore of Lake Ontario and Irondequoit 

Bay. Adopted : Ayes 29, Noes 0

State of New York,

County of Monroe, City of Rochester, ss: I have compared the preceding with the original thereof on file in this office, and hereby certify tha t the same is a correct transcript therefrom, and of the 

whole of said original

Office Clerk, County Legislature.

Senator Buckley. Of course, you are speaking on behalf of the county. Mr. Riley was speaking on behalf of the town of Greece. Do you have any estimates as to the number of people affected by this 

and the total damage ?

Mr. Campbell. The estimate of damage is extensive. I don’t have specific figures, but most of the northern boundary of my district, in the town of Greece along Edgemere Drive, and I can tell you firsthand because I have witnessed it firsthand, that the damage is substantial; basements flooded; houses tha t front on the lake, shattered windows; broken foundations, moved back; walls completely destroyed.

The damage is substantial.

Senator Buckley. But far beyond the town of Greece?

Mr. Campbell. Fa r beyond.
12

Senator B uckley. Thank you, gentlemen.

Our next witness will be Mr. David Lovenheim, who is representing Mr. Horton and Mr. Conable. Mr. Loveheim.

JO INT STATEMEN T OF HON. FRANK HORTON AND HON. BAR BER B. 

CONABLE, RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF NEW YORK, PRESEN TED BY DAVID LOVEN HEIM, AD MINISTR AT IVE ASSIS TANT

Mr. Lovenheim. Than k you, Senator.

I would like to express for both Congressman Horton and Congressman Conable their appreciation to you. They both have their own 

meetings in the House, or would be here personally.

With your permission, I would like to read their joint statement.

“Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the o pportunity to make recommendations to this distinguished subcommittee on a matter of very pressing concern to us and to the residents of the Lake Ontario shoreline 

areas.

“Having asked that the Senate Public Works Committee hold hear ­

ings on this subject, we are deeply grateful that you, Senator Buckley, 

have responded quickly and forcefully to this request, because the 

level regulation rules governing operation of the control works in 

the Great Lakes are governed by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 

1909, we felt tha t the United States Senate, which has jurisdiction 

over the ratification of international treaties, would offer the best 

forum for meaningful action on this problem.

“Because we know that the time of the subcommittee is very valuable and that there are many residents of the Rochester area here to 

testify, we will be brief as possible and to the point.

“The level of Lake Ontario is too high. It is too high today, and 

it has been too high since the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 

and 1973. While it is true to say that nature has provided the Great 

Lakes Basin with more water than the system can handle within 

normal lake level limits, it is also true that much more could be done 

by man to reduce the damage, erosion and frustration which high 

water levels have caused for shoreline interests and residents in both 

the United States and Canada.

“Several facts about the history and methods of lake levels regulation should be stated as a prelude to our recommendations to this 

subcommittee.

“First, since records were first kept on Lake Ontario levels in the 

1800’s, the current upper level limit of 246.77 feet (I.G.L.D.) has been 

breached about three times as often as the lower level limit of 242.77 

feet (I.G.L.D.) has been violated. Since the St. Lawrence Seaway 

project and its control works were constructed in the 1950’s, the maximum level has been breached more frequently than the minimum 

level.

“I t is our understanding, further, tha t while lakeshore residents 

have suffered from the effects of high lake waters each year since 1973, 

there has been no time in the past 3 years when the minimum navigation profile in the St. Lawrence ship channel has been violated. In 

other words, despite the fact tha t the treaty requires a balancing of 

interests between riparian, navigation and power constituencies, the
13

shoreline interests have borne more than their share of the hardships resulting from the excessive water supplies the lake has received in 

the past few years. “This point requires some further explanation. The term minimum navigation profile means the level of water in the ship channel of the seaway which will permit the safe passage of fully loaded vessels. Apparently, because of the nature of the channel, the effective water level in parts of the channel is reduced when outflows of Ontario water from the St. Lawrence River control works exceed a certain amount. “We leave it to the engineers to explain how lettin g more water into the seaway lowers the level of water in the seaway, but nonethe­ less, we are told it is so. This has meant that during the lower level months from July through December, which are also the primary navigation months in the seaway, outflows from the lake have had 

to be limited to accommodate ship traffic. “This fact is at the heart of the prim ary issue which concerns lake- shore residents, who are critical of lake level regulators for failing to reduce the level of the lake in summer and fall months to a lower level than has been experienced. Obviously, the lower the level can be reduced in the low water season of the year, the more leeway we have to control flooding and high water levels in the spring. “We are all painfully aware tha t once we reach spring, it is too late to compensate for the failure to let sufficient water out of the hike in low water months. This is because high outflows during the spring runoff season causes severe flooding in Canadian areas downstream of 

the seaway in the St. Lawrence River. “Yet, Mr. Chairman, despite repeated suffering of riparian interests in the spring months, there has been no effort to balance the interests by violating even for relatively short period of time, the minimum navigation profile required for fully loaded ships to pass through the seaway channel. It seems th at ripa rian owners and users have been 

asked to bear the full burden of high water levels. “We do not think this is what the treaty intended. If, in order to bring the level of Lake Ontario closer to its minimum level of 242.77, it would be necessary to make carefully planned violations of the mini­ mum navigation profile for periods of time in the low water months, we feel tha t this can and should be done without risking navigation safety, although it might cause some temporary inconvenience in shipping schedules. “One further fact has worked against the exercise of maximum effective human control of the lake. It has to do with the statistical method which is used to project what water supplies will occur in the lake basin in the short-run future. The current projection method, which is used to determine outflow levels to be permitted the following month, is to look at the long-term history of supplies for the month, and assume t hat supplies during tha t month in the present year will have a 50-percent probability of exceeding supplies of the past. “Thus, even during a period of several months duration when sup­ plies have been abnormally high, the assumption is always made that 

in the coming month they will be normal. “We have suggested tha t a different method be employed which would allow the regulatory bodies to take short-term supply experience into account in setting outflow rates for the coming month or week.

75-42 1 0 - 76 - 2
14

For example, when recent supplies have been so hig h as to be in the 

ran ge of 5 percent o r 10 perce nt pro babil ity a s com pared with the 70- 

plu s-y ear base period, a figu re lower than 50-percent prob ability of 

exceedance should be used in the pro jection comp ute r model. The c ur ­

ren t method does not even take into account wh at is known about 

rece nt supplie s, and, th us, is little be tte r tha n a bad guess, p artic ularly 

du rin g periods o f hig h wa ter supplies.

“These , Mr. Chairma n, are the pri ncipa l fac ts on whi ch we rest 

our assertion that man is no t do ing every thing possible or feasible 

to be tte r control the incid ence of flooding con ditions alo ng the Lak e 

On tario shore line.

“We feel th at the S ena te Pu blic W ork s Com mittee can make a very 

me aning ful contribu tion to imp rovin g prosp ects fo r the fut ur e by seeking the coopera tion of the Un ite d State s Gov ernment and the Ca nadia n 

Government, thr ough the In tern atio na l Jo in t Commission in taking 

several imm ediate and lon g-term step s th at can change an d improve 

the cu rre nt methods and pro ced ure s of lake level regulat ion .

“We reco mmend: O ne, th at t he committee a sk the IJC to accelerate 

its cu rre nt review7

 of plan 1958 -D, the reg ula tion pla n whi ch curre ntl y 

governs all decisions on th e outflow7

 rat es and op era tio n of the St. 

Law rence Seaway control works. We ask the com mittee to review7

 the 

curre nt plan and its opera tion to determ ine if it is consistent with 

the requirement of the Bo un da ry Wate rs Tr ea ty for ba lan cin g interests as among rip arian, naviga tio n and pow7er con stituen cies of the 

lakes. Spe cial attention sho uld be directed towa rd reform ing curre nt 

sup ply projectio n methods.

“Tw o, th at the committee ask the Un ited State s section of the TJC 

to prepare a plan for achie vin g low er Lake Ontario levels du ring lowwa ter months, and th at this plan inc orp ora te pro ced ure s to provide 

outflow7

 rat es in excess of those needed to retain the minim um navigat ion profile w henever, in the pre vio us sp rin g season, the level of the 

lake h as exceeded th e ma ximum 246.77 feet.

“T hre e, th at the Com mittee on Public Work s of the Senate request 

the Un ited State s Arm y Corps of Engin eer s and the U.S . section 

of the IJC to undertake a stu dy of the fea sib ilit y an d of the cost 

benefit and env ironmental im pacts of a dre dg ing proje ct th at would 

perm anently increase the de pth of the St. Law rence Sea way ship 

channel. Dr ed gin g of the cha nnel to a dee per depth wou ld increase 

navig ation toleranc es o f hig her outflow rate s, and wou ld th us enhance 

the ab ility of the IJ C to reg ula te the lake at low er levels th an we 

have ex perienced in recent years .

“Once a gain, S enato r B uckley, we are very deeply gr ateful fo r y our 

att entio n to th is serious problem, and we sta nd rea dy to assume a 

lea dersh ip role in a ny action y ou r committee may reco mmend, inc lud ­

ing yo ur own bill th at you have introd uced, which wou ld require 

action by the Hou se of Represe nta tiv es as well.”

Se na tor B uckley. Th an k you very much.

I th in k we can dispense with th e questions. Yo ur sta tem ent was 

very compreh ensive, and I th in k ha s offered suggestion s th at will be 

commented on by subsequent witnesses.

The nex t witn ess is lion. Hen ry P. Sm ith, chair ma n of the U.S . 

section of the Jo in t Comm ission, accomp anie d by Mr. St ew ar t F onda, 

U.S . En gine er A dviser to the IJ C-
15

STATEMENT OF HON. HE NR Y P. SM ITH III, CHAIR MAN, UNITE D 

STATES SECTION. INTE RN AT IONA L JOINT COMMISSION

Mr. Smit h. M r. Ch airma n, I hav e a prepared sta tem ent, an d I am 

spe aking also for Mr. Stew art Fo nd a, the En gine er Ad vis er to the 

U.S. section o f th e J oin t Commission. On behalf of the In tern ationa l Jo in t Commission, Uni ted State s and Ca nada, I am pleased to be able t o meet w ith you toda y to discuss 

the re gulat ion of the water levels of L ake Onta rio. W ith respec t to Lak e Ontario reg ula tio n, I will sum ma rize the Com mission's acti ons d ur ing the pa st y ear and the res ult s which have flowed from ou r action s. Gen. Ro be rt Moore, who is here toda y, will pre sen t backgro und and technical inform ati on rega rd ing La ke On ­ tario reg ulati on in a later presentat ion . Among h is many res ponsibi li­ ties, General Moore serves as the U.S . cochairman of several of the Com mission’s boards, inc lud ing the In tern ationa l St. La wr ence R ive r Bo ard of Co ntr ol, which has the res ponsibility of en su rin g th at the Com mission ’s orde r rel ati ng to La ke On tar io reg ulati on is complied 

with. Before we focus on the tec hnical matters , I w ould lik e to ma ke a few rem ark s con cer ning the In te rn at io na l Jo in t Com mission, Un ite d 

State s and Canada. The Commission is a perm anent inter na tio na l body cre ate d by the 

terms of the Bo undary Wate rs T re at y of 1909. The purpo se of the 

trea ty was to pre ven t disputes rega rd in g the use of bo un da ry waters and to make provision for the a djus tm en t and settlem ent o f questions arisi ng alo ng the common fron tie r which involved the righ ts, obliga­ tions, or int ere sts of eithe r in rel ati on to the other o r to th e i nh ab ita nt s 

of the o the r. Th e Com mission has two pr inci pa l fun ctio ns as pro vid ed by the 

terms o f the tr eaty : One, ap prov ing or d isa pp roving appli catio ns fo r obstructions, uses or div ersions of water which affect the na tural level or How of water 

on the othe r side of the internationa l bou ndary . An d, two. investigatin g questio ns or m atters o f d ifference alo ng the common fron tier which are refe rred to the Commission fro m tim e to tim e by the tw o gov ernm ents. I n such cases, the C omm ission r ep orts th e facts and circum stance s to th e governm ents o f C anada and th e U nited State s and recommends ap pr op riat e action by them . I t is fo r the govern me nts then to decide w hethe r or n ot the Com mission’s rec ommenda ­

tions will be accepted and acted upon . Th e Com mission ’s order ap pr ov in g the appli catio n for the power pro iec t in the St. Lawrenc e Ri ve r illus tra tes the first trea ty fun ction. As I mentioned earlie r, the In te rn at io na l St. Lawre nce Ri ve r Bo ard 

of Co ntrol was esta blished p ur su an t to this order. Th e Com mission carries out its trea ty fun ctions by crea tin g inter­ natio nal boa rds. Sinc e most of th e fun ctional res ponsibilities with which the bo ard studies are concerned lie with State . Prov incial, and Fe de ral agencies—on both sides, Ca na dian and U.S.—board ap po in t­ men ts are norm all y made from am ong resp onsible person s withi n State , Prov incial, and Federal agencies. These persons do not, how ­ ever. rep res ent their agencies. The ir appoint me nts reflect the Com-
16

mission's view tha t the appointees are personally and professionally 

competent and are the persons who can best serve the variety of inte rests encompassed by the board's area of responsibility.

For the information of the subcommittee, I have attached to my 

statement copies of the Commission’s 1974 Annual Report, which is 

this document. The report describes in considerably more detail the 

Commission and its operation. [The annual report referred to appears 

at p. 19.]

Except during periods of very high and very low water supply, 

Lake Ontario is regulated in accordance with regulation plan 1958-D. 

This regulation plan prescribe outflows which will maintain Lake 

Ontario within a 4-foot range of stage and will meet certain criteria 

prescribed for the protection of Lake Ontario and downstream interests in the St. Lawrence River, provided tha t water supplies to 

the lakes are no more or less than those of the past 100 years with 

which the plan was tested.

The prescribed range of stage and criteria were approved by the 

United States and Canadian governments for the regulation of Lake 

Ontario water level in December 1955.

When water supplies greater than those of the past 100 years occur, the water levels of Lake Ontario rise above the 4-foot range. 

When water supplies less than those for which the plan was tested 

occur, Lake Ontario levels will fall below the 4-foot range. This is 

the reason tha t the Commission’s order of approval for the project 

contains the phrase, “as nearly as may be,” to qualify the 4-foot range 

of stage, 242.77 to 246.77 feet above sea level.

During periods when the water supplies are either greater or less 

than the supplies of record, Lake Ontario is regulated in accordance 

with criterion K to the Commission's order of approval. Criterion K 

reads as follows:

In the event of supplies in excess of the supplies of the past as adjuste d, the 

works in the Intern ational Rapids Section shall be operated to provide all 

possible relief to the riparian owners upstream and downstream.

In the event of supplies less than the supplies of the past as adju sted , the 

works in the Inter natio nal Rapids Section shall be operated to provide all 

possible relief to navigation and power interests.

Last June, Lake Ontario was at elevation 245.8 feet, and water 

supplies were below those requiring the application of criterion K. 

Our International St. Lawrence River Board of Control indicated 

its intent to regulate Lake Ontario in accordance with plan 1958-D. 

The Commission agreed with its board's advice. Throughout the remainder of 1975. Lake Ontario water levels remained very near 

normal.

During the late fall and winter, the water supplies potentially 

available to Lake Ontario exceeded the supplies of the past 68-year 

period. Because of this, water outflows through the St. Lawrence 

River were maintained as large as possible without causing an ice 

jam in the river during the winter and early spring.

As a result of the high outflows during the winter, the lake was 

6 inches lower th is spring. In view of the record water supplies this 

year, maximum outflows have been continued to this date, consistent 

with the flood situation downstream in Lake St. Louis.
17

Outflows through the St. Lawrence River are currently 350,000 

ft 3

/s. This is the highest outflow ever discharged from Lake Ontario. 

If the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power project had not been built, 

the outflow rate this week would be only 335,000 ft 3

/s, and Lake 

Ontario water levels would be iy 2

 feet higher than they are now.

As the lake begins to fall this summer, maintenance of such high 

outflows will pose safety and loading problems for the large ships in 

the seaway. The Commission and its board are involved in studies to 

determine how we can provide the highest possible outflows through 

the late summer and fall in order to reduce Lake Ontario water level 

and still maintain reasonable conditions for the ships using the seaway.

You may rest assured tha t the decisions of the Commission and 

its board relating to Lake Ontario outflows and the reasons for them 

will be provided to the public as the year proceeds.

With respect to the possible improvement of the regulation of Lake 

Ontario, a joint Canada-Quebec study looking into problems in the 

all-Canadian section of the St. Lawrence River is now nearing completion. The Commission will continue the improvement or Lake 

Ontario regulation plans, taking into account the findings of the 

Canada-Quebec study and the experience acquired in the 1962-64 low 

water period and the present high water period.

We clo not believe tha t much can be done to improve Lake Ontario 

regulation within the constraints of the present flow capacity of the 

St. Lawrence River. Thus, improvement of Lake Ontario regulation 

will depend upon the balance between the benefits which could be 

achieved by improved regulation and the very high costs of channel 

excavation in the St. Lawrence River necessary to achieve the benefits.

The Commission is acutely aware of the need for better communication between the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River shoreline 

property owners and the International Join t Commission and its In ­

ternational St. Lawrence River Board of Control.

As an experimental step in the direction of improved communication, the Commission in mid-April approved the establishment of a 

public participation advisory panel to our St. Lawrence board. We 

are presently working out the details as to how the panel should be 

constituted and how it should function. Our hope is tha t over the 

long term the two-way exchange of ideas and information will be 

mutually beneficial to those regulating the lake and those who are 

affected by the regulation.

In closing, I would like to add tha t the Commission has viewed 

with great concern and misgivings the fact tha t shoreline development continues in vulnerable areas of the shorelines of all the Great 

Lakes, including Lake Ontario.

I do not feel tha t adequate information is readily available to 

shoreline property owners.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.

Senator Buckley. Than k you. Congressman Smith.

I wonder if you could, first of all, comment on the suggestions made 

by several of the people who have testified to the effect that the ta rget 

levels are too hich?

Mr. Smith. With your indulgence, Senator, I am going to let my 

technical advisors answer those questions. Among these is General
18

Moore , of course, who, in 1973 when Niaga ra County and Orleans 

County, and par t of M onroe th at I then repres ent ed in the Congress, 

were being bom bard ed by wind and very high w ate r levels, w as Colonel 

Moore of the Buffalo Di str ict an d he walked the shores of Lake On ­

tario, lo oking at the terrific d amage prov ided by high w ater and wind. 

I am g oing to leave to these techn ical people, the en gine ers, th e answers 

to those technical questions.

Sn ator Buckley. Ve ry fine.

Could you give me some idea of the time when the advis ory panel 

details will be finalized?

Mr. Smit h. I would hope, Se nator , as soon as possible. And to give 

a rou gh estimate, I would hop e in the next 2 m onths we wou ld be able 

to agree upo n a meth od of rep res entat ion and ap po int me nt, which we 

are now considerin g, and sh all p erha ps ask you for y ou r advic e in th at 

conn ection.

We will appre ciate all the i nput we can g et, a nd some of the people 

here today, whom I hav e ha d the pleasure of mee ting , hav e sen t us 

suggestion s of people who might well serve upo n thi s advisory panel.

Se na tor B uckley. Than k you very much.

One othe r subject, are you aw are of the attit ud e of the ot he r side of 

the internati on al boundar y? Ar e Ca nadia n res ide nts alo ng the s horeline o f Lake On tar io meetin g the same problems and ur gi ng the same 

action?

Mr. Smit h. Ap pa rentl y, up un til fa irly recently, wre haven’t had 

much ind ication th at people on the n orth shore of the lake were h aving 

prob lems. W ith in the recent pa st, however , I un de rst an d the re have 

been letters to the To ronto Glob e a nd M ail th at indica te th at people on 

the no rth shore of the lake are ha ving problems with hig h water.

Storms on Lake On tar io, pa rti cu la rly du ring the win ter and s pring 

mo nth s oft en come from the no rth ra th er than the othe r way around. 

Thus, t he people on the south sho re seem t o be h it oftener. But app ar ­

ently peop le on the Ca na dian shore are ha ving problems, too.

Se na tor Buckley. Tha nk you. Th an k you for your statem ent,

[T he an nual repo rt of th e J oin t Comm ission follows :]
19
Chr istia n A lle rte r. Jr..

Chairman. Un ite d Stales Section

Deputy Assista nt Secretary

of S tate f or En vir onme nta l and

Populatio n Affairs

Washin gto n, D.C.

Ma xw ell Cohen.

Ch airm an . Canadian Section

Mac Don ald Professor of Law

•leave of absen ce!.

formerly Dean of the Faculty o f Laic.

McG ill Univers ity; Ottau-a. Out

Charle s Ross, Co mm ission er

Lawy er. Farm er Hi netbu rg. Vt.

Bernard Bean pre . Commissioner

Pub lic Health Engineer. Richelieu . P.O.

Victor L. Sm ith . Com missioner

Publisher. Robin son. Ill

Keith A Henry. Commissioner

Pres.. CB A Engin eer ing Ltd Van cou t er. B.C.
' / / / ( ' / ! Z>

Chapter 1 z

Historical Devel opme nt................ -v

Chapter 2

Water Levels and Flows Across

the Bo un da ry ..................................Chapter J

Water Pollution Across the . g.Boundary ...................................... /

Chapter 4

Air Pollution Across the , s.

Boundary ...................................... / f)Chapter 5 , q

Other Matters .............................. / Q

Chapter 6

A Look at 1975 .............................. 9 9

Appendices q f 1— IJ C O rg aniz ational Arrangem ent 

an d Bo ards

2— Li st o f In te rn a tio n a l Pro jects 2 S)

}— Fiscal Support Data $

4— M ap o f A pplications an d £ ? /?

Referen ces e > *

>/ his is the First An nual Report of the Internatio nal Joint

, / Commission. Alth ou gh the IJC has been in existenc e for

nearly 6 5 years and has considered many water and other env ironm enta l pr oblems comm on to the interests of both the United

States and Canada and issued more than a hundred reports,

never befo re has it endeavored to giv e to the Gove rnm ents and

an interested pu bli c a general overvie w of its activ ities on an

annu al basis.The preparation of this report is also a reflection of the Commission's broadening role in United States-Canadian relations

which seems to have been taking place since the early 1960’s.

Dur ing this time the Com mission has become aware of the

necessity of better info rming the pu bli c of its activites, and this

report is in partial ful fillm en t of a policy decision to impr ove

its comm unications with all lev els of government and with the

public at targe.

The reader is free to quote or reproduce any part of 

rhis publication with ou t furth er permission
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT tcK>
he United States-Canadian border extends 

4,000 miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 

over half of which passes along rivers and lakes 

whose waters are shared equally by the two countries. There are another 1500 miles of border defining the Alaskan peninsula. By the turn of the Century 

it became apparent to Government leaders that some 

permanent provisions should be made for dealing 

with a number of complex problems that had developed. In 1909 the Boundary Waters Treaty was 

signed and eighteen months later ratified, 

y he IJC, established by the Boundary Waters 

Treaty, consists of six Commissioners; three 

from Canada, three from the United States. The 

Commissioners act, not as separate national delega-. 

tions under instruction from their respective Governments, but as a single body seeking common solutions 

in the joint interest and, most important, in accordance with the agreed rules or principles set out in the 

Treaty. Over the sixty-four years of its existence, there 

has been little tendency for the Commission to divide 

on national lines. In almost every case which has 

come before the Commissioners, they have reached 

unanimous agreement.

The IJC has headquarters offices in Washington, 

D. C. and Ottawa, Ontario, each staffed with a small 

group of advisers and a joint Secretary as provided 

in the Treaty. A permanent regional office was established in Windsor, Ontario in 1973 specifically to 

assist the Commission in its responsibilities under the 

terms of the 1972 G reat Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It is staffed jointly by Canadians and Americans and its costs of operation are shared equally by 

the two Governments.

In addition to its own staff, the Commission is given 

the right to obtain or impress assistance from federal 

agencies to assist in its work. For many activities.

international boards are set up whose job it is to carry 

out the directives of the Commission. The Great 

Lakes Water Quality Board, for example, is composed of 18 senior officials from various U.S. and 

Canadian federal, state and provincial agencies, and 

is the Commission's principal adviser on matters relating to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Durin g the last two years, 1973 and 1974, the 

Commission sat in formal session for 106 days and 

97 days respectively, exclusive of travel. In addition, 

numerous other meetings held during the year required the attendance of one or more Commissioners 

from each section, and staff.

y h e Commission’s responsibilities under the 1909

Treaty fall into three general categories:

The first involves the exercise of quasi-judicial powers in approving or withholding approval of applications for the use, obstruction or diversion of boundary 

waters on either side of the line that would affect the 

natural level or flow on the other side. This responsibility extends also to approval of works in water 

flowing from boundary waters and in waters that 

have crossed the boundary, when such works would 

affect the natural water level on the other side of the 

boundary. In granting such approval, the Commission may, and in certain cases must, impose conditions to ensure that suitable and adequate provision 

is made for the protection and indemnity of all interests on the other side of the line which may be injured by the approved use, obstruction or diversion.

The second general category of IJC responsibilities 

under the Treaty is that of making investigations and 

studies of specific problems, when requested by either 

or both Governments. This is known as a Reference. 

Under Article IX of the Treaty, either Government 

may refer to the Commission any question or matter
of difference arising between them involving the 

rights, obligations or interests of either in relation to 

the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along the common frontier. In practice, the two Governments usually consult on the terms and then transmit 

a joint Reference to the Commission. The responsibility of the IJC in such cases is to investigate, to 

report the facts and circumstances to the two Governments and to make recommendations. Implementation of the recommendations in each case depends on 

the decisions of the two Governments, usually after 

consultation. References to the IJC have covered 

such diverse matters as utilization of the water resources of a river basin, design of remedial works to 

preserve the beauty of Niagara Falls, water and air pollution along the boundary, ecological and environmental effects of flooding the Skagit River valley, 

problems of residents of Point Roberts. Washincton, resulting from its isolation from the rest of the United States, and the regulation of Great Lakes 

levels.

The third category of responsibility is that of surveillance and coordination. The IJC is required to 

monitor compliance with the terms and conditions set 

forth in Orders of Approval it has issued, and notify the Governments when discrepancies are found. In 

addition, when requested by the two Governments, 

the IJC may monitor and coordinate actions or programs that result from governmental acceptance of 

recommendations made by the Commission in reports under Article IX of the Treaty.

There is a fourth category of responsibility of the 

IJC under the Treaty which might be considered as 

held in reserve, since the Governments have not seen 

fit to avail themselves of the facility it offers. Under Article X of the Treaty, the Governments may refer 

questions or matters of difference to the Coipmission 

for decision rather than just for report and recommendations. The questions or matters that may be referred are similar to those described in Article IX, 

except that they need not be "along the common 

frontier.” Article X contains an additional requirement, however— such a reference requires the consent 

of both Governments,- and this involves the prior 

advice and consent of the U.S. Senate and the consent in Canada of the Governor General in Council.

Lastly, in implementing the recommendations contained in IJC reports on various Article IX Refer-
ences, the tw o Go vernm ents in some cases have given 

specific respo nsibilities and autho rity to the Com mission in add ition to those it possesses by virtue of the 

Boundary Wate rs Treaty. Th e Go vernm ents have accom plished this from time to time in various ways 

and with varyin g degrees of form ality. Th e 1972 

Gr ea t Lakes W ater Q ual ity Ag ree me nt is an exam ple of the Go vernm ents for mally confe rring add itional 

responsibilities on the Commission.

he natur e of the continuing work of the International Jo int Com mission require d that it consider 

a broad range of United States-C anadian bounda ry 

problems of varying degrees of impor tance during the course of any o ne year. Th e year 197 4 was typical 

in this respect. It has been said that no pro blem is 

too large or too small to com ma nd the attention of 

the Commission.

Th e water levels and pollution pro ble ms of the 

Gr ea t Lakes affect the we ll-being of millio ns wh o reside alo ng the ir shores in both Countr ies, as well as 

those w ho work in industries whose very existence depends on the ir ability to utilize the resources of the lakes. In con trast, the pla cem ent of an ice boom in 

Lake Erie a t its o utl et in to the Ni agara River is a small 

ope ration ; alb eit its benefits and advantages are indirectly enjo yed by vast num ber of residents of the 

Niagara Frontie r.

Highlighting the Comm ission’s activities in 1974 

was the pub lica tion of the Com mission 's Second An ­

nua l Report on G reat Lakes W ater Quality; receipt, public atio n and conduc t of public hea rings on the Gr ea t Lakes Levels Board’s exhaustive study to determine the feasibility of fur the r regulating lake levels; 

the completion of field studies on a con trov ersial C anadian prop osal to con trol water levels and flooding 

alo ng the Ric helieu River and Lake Ch am pla in; a 

prop osal by British Colum bia to reopen a 1942 Ord er 

of App roval to con stru ct a dam on the Skagit River; 

and the conduc t of a sem inar to begin consideration 

of ways to increase the effectiveness of the Commission’s operations.

A m ore detailed account of the Comm ission’s activities d uri ng 1974 follows.
WATER LEVELS AND FLOWS ALONG 

THE BOUNDARY
The Great Lakes

J p ecause of their very large size, the Great Lakes 

/ ) are normally able to store the water which reaches them with only relatively small changes in 

their water levels. However, the capacities of the rivers connecting or draining them are small, compared to the water volume stored in the lakes. Because of the limited capacities of the draining rivers, when precipitation persists for a period above or below the 

normal level, water levels of the lakes vary significantly.

The high water levels which occurred on the lakes 

in 1951-52 and those which have occurred during the past three years, are the result of persistently high precipitation. The very low levels of 1964-65 occurred because of persistently low precipitation.

When conditions which cause the extreme high or 

low levels have changed, it takes some time for the 

lakes to return to a more normal state. Their great 

S'ze and limited outlet capacities do not permit them 

to respond quickly as would a much smaller lake with a relatively large outlet.

Ex ist ing Re gu latory W or ks 

yVan, through various works, has affected to some 

• ’* degree the Great Lakes water levels. In several 

instances, because of the significant effects of proposed works on levels and flows, the International 

Joint Commission was responsible for approving the construction and operation of the works.

In 1914 the Commission approved the construction 

of the control works for power generation in the St. 

Marys River at the outlet of Lake Superior. In approving this decision the Commission stipulated that 

the level of Lake Superior should be maintained at a

prescribed level, and that the control works should 

be operated exclusively for the benefit of Lake Superior interests.

Lake Ontario water levels have been regulated by 

power facilities which were constructed in the St. 

Lawrence River in the 195O’s under IJC Orders of Approval. The lake is regulated within a range of 

stage from elevation 244.0 feet to elevation 248.0 

feet ". . . as nearly as may be,” in accordance with 

eleven specific criteria approved by the two Governments.

Water Level Study

(i n the mid-1960’s, when water levels in the Great 

' Lakes were extremely low, public and private interests in both countries were suffering serious adverse effects. The Commission was directed to undertake a study to ". . . determine whether measures 

within the Great Lakes Basin can be taken in the 

public interest to regulate further the levels of the 

Great Lakes so as to reduce the extremes of stage 

which have been experienced.”

The Great Lakes Levels Board, made up primarily 

of senior engineers from Government agencies of 

both Countries was established by the Commission to make the detailed engineering studies. A little over 

nine years later the Board submitted its report with 

seven supporting appendices to the Commission.

In essence the final Board Report found that (1) 

regulation of the water levels of Lake Michigan and 

Huron was not economically feasible; (2 ) that some regulation of Lake Erie might be economically feasible; and (3 ) that small net benefits could lie achieved at a nominal cost by a change in the present regulation of Lake Superior. /
The levels of all the Great Lakes rose in 1972 and 

high levels have persisted throughout 1973 and 

1974. In January 1973 the Commission received an 

emergency application from the United States G overnment requesting permission to reduce the flows 

from Lake Superior to alleviate conditions on the 

lower lakes. In response to this request and expressions of concern by the Canadian Government, the 

Commission ordered its Lake Superior Board to deviate from an approved regulation plan to reduce the 

discharge from the lake.

In April 1973 the Commission received from its 

Great Lakes Levels Board an Interim Report suggesting consideration of a new concept for controlling 

water levels in Lake Superior—to give all possible 

relief to Lakes Michigan and Huron shore property 

interests without causing unacceptable conditions in 

Lake Superior. After public hearings throughout the 

Great Lakes Basin the Commission submitted (Jun e 

1973) a Special Interim Report to Governments 

recommending the new objective. However, the Commission made it clear that ", . . as soon as the emergency situation eases downstream or if Lake Superior 

conditions require, the Commission will find it necessary to revert to the [normal operating rule] unless 

further instructions have been received from the 

Governments.”

The Board’s final report on the overall lake levels 

study was released to the public in February 1974 

and by the year’s end the Commission had held 13 

public hea. ings in the Great Lakes Basin—at Detroit, 

Green Bay, Duluth, Milwaukee, Chicago, Muskegon, 

Cleveland, and Rochester in the United States; Th under Bay, Owen Sound, Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton, 

and Montreal in Canada. About 1,300 persons attended the hearings, with over 200 witnesses giving 

testimony before the Commission on their views of

the Board’s report, as individuals or as representatives 

of an interested organization or government agency. 

The Commission expects to formulate its report on 

further regulation of Great Lakes water levels and 

forward its findings and recommendations to the two 

Governments during the calendar year 1975.

Cha mpl ain- Riche lie u Pr ojec t 

j n 1937 the IJC approved the construction and 

' operation by Canada of regulatory works in the 

Richelieu River to control flooding of adjacent lands 

in the Province of Quebec. The project also regulates 

the levels of Lake Champlain in the United States.

A control dam just below St. Jean, Quebec, in the 

Richelieu River and known as Fryers' Island Dam 

was completed in 1939, but other works which would 

expand the Richelieu River channel were never completed. As a result, the purpose of the project was 

never achieved.

In recent years high water supplies ha ve caused considerable damage to riparian interests in the Richelieu 

River Valley and Lake Champlain Basin. In March 

1973 the United States and Canadian Governments 

asked the IJC to "investigate and report on the feasibility and desirability of regulation of the Richelieu 

River . . . for the purpose of alleviating extreme 

water conditions in the Richelieu River and in Lake 

Champlain . . . ”

The Commission immediately established the International Champlain-Richelieu Engineering Board 

composed of both United States and Canadian engineers and environmental specialists to undertake the 

necessary field studies and report to the Commission 

within one year. The Board submitted its report to 

the Commission in September 1974, pointing out 

that the study time had been too short to undertake

J
more complete investigation of possible environmental consequences of regulating Lake Champlain 

water levels.

The Board concluded that regulation of Lake Champlain for flood control purposes could be accomplished so as to reduce extreme water levels and the 

attendant damages. However, the Board differed on what the environmental effects of regulation would 

be on the United States side of the boundary. Some 

members believed environmental damages would be minimal, while others said damages could be significant. In any event, the report said that environmental acceptability of the project could not be determined without further study.

The Commission released the Board's Report following its October 1974 semi-annual meeting in O ttawa and held public hearings in early December in 

Burlington, Vermont; Plattsburgh, New York; and St. 

Jean, Quebec. (Note: On March 12, 1975, the Commission forwarded to the two Governments an interim report recommending that an intensive study be 

undertaken to determine the effects of regulation on 

the environment in both Countries. It also recommended that there be an accurate determination of 

net benefits; that the Project contemplated in the 

Commission’s earlier Order of Approval not be completed nor operated; and that if Canada wished to 

proceed with a dam concurrently with the environmental studies it should file an application with the 

Commission, which the Commission would then consider with dispatch.)The American Falls at Niagara 

r J nother major study—The Preservation and Enhancement of the American Falls at Niagara— 

was completed for the IJC in June 1974. Originally

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by 

Congress in 1965 to undertake the study, but by 

1967 it was expanded into an international study 

when the United States and Canadian Governments requested the IJC to investigate and report on measures necessary to preserve or enhance the beauty of 

the American Falls. The purpose of the study was to 

consider the scenic spectacle of the American Falls 

including the continuing process of changes in the 

form and appearance of the Falls.

The American Falls International Board was created by the Commission and undertook the necessary 

studies. In its final report to the Commission, the 

Board concluded that "the guiding policy should be 

to accept the process of change . . . and erosion and 

recession [of the Falls] should not be interrupted.” 

The Board told the Commission, however, that it 

would be feasible, if desired, to remove all or any 

part of the talus (crumbled rock) which has accumulated at the base of the Falls, and to retard or prevent 

further erosion.

The Commission released the full Report of the 

Board for public review and held public hearings.

Aside from the Board’s conclusions and recommendations on the American Falls itself, it also recommended that a broad international environmental study should be carried out which would include the 

American Falls "as a part of the larger scene which includes the flanks of the Falls, the adjacent parks, 

and the back-drop of city buildings and commercial enterprises."
WATER POLLUTION 

ACROSS THE BOU NDA RY

COo

J?
Great Lakes Water Quality

J i he Commission’s first involvement with bound- 

» / ary water pollution problems began in its first 

year of operation, 1912. Later, a major study, concluded in 1918, warned (he two Countries that problems were developing in the Great Lakes and would 

become acute if remedial programs for handling municipal and industrial wastes were not undertaken.

With the accelerated industrial and municipal development in the Great Lakes Basin in the 1930’s and 

during the World Wa r II period, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario were hard hit by excessive and uncontrolled waste discharges. In 1946 the Commission was requested to investigate the water quality problems in 

the various connecting channels of the Great Lakes because of serious industrial pollution, particularly in the Detroit and Niagara Rivers. In 1950 the Commission clearly outlined the problems, recommended 

remedial action, and established international water 

quality objectives. The objectives were the forerunner of water quality standards later established by the 

two Governments as a major control measure.

Then in 1964 the two Governments requested the 

Commission to investigate the seriously polluted condition of the lower Great Lakes— Erie and Ontario— and to make recommendations. By 1970 the 

Commission filed its report, listing a wide range of 

remedial programs and actions that would be required to avert a major catastrophe in the Great 

Lakes.

The Governments responded and began a series of 

bi-lateral discussions that were concluded on April 

15, 1972, with the signing of the Great Lakes W ater 

Quality Agreement by President Nixon and Prime 

Minister Trudeau.

The Agreement sets out certain water quality objectives for the Great Lakes and outlines a wide range 

of remedial programs to be undertaken by the Governments to achieve them.

The Commission has been given a responsibility to 

coordinate programs set out in the Agreement, to 

evaluate their effectiveness and to assess progress in 

pollution abatement. The Agreement also directs the 

Commission to report to Governments at least annually on its evaluation of the progress and effectiveness 

of the Agreement.

The Commission's first report was released in July 

1973 and covered Agreement activities for calendar 

year 1972. It reported on the formation of a Great 

Lakes Water Quality Board, a Research Advisory 

Board, a dredging committee, and a regional office 

as authorized in the Agreement. The two Boards serve as principal advisors to the Commission on 

matters pertaining to the Agreement and are a continuing body composed equally of United States and 

Canadian water pollution experts. The dredging 

committee created by the Agreement was established 

to review current dredging practices and to recommend by 1975 programs to minimize pollution of 

the lakes from this activity.

In this first report, the Commission said it was too 

early to assess progress and evaluate programs being 

implemented, but expressed optimism that the two 

Countries were making satisfactory progress in implementing the Agreement. In addition, the report 

said the continuing increased rate of degradation of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario appeared to be slowing down.
The Commission's second annual report, released in 

1974 on its 1973 activities, concluded that the increasing rate of degradation in Lake Erie appeared 

to be halted, although it had no comprehensive scientific data to support its views. A serious deficiency, 

the Commission asserted, was the lack of funds and 

personnel to carry out a water quality assessment program.Considerable data are being collected but an adequate capability to evaluate and interpret on a uniform technical basis does not exist for all the Governments or agencies involved. Until it does, the 

Commission asserted, it would not be able to report 

on progress with any scientific accuracy.

At the time of the signing of the Water Quality 

Agreement, the Governments referred to the Commission two major problems related to Great Lakes 

water quality. First, the Commission was requested to undertake a water quality study of Lake Superior and Lake Huron, much the same as they had requested on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario almost 10 

years before. Secondly, the Commission was requested to investigate the effects of various land use activities in the Great Lakes Basin on the water quality of the 

lakes

Special teams of United States and Canadian scientists were organized in 1973 to undertake the studies 

and by 1974 the investigations were well underway. 

Over 200 federal, state and provincial governm ent 

technicians and scientists are involved in carrying 

out the field studies. The Lake Superior and Lake 

Huron studies are expected to be completed by the 

end of 1975 while the Land Use Activities studies—a 

great deal more complex— is expected to be completed in 1977 or 78.

To assist the Commission and its Boards in the large 

task of coordinating programs initiated in both Countries under the terms of the Agreement and to make an annual assessment of the progress, a regional office was established in Windsor, Ontario. The regional office, with an authorized staff of 36, serves primarily as a Secretariat and as technical support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board and the Research Advi­ sory Board. In addition, it serves as a focal point for the collection and storage of water quality data and related information, and its facilities are in daily use by the numerous groups, committees and subcom­ mittees organized to carry out the programs specified in the Agreement. The United States and Canada share equally in the total cost of its operations, as well as in the composition of the professional staff. St. Croix River >/ he St. Croix River forms a portion of the bound- ‘ ' ary between the Province of New Brunswick and the State of Maine. Since before the turn of the Century, lumbering, milling and the manufacture of pulp wood have been the principal industries sup­ porting a relatively small population. These indus­ tries were almost completely unregulated with re­ spect to waste discharges until recent years. In 1955 the Commission was requested to study the St. Croix River for better use, conservation and regu­ lation of waters. In October 1959 the Commission reported to Governments with its recommendations on pollution abatement and other matters, including international water quality objectives. By 1966 the Commission had set up the Advisory Board on Pollu­ tion Control, St. Croix River, which has carried out a surveillance and monitoring function for the Com­ mission since that time; reporting semi-annually on water quality conditions and pollution control activ­ ities of industry and municipalities.
Progress in pollution abatement on the river has 

been slow in spite of the presence of the IJC. In 1968, 

the Commission conducted a public meeting in the St. 

Croix basin to discuss with industrial and municipal 

leaders and the public the quality problems in the 

river and the efforts being taken to correct them.

With satisfactory progress still not achieved, the 

Commission in 1971, after receiving a special report 

from the Advisory Board, requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take such steps within 

its authority, as are "appropriate and necessary to 

obtain compliance at the earliest possible date with existing water quality objectives and standards in the Sr. Croix River.”

EPA responded in November 1971 by filing a complaint with the U.S. District Attorney in Maine 

against the Georgia-Pacific Company and sought a 

permanent injunction against the company’s "continued discharge of refuse matter into navigable waters of the United States.”

In January 1972 the Justice Department filed suit 

against Georgia-Pacific. Since then, the company has responded by submitting plans and beginning construction of waste treatment facilities which will comply with the terms of a waste discharge permit which has been issued by the State under the provisions of 

the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPD ES).

The most recent report (September 1974) of the 

Advisory Board reported that construction on the 

Georgia-Pacific waste treatm ent facility was underway in July. Wh en completed, it is anticipated that 

a major step will have been taken to return the stream to a water quality level capable of assuring 

salmon spawning.

Rainy River and Lake of the Woods

yh e Commission has been involved in matters 

pertaining to the Rainy River, its levels and 

flows, since an initial meeting in 1912. It was not 

until 1959, however, that the pollution of the Rainy 

River became a matter of special concern to the two 

Governments and the Commission was asked to investigate. The Commission presented its final report 

with recommendations in February 1965, finding 

that the waters of the Lake of the Woods were in 

satisfactory condition but that the Rainy River was 

polluted on both sides of the boundary.

Here again the Commission recommended water 

quality objectives for the river as minimum criteria 

for the establishment of water quality standards and abatement programs by the State of Minnesota and the Province of Ontario. Since 1965 provision of and improvements in municipal sewage treatment 

have been developing in the basin.

Current principal polluters to the Rainy are pulp 

mills of Boise Cascade Corporation located across 

the river from each other at International Falls, Minnesota and Fort Frances, Ontario.

The U.S. plant continues to be a principal violator 

of stream standards, and the Canadian plant has not 

yet achieved a satisfactory abatement program. The 

State of Minnesota is proceeding under the terms of an NPDES permit to require a vigorous waste treatment program at the International Falls plant. In 

November 1974 the Commission requested its Rainy 

River Water Pollution Board to report on the apparent continuing difficulties of the Canadian plant.
AIR POLLUTION 

ACROSS THE BOUNDARY
r - / l ir pollution is not specifically referred to in the

/ Boundary Waters Treaty. Nevertheless, in the 

past the Commission has been requested by the Governments to concern itself with three specific transboundary air pollution problems. Recently, it has been given continuing responsibility to carry out a 

general border surveillance and to advise the Governments of air pollution problems, actual or potential.

The matter of air pollution in the Detroit-Windsor 

area arose first in 1928, but again more urgently in 

1968 when the Commission was requested to determine whether air quality there, and in the Port 

Huron-Sarnia area, was degraded to an extent that it 

was detrimental to public health, safety or general 

welfare of citizens on the other side of the boundary.

In July 1972, the Commission reported to Governments that transboundary and local air pollution

in the two study areas exceeded "the level that is 

detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and to property on the other side of the international boundary.”

During 1974 the Commission responded in October to numerous complaints from Canadian citizens of 

Ft. Frances, Ontario on unacceptable air quality conditions in the area caused by the Boise-Cascade kraft pulp mill at International Falls. The Commission requested the Governor of Minnesota to intercede into the situation and require an immediate correction to 

the problem or cause the plan t to close. The Governor responded by dispatching State air pollution 

specialists into the area who worked with company officials to provide promptly an interim solution to 

the problem.

/ /
OTHER MATTERS

/ , v
/ he Commission had before it during 1974 nu­ merous other problems of international importance, particularly to those citizens of both countries 

most directly affected. Among these matters are the following.

Ross Dam and the Ska git Valley

(In 1942 the Commission approved an application 

by the City of Seattle to construct a power dam on 

the Skagit River which flows across the international boundary from British Columbia into the State of Washington. The dam was to be constructed in 

stages to raise the levels of the resultant lake to a 

maximum level of 1725 feet. A condition of the Commission’s Order of Approval was the payment of adequate compensation to the Province for any damage caused in British Columbia, and that the water 

levels could not be raised until there was a binding 

agreement to assure compensation. Such an agreement was concluded in 1967. In 1970 the City of 

Seattle filed with the U.S. Federal Power Commission 

an application to amend a 1927 license to raise Ross Dam the last 125 feet. The effect of raising the final stage of the dam would be to enlarge the reservoir to 

the extent that it would inundate Canadian land in 

the Skagit Valley some eight miles beyond the boundary. As a result, the two Governments in April 1971 asked the Commission to assess the environmental 

consequences in Canada of raising Ross Dam to elevation 1725 feet.

In its 1972 report to Governments, the Commission 

found that the present characteristics of the environment would be changed, but the new environment 

would retain many of the former characteristics. 

Those who appreciate and use the Valley in its present state would inevitably suffer somewhat, although 

other people would find the new environment at

least as pleasant. The Commission pointed out, however, that the concept of "social preservation” was 

significant and should be taken into account in the decision-making process.

The Federal Power Commission had not acted on 

the Seattle application by the end of 1974, however the Commission received a formal request from the 

Province of British Columbia to reconsider the approval of the City of Seattle’s original application.

The Commission has not yet responded formally to 

the Provincial request but has urged the parties to negotiate if possible, a mutually acceptable solution.

Ice Booms

y/or the past ten years the power entities (Power

Authority of the State of New York and OntarioHydro) have been installing an ice boom in Lake 

Erie at the head of the Niagara River in the late 

Fall. This reduces heavy ice flows down the River 

during the Winter thus reducing the possibility of 

downstream flooding and interference with water diversion facilities required by the U.S. and Canadian power stations below Niag ara Falls. Benefits of the ice boom installation to flood control and power production are significant, but some controversy has arisen during the last several years as to 

whether the booms hold the ice at the east end of 

Lake Erie for a longer period of time in the Spring, 

and if so, whether this contributes to adverse atmospheric conditions in the vicinity of Buffalo. Studies 

to date on this subject have failed to substantiate this 

charge. As the year ended, the Commission learned 

that the power entities were readying a request for 

an extension of the Orders of Approval to permit the 

installation of the ice boom for an indefinite period 

of years.
In another program, ice booms have been installed 

since the winter of 1959-60 in the St. Lawrence River 

by the Power Authority of the State of New York 

and Ontario-Hydro to form and maintain a stable ice cover in the River to reduce the probability of ice jams and allow a reasonably stable production of 

power. In 1974 the Commission, which issued 

Orders of Approval for the continuation and operation of the power plants, advised the Governments it 

now considers the ice booms to be an integral part of the control works and therefore subject to the Commission’s Orders. The Governments have so agreed.

In a related area, the Commission is cognizant of the 

current U.S. Corps of Engineers' Winter Navigation 

Study which is looking into the feasibility of extending the winter navigation season in the Great Lakes system. The Commission directed its St. Lawrence 

River Board of Control to review a study proposal to 

install and operate an experimental ice boom in the 

St. Lawrence River at Copeland Cut. The Board advised the Commission that the experimental boom 

would not affect the levels and flows in the River.

Point Rob erts<1 n 1971 the Commission was asked by the two Governments to undertake a study of the problems created by the presence and location of the International

Boundary at Point Roberts, Washington, which 

causes the community to be isolated to some degree 

from the rest of the United States. In October 1973 

the International Point Roberts Board submitted its 

report to the Commission. The Board concluded that a truly binational solution should be sought; one that would provide benefits to the people of both Countries. The Board recommended the establishment of an international conservation and recreation area that would include Point Roberts, certain adjacent Canadian lands, and also a portion of the Gulf and San Juan Islands. A binational forum would be created to administer the program. Public hearings were held in December 1973 and the major public response to the Board proposal was strongly adverse to the plan. As a result the Commission redirected its Board to prepare a supplemental report focusing on solutions to the specific problems set out in the original Ref­ erence and affecting the Point within its geographic limits. These were subsequently identified and dis­ cussed by the Board in its supplemental report sub­ mitted in October 1974. The report considered the application of federal immigration and custom laws, regulations of both Countries with respect to the transportation of goods including perishable food­ stuffs, the free movement of tradesmen, employment of U.S. residents of Point Roberts in Canada and visa versa, visa restrictions on Canadian residents, Canadian pension rights, Provincial and State rules regarding health and medical services, electric power and telephone service, law enforcement, and local regulation or provision of water sewage treatment and waste disposal. The Board concluded that resolution of the major problems would require ", . . co ncepts] of sufficient breadth to justify a marshalling of resources on both sides of the boundary." However, the Board also con­ cluded that until the various levels of governm ent accept the necessity for binational cooperation, little progress can be made. The Commission hopes that the State and Province and local governments will come to some agreement in principle regarding the future of the Point. The Commission has not yet developed its report to Governments on Point Roberts in answer to the
initial Reference, but will give further consideration 

to the complex problems of the Point during 1975. 

Zosel Dam

y n other actions during 1974, the Commission urged 

the Governor of Washington to repair Zosel Dam 

located on the Okanagan River near the International Boundary. It had partially failed with no 

loss of life or damage to property during a heavy 

rainstorm in August 1974. Zosel Dam was constructed in 1927 by private interests under a permit issued by the State of Washington and has been 

operated since 1946 under the Commission’s Orders of Approval. Wh ile the Commission has been advised that private interests are no longer using the dam, the structure, stabilizing lake levels d uring the 

irrigation and recreation seasons, has become an integral part of a long established environment.

Prairie Portage Dam

y he Commission also approved plans to rebuild 

Prairie Portage Dam located in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area of Superior National Forest in 

the State of Minnesota and Querico Park in Ontario. 

The dam, first built in 1902, has been operated under 

the Commission’s Orders of Approval since 1936. In

1941 the U.S. Forest Service replaced it with a cofferdam when the original structure deteriorated beyond 

repair. The cofferdam failed in 1968 and the Commission allowed it to be rebuilt provided a permanent 

structure was constructed. In October 1973 the IJC strongly urged the Forest Service to seek funding for 

a permanent structure. During 1974 funds were provided by Congress, plans and specifications for the 

permanent structure were completed, an environmental impact statement prepared, and agreement 

reached with Canada that construction can proceed

early in 1975 as weather permits under IJC supervision.

Public Participation

1 ot only has the Commission given attention during 1974 to a broad range of important border 

problems referred to it by the two Governments, but studies have been initiated into ways for improving 

its service to the citizens of the United States and Canada. The Commission is aware of the criticism 

voiced by many private citizens and groups during 

recent public hearings. It is asserted that the Commission’s operations and responsibilities are not 

widely known to the public and there appear to be 

few avenues other than hearings for the private citizen to influence Commission decision in a timely 

way. The problem of citizen input to the Commission 

is now under study and the Commission expects to improve its communications with the public during 

1975. Also reflecting the Commission's decision to 

better inform the public of its activities is the public 

information program developed at its regional office 

at Windsor, Ontario. This includes the hiring of a 

full-time public information officer to carry out the program. The Canadian Section of the Commission 

expects to employ a full-time public information 

officer in 1975.

Improving the Commission's operation and exploring its general role for the future was the subject of 

a seminar in Montreal in July 1974 at which a number of high ranking public officials, former Commissioners, private citizens and academic experts met 

with the Commission and staff. T he seminar was the 

first systematic examination of the Commission in 

almost 65 years of existence as to the adequacy of its 

legal authority, its procedures and performance. As 

a result, it expects to make recoi imendations to the 

two Governments to increase its effectiveness.
I
( Y 'km Lakes levels are expected to continue abj y normally high during the next several years.

Thus, the present problem of affording as 

much protection as possible to shore property interests above and below the control facilities presently 

in place in the St. Marys and St. Lawrence Rivers 

will continue to command the frequent attention of 

the Commission. In the meantime, the Commission 

expects to prepare and forward to Governments its 

report and recommendations on the feasibility of 

further regulating lake levels.

A second major program which will command 

much of the Commission's attention during 1975 is 

the coordination and assessment of United States and 

Canadian programs initiated pursuant to the provisions of the Great Lakes W ater Quality Agreement. 

An important milestone in the Agreement will be reached at year’s end when all "programs and other measures directed toward the achievement of water quality objectives" are supposed to be "completed or 

in the process of implementation."

In addition, the Richelieu-Champlain Report will 

have been submitted, and the Commission will be awaiting the response of both Governments to its 

recommendations.

In other areas, problems which may reach the Commission in 1975 for study include the controversial 

Garrison Project in North Dakota, the OkanaganSimilkameen River Basin in Washington and British 

Columbia, and another air pollution reference for the 

Detroit-Windsor area to monitor progress and effectiveness of an Ontario-Michigan air pollution control agreement. In the meantime some 28 Boards and 

Groups will be advising the Commission on numerous existing boundary problems from coast to coast.

Many years ago, in 1913, the former U. S. Secretary 

of State, Senator Elihu Root, a signatory of the 1909 

Boundary Waters Treaty, said, "I do not anticipate that the time will ever come when the Commission 

will not be needed . . . to dispose of controversies 

along the boundary.” The numerous vital matters 

the Commission now faces, and will face in 1975, 

seem to confirm that prophesy.

A new generation of problems that must relate 

water levels and use with water and air quality, and land use activities, gives a qualitatively new dimension to the Commission's role along the common frontier. 

Such a role will demand of the Commission the application of its traditional experience as well as novel approaches with the encouragement and support of both Governments.

p o r th e re ade r w h o is in te re ste d in e x a m in in g th e 

a c ti v it ie s o f th e In te rn a ti o n a l J o in t C om m is sio n in 

g re ate r d e ta il, th e fo ll o w in g h is to ri c a l, o rg a n iz a tio n a lan d fisca l m ate rials a re ap pe nded .
I

IJC ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENT AND BOARDS

(1974)

CONTROL BOARDS

St. Croix River

Lake ChamplainSt. Lawrence River

Niagara RiverLake Superior

Prairie PortageRainy & Namakan Lakes

Souris River

St. Mary & Milk Rivers

Kootenay Lake

Columbia River

Osoyoos LakeSkagit River

Point Roberts the BoundaryRichelieu River and 

Lake Champlain

4^tc

24
IJ C L IS T OF I N T E R N A T IO N A L P R O JE C T S

Under the Boundary Waters Treaty and other international arrangements, the IJC generally receives its projects

(1) by applications to it for approval of certain activities on boundary or transboundary waters, or (2) by referral to it by the US.

and/o r Canadian Governments to make investigations (references). 

— A or K on the chart indicates applications or reference.

— The year refers to the date the application or reference was

submitted to the IJC.

— The IJC Document number is the official identification n umber for the purpose of keeping track of the projects.

NUMERICAL INDEX AND CAPSULE OF IJC 

DOCKETS

Ye ar

Do cke t

No. Titl e Action

1912 1 A RAINY RIVER IMPROVEMENT CO.

Kettle Falls Dam

Dismissed as covered by a "special agreement."

2 A WATROUS ISLAND BOOM

CO.Boom in Rainy River

Approved. N o Board.

3R LAKE OF THE WOODS 

LEVELS

Completed. Resulted in the 1925 

Convention. Active board.

4 R POLLUTION OF BOUNDARY 

WATERS

Completed. Recommendations not 

implemented.

5R LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL 

Detroit River

Completed. Recommendations 

implemented.

1913 6A MICHIGAN NORTHERN 

POWER CO.

St. Mary's River Dam 

(with No. 8)

Approved. First Board of

Control. Active board.

7 A GREATER WINNIPEG Approved. No board.

WATER DISTRICT

100 mgd from Shoal Lake for Winnipeg water supply

8 A ALGOMA STEEL Approved. Active board.

CORPORATION 

St. Mary’s River Dam (with No. 6)

ftestc/e'.r,?

Docke t 

Ye ar No.

1914 9R

10 A

1915 11 A

1916 12 A

D A

1918 14 A

15 A16 A

1920 17 R

1923 18 A

1925 19 A

20 R21 A

Titl e

ST. MARY AND MILK

Article VI of B.W. Treaty

THE ST. CROIX WATER & 

POWER CO Grand Falls Dam 

(with No. 11)

SPRAGUE S FALLS MFG.

CO.Grand Falls Dam 

(with No. 10)

INTERNATIONAL LUMBER

CO.

Boom in Rainy River

ST. CLAIR RIVER CHANNEL

NEW YORK AND ONTARIO POWER CO.

Waddington Weir

ST. LAWRENCE RIVER & 

POWER CO.Massena Weir

CANADIAN COTTONS LTD. 

Milltown Dam on St. Croix River

ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 

NAVIGATION AND POWERSTATE OF MAINE FISHWAYS

Fishway in St. Croix RiverNEW BRUNSWICK ELEC 

TR1C POWER COMMISSION 

Grand Falls Dam on St. John 

River

RAINY LAKE LEVELS

BUFFALO AND FORT ERIE 

PUBLIC BRIDGE CO.

Bridge over Niagara River

Action

Issued Order in 1921 on method 

of water measurement and 

apportionment.

Same structure. Approved in 

1915. Amended in 1931 — 

Docket 28. Active board.

Approved. No board.

Approved dredging. No board. Compensating works not constructed.

Decision postponed. Now inundated by St. Lawrence Power.

Approved. Board was established. Works removed prior to St. Lawrence Power Project. Withdrawn in 1919.

4-

W

Completed. Treaty drafted in 

1932. U.S. Senate did not ratify 

it. Revived in Docket 68. Approved. No board.

Approved without passing on the 

issue of downstream benefits. No 

board.Completed. Led to Convention of 1928. Active Board. Sec Docket 

50.Approved. No board.

25
Ye ar

19261927

1928

1929

1931

19321932

1934

1935

1936

Docket

No. Title- Action

22 A ST. JO H N RIV ER & PO WER 

COGrand Falls Dam on St. Joh n 

Rive r

App roved transfer of approval 

gra nted under Do cket 19.

23 A CR ES TO N R EC LAM ATIO N

CO LT D

D ykin g on Koote nay River in 

Canada and above the Lake

Ap proved. N o board.

24 A ST. LA W R EN C E RIV ER & 

PO WER CO.

Raise Massena W eir

No action Hea rin g adjourne d "sine die.” Now inundated bySt. Lawrence Power Project.

25 R T R A IL SM EL TE R FUME S Com pleted Re port not accepted 

by U.S. Th e trib un al award sim ilar to IJC.

26 R RO SE AU RIV ER D R A IN A G E Studies procee ding after a 40-ycar 

governm ental delay.

27 A W EST K O O TE N A Y PO WER

Sc L IG H T C O.. LT D.

Koote nay Lake Storage

W ithdra w n in 1934.

28 A ST. C R O IX W A TE R PO WER 

CO., an.l SP RA GUE FALLS 

MFG . CO

Grand Falls Da m on St. Cro ix 

Rive r

App roved raising forebay 1.5 feet. 

Ac tive board. In itia l app roval in Dockets 10 & 11.

29 A K O O TE N A Y V A LLE Y PO WER 

and D EVELO PM ENT CO. 

D yki ng on Kootenay River in 

Canada near Creston

Approved. N o board.

30 Docket numb er assigned in erro r 

— same as above

31 A M A D A W A S K A C O M P A N Y 

Grand Falls Dam on St. John River

Denied. Related to claims pursu ­

ant to opera tion under Dockets 

1 0 & 22.

32 A C A N A D IA N C OTTO NS LT D. 

M illto w n Dam on St. Cro ix 

River

Appro ved. Ac tiv e Board.

33 A JE AN LAR IV IE R E

Private small dam on Little St. 

John Lake

Appro ved. N o board.

34 A BRUNER, PC .

D yki ng o n Koote nay River in 

Canada

Appro ved. N o board.

35 A M O N T A N A CO NSER VATIO N 

BO ARD

Dam o n East Fork of Popular 

River

Appro ved. Da m no t bu ilt . N o board.

Year

Docket

No. Title Action

36 A M Y R U M GEO. B

Re pair of Prairie Portage D am

Ap pro ved. Re pair wor k on existing tim be r dam not impleme nte d.

37 R C H A M P LA IN W A T E R W A Y 

Deep waterw ay from St. La wrence to Hudson River

Completed. Recommended new 

study after St. Lawrence Seaway bu ilt .

1937 38 A RIC HELI EU RIV ER 

R E M ED IA L W O RKS

Approved. Only co ntrol gates in ­stalled. Dykes and exca vation not 

impleme nte d. Ac tive board.

1938 39 A W EST K O O T E N A Y POWER

Sc L IG H T C O. LT D.Co rra Linn Da m fo r Kootenay 

Lake Storage

Appro ved. Ac tiv e board.

1939 40 A U N IT E D STAT ES FOREST 

SERVICE

Prairie Portage Dam

App rova l granted to reconstruct 

dam. Onl y cofferdam built . Ac tive 

board.

41 R SO UR IS RIV ER

W at er appo rtion men t

Governm ents app roved inte rim 

measures recommended by IJC. 

Ac tiv e Board of Con tro l.

1940 42 A CR ES TO N R EC LA M A TIO N 

CO.. LT D.Dykes alo ng Kootenay River in Canada

App ro va l settled outstanding differences. N o board. In itia l app roval under Do cket 23.

1941 43 A W EST K O O TE N A Y POWER

Sc L IG H T C O., LTDAdd itio na l two feet of storage 

on Kootenay Lake

Appro ved fo r one year. Ac tive 

board.

1940 44 A G R A N D C OU LE E D A M Sc

RE SE RV OIR

Backwater raised water level in Canada

Approved. Ac tiv e board.

1941 45 A W EST K O O T E N A Y PO WER

Sc L IG H T CO.. LT D.

Add itio na l tw o feet of storage 

on Koote nay Lake

In fo rm al request considered to be 

unnecessary application.

46 A C IT Y OF SE AT TL E

Ross D am , Skagit River

Appro ved. Board established when 

Seattle & B.C. reached agreement 

in 1967.

1942 47 A W EST K O O T E N A Y PO WER 

& L IG H T CO., LT D.

Add itio na l two feet of storage 

on Koote nay Lake

Ap proved until end of the war. 

Board active.

48 A CR ES TO N R EC LA M A TIO N 

CO , LT D.

Reclamation of Hooded lands in Duck Lake

Appro ved. N o board.

49 A STA TE OF W A S H IN G T O N 

Zosel Dam at ou tle t of Osoyoos 

Lake

Ap proved. Ac tiv e board.

4^4^

26
75 -421 0 - 76

Docket 

Ye ar No .

1944 51 R

52 A

1946 5 3 R

54 R

1948 55 R

56

57 R

Tit le

rainy lake watershed

— Emergency conditions in 

Rainy and Namakan Lakes. 

Special jurisdiction under 

Convention of 1928. 

CO LUMB IA RIVER

ONT AR IO & MINNESOTA 

PULP & PAPER CO.

Ash Rapids Dam in Lake of the 

Woods

SAGE CREEK 

Appropriation of waters

POLLUTION OF ST CLAIR RIVER. LAKE ST. C LAIR 

AND DE TROIT RIVER AND 

ST MARY'S RIVER

POLLU TION OF NI AG AR A RIVER

Action

60 R

1949 6 1 R

1950 62 A

63 R

64 R

NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.

Number assigned in error.

WAT ER TO N & BELLY 

RIVERSFurther uses and apportionment 

of waters

SOURIS & RED RIVERS 

Further uses and apportionment of waters

WEST KO OT EN AY POWER 

CO., LTD.

Additional two feet of storage 

on Kootenay Lake

PASSAM AQU ODDY TID AL POWER

AIR POLLUTION in WindsorDetroit area from vesselsCRESTON RE CLAM ATION

CO., LTD

Levels of Duck Lake

ST. JO HN RIVER Water resources of the basin 

above Grand Falls

NIAGARA FALLS— Preservation and enhancement of their beauty

Completed. Issued and subsequently modified Orders specifying rule curves. Active board.

Sec Docket 20.

Completed. Led to Columbia 

River Treaty.

Approved but not b uilt. Lake of 

the Woods Board of Control to 

supervise.

Completed. N o action by Governments.

Completed. Surveillance over 

water quality un til Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement signed 

in 1972.

Completed. Surveillance until 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement signed in 1972.

Was dealt with under Docket 41.

Studies completed. IJC divided on 

national lines. Only Canadians 

reported.Completed. Board still reports on 

its umbrella activities.

Approved for four years. Board 

active.

Completed. Government accepted 

apportionment of costs of further 

studies.

Completed. Surveillance activities 

terminated in 1966.

Approved. Board active.

Completed.

Completed and accepted by Governments. Active Board.

Ye ar

1951

1952

1954

1955

1956

1959

1961

1962

1963

1964

Docket

No.

65 A

66 A

67 R

68 A

69 A

70 A

71 R

72 R

73 R

74 R

75 A

76 R

77 R

78 A79 A

80 A

81 R

82 R

83 R

Title Action

LIB BY DAM AN D 

RESERVOIR

CONSOLIDA TED M IN IN G & 

SMELTING CO.

Waneta Dam on Pend'Oreille 

RiverLAKE O NT AR IO LEVELS

ST. LAW REN CE POWER

LIB BY DAM AND RESERVOIRCRESTON RE CLAM ATION CO . LTD

Modification o f 1950 Order on 

Duck Lake

ST. CROIX RIVERUse, conservation and regulation

PASSAM AQU ODDY T ID AL POWERRAIN Y RIVER AND LAKE 

OF THE WOODS POLLUTION

ADDIT IO NAL REMEDIAL 

WORKS ABOVE NI AG AR A 

FALLS

HEPCO AND Pa SNY Remedial Works above Niagara Falls

PEMBINA RIVER 

Cooperative development of 

water resources

CH AM PL AIN WAT ER WAY 

Commercial navigation

POWER AU TH ORI TY STATEOF NE W Y OR K

Shoal Removal, Niagara Falls

LAKE ER IE-NIAGARA RIVER 

ICE BOOM 

VANCEBORO DA M 

RED RIVER POLLU TION 

GR EAT LAKES LEVELS

POLLUTION OF LOWER 

GR EAT LAKES

Withdrawn.

Approved. No board.

Completed. Studies concurrent 

with Application under Docket

68.

Approved. Very active board.No devision. Problem solved by 

Columbia River Treaty.

Approved. Board active.

Completed. Pollution aspect still 

under active surveillance. 

Completed.

Completed. Rainy River still under active surveillance.

Completed. Studies led to application under Docket 75.

Approved. Active board.

Completed. Recommendations 

not acted upon.

Completed. Negative report.

Approved. Active board.

Approved. Active board.Approved. Active board. 

Completed. Active surveillance. 

Studies not completed.

Completed. Led to signing of 

Great Lakes W ater Quality Agreement in 1972.

4^

C i

27
Year

19661967

196819691971

1972

Docket 

No. * Titl e Action

Docket 

Year No. Title Action

M A CO MINCO

Tw o feet add itio nal storage on 

Koo tena y Lake

App roved for one season. Board 

active.

85 R AIR POLLUT ION

In Detroit-St. Clair River areas Complete d. Go vernm ent s yet »o act. Ge neral observation along 

rest of boundary.

86 R AM ERICA N FALLS. 

NIAG AR A RIVER Studies not completed.

87 A FOREST CITY DAM

On St. Croix River Approved. Or der void because applicant did not agree to conditio ns.

88 A RA ISIN RIVER

Div ersion from Sr. Lawrence 

River

Approved. Board active.

89 A ME TR OP OL ITAN CO RPORATI ON OF G REATE R 

W IN NIP EG

Diver sion from Soal Lake of 

water for dom estic purposes.

IJC action defe rred at 

app licant's request.

90 A CR ESTO N VALLEY

WILDLIF E

MAN AG EM EN T AREA

Duck Lake Levels

Approved. Active board.

91 R SK AG IT RIVER

Environmenta l consequences of 

flooding.

Com pleted.

92 R PO IN T ROB ERTS

Socio problems of residents Srudies still underway.

93 A CO MINC O

Kootena y Lake Storage

Wi thd raw n.

94 R PO LLUT ION OF UPPE R 

GR EA T LAKES Studies underway.

95 R POLLUT ION OF G RE AT 

LAKES FROM LA ND USE 

ACTIV ITIE S

Srudies underway.

1973

96 R ST. JO H N RIV ER WA TER

QU AL ITY 

A CCMS project

97 A U.S. DE PA RT MEN T OF

STATE

Emergency Re gulation of Lake 

Superior

98 R RICHELI EU-CH AM PLAIN

RE GU LA TIO N

Review and pass upon rep ort of 

special U.S.-Canada Comm ittee whe n submitted.

App licatio n in suspense. Dealt 

with on interim eme rgency basis, 

pending G overn me nt's 

confirmation.Studies underway.

28
IJC

S Jfl/tenc/tA‘ 3

ACTUAL AND ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES 

1970-1977

Canadian Secretariat

G re at Lakes 

R eg io na l Office

Fiscal Year

O T T A W A

Expenditures Man Years

W IN D S O R 2

Expenditures Man Years

1970- 71 ....................................

1971- 72 ..................................

1972- 7} ..................................

1973- 74 ..................................

1974- 7 5*1 ..............................

........ 499,000

......... 536,000

......... 451,000

......... 504,000

......... 1,180,000

......... 1,450,000

......... 1,500,000

11

11

12

14

14

24

26

206,000

640,000

850,000

1,800,000

4

8

15

20

26

1975- 76* • ..............................

1976- 77 ** ..............................

G re at Lakes

U.S . Se cretariat Reg io na l Office

W A S H IN G T O N W IN D S O R :1

Fiscal Year Expenditures Man Years Expenditures Man Years

1971 .................................... ......... 128,500 4

1972 .................................... ......... 166,000 5

1973 .................................... ......... 256,500 8 22,000 .4

1974 .................................... ......... 314,000 9 152,000 2

1975* .............................. ......... 349,000 9 404,500 4.7

1976* * .............................. ......... 372,500 9 580,000 10

• Estimated

• 'A nt icip at ed

• * 'In cl uded in Ottawa Secretariat bud get

'T h is includes payments to the Go vern me nt of Ontario fo r one

half the costs of the work carried out by Ontari o in direct supp ort

of the Co mm iss ion ’s Land Use Act ivi ties Re fer ence and the Upper

Lakes Po llu tio n Refere nce.

'T h e costs of the Re gio nal Office at Winds or, staffed by Canadian and Un ite d States Pu blic Servan ts, are shared equa lly betw een

Canada and the Un ite d States except for capital items (furniture

and fur nis hin gs) uhi ch are paid for and retained by Canada Each

Cou ntry pays and recruits its own officials. The figures abo ve represent salaries of Canadian professio nal and supp ort staff and the

tota l operating costs wh ich are initially paid from Canadian app ropriations and then are shared by the Un ite d States eaually.

Differe nces ind icated by Regio nal Office totals are caused by

diffe ring fiscal years. Canada— Apr il 1 to March 31; U.S .— July 1

throug h Ju ne 30.

Canadian expend itures expressed in Canadian dollars; U.S. ex ­

penditures in U.S . dollars.

It is not po ssible to es tim ate appro xim ate value s o f the 

services o f oth er Dep artm ents w hic h ha ve been pro vid ed 

to th e IJ C d u rin g the same period, w hic h ha ve ru n in to 

m illio n s o f dolla rs . M uch o f th e w o rk perform ed by 

Dep ar tm en ts fo r the IJ C consists o f w o rk re quired as 

w e ll under ongoin g D epartm enta l pro gr am s.

29
4^

GO

KO O T E N A Y R IV ER

27, }9, 43"| West Kootenay Power and 45,47,59 J Lig ht Co. Ltd Applications

65.69 Lib by Dam Applications 

23 ,42,48 1 Creston Reclamation Co. Ltd.

62.7 0 J Applicatio ns

29,30 Kootenay Valley Power and

Development Co. Applications

34 P. C. Bruner ApplicationC O LU M B IA A N D S K A G IT RIVERS

44 Grand Coulee Dam and Reservoir 

Ap plicatio n

46 City o f Seattle Application 

49 State of Washington Ap plication 

51 Colum bia River

66 Consolidated M ining and S melting 

Co. Ap plication

92 Point Roberts

P O LLU T IO N REFER ENCES

Boundary Waters 

1 Tra il Smelter Fumes 

1,55 Connecting Channels of the 

Grea t Lakes

I A ir Po llution of Wind so r-D etroit 1 St. Croix River3 Rainy Riv er and Lake of the Woods I Red Riv er3 International Section, St. Lawrence

River and Lakes O ntario, Erie 

3 Upp er Great Lakes 3 Land Use Activities in Great Lakes

System

5 Sr. John River

M ID W E S T E R N

) St. Mary and M ilk Rivers 3 Montana Conservation Board 

Ap plication

I Souris Riv er 3 Sage Creek> Northern States Power Co.

Ap plication

Waterton and Belly Rivers 

3 Souris and Red Rivers> Pembina River

1 Rainy River Improvement Co. 

Ap plicatio n

2 Watrous Island Boom Co. 

Application

3 Lake of the Woods Levels

7 Greater W innipe g Wate r District 

Application

12 Intern atio nal Lum ber Co. 

Application

20 Rainy Lake Levels 26 Roseau Riv er Drainage 

36 G-B M yr um Application 

40 United Srates Forest Service 

Application

50 Rainy Lake Watershed-Emergency 

Conditions

52 Ontario and Minnesota Pulp and 

Paper Co. Ap plication

5 Living sto n Channel, Detro it Rive

6 Michigan Northern Power Co. 

Application

8 Algoma Steel Corporation Ltd. 

Application

13 St. C lair Riv er Channel Applic atio n14 New Yo rk and O ntario Power Co. 

Application

15,24 St. Lawrence River Power Co. 

Applications

17 St. Lawrence Riv er Navigatio n and

21 Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridg e 

Co. Application

64 Preservation and Enhancement of 

Niagara Falls

67 Lake O ntario Levels68 St. Lawrence Power Application

74 Niagara Ad ditiona l Remedial Works 

82 Wate r Levels of the Great Lakes 

HEPCO and PA SN Y Applicatio ns "75 Niagara Remedial Work s

7 8 Shoal Removal, Niagara River79 Niagara Ice Boom

97 U.S. Governmen t Application. 

Emergency. Regulation of Lake 

Superior
4^

CO
DIRECTORY OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF PRINCIPALS 

1974

CANADIAN SECTION

15 1 Slater Street, Suite 850 

Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5H3 TELEPHO NE: 6 13/ 992 -2945

Commissioners

Professor Maxwell Cohen, Chairman

Bernard Beaupre

Keith A. Henry

w

J. Lloyd MacCallum, Assistant to the Chairman and

Legal Adviser

Murray W. Thompson, Chief Engineer

David G. Chance, Secretary to the Commission

UNITED STATES SECTION

1717 H Street, N.W., Suite 203 

Washington, D. C. 20440 

TELEPHONE: 202 /296-2142

C om m is si oner s

•Christian A. Herter, Jr., Chairman

Charles R. Ross 

Victor L. Smith

John F. Hendrickson, Executive Director and E tivi - q,

ronmental Adviser O

William A. Bullard. Secretary to the Commission

Stewart H. Fonda, Jr., Engineer Adviser

James G. Chandler, Legal Adviser

REGIONAL OFFICE

100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor

Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3TELEPHONES: 313/963-904 1 and 51 9/25 6-7821

CharlesG. Gunncrson, Director (Resigned October 1974) 

•Kenneth A. Oakley, Associate Director

*As of the pub lication date. Chairman Her ter had resigned and

had been replaced Ay He nry P. Sm ith , Hl: Mr. Oak ley had beenname d Director.
51

Senator Buckley. Our next witness is Brig Gen. Robert Moore of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and chairman of the U.S. section 

of the St. Lawrence R iver B oard of Control, and one who has walked 

many miles of the beach.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ROBERT L. MOORE, U.S. ARMY CORPS

OF ENGINEERS, AND CHAIRMAN, U.S. SECTION, INTERNATIONAL

ST. LAWRENCE RIV ER BOARD OF CONTROL

General Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen.

I might suggest before I get started on my prepared statement, I 

do have slides that I hope will help in understanding the questions 

already asked.

And I have come to admire and respect the Honorable Don Riley 

and his insight in the problems and concerns for his township. He mentioned “Operation Foresight,” and I would like to say “Operation 

Foresight” was an emergency operation taken in 1973 and was restricted to what it could do, and applied to flooding conditions and not 

shoreline erosion conditions.

It is very, very difficult to separate the two when you talk about 

shorelines, which you have done on Edgemere Drive, but there are 

some things that can be done if you look at shoreline erosion vis-a-vis 

flooding, so I wouldn’t scratch that.

Senator Buckley, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to have been 

invited to this hearing to provide you with a situation report on Lake 

Ontario regulation and the current lake level conditions.

My name is Robert Moore. I am the Division Engineer, North Central Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. My area of responsibility includes all of the G reat Lakes Basin including tha t portion of the 

St. Lawrence River Basin within the United States, as well as the 

major portion of the Upper Mississippi River Basin and the U.S. portions of the Souris-Red-Rainy River Basins.

As Mr. Smith told you, matters dealing with the G reat Lakes boundary waters are under the jurisdiction of the IJC, as authorized by the 

Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, and this, of course, includes regulation of Lake Ontario. I serve as ex officio U.S. chairman of three other 

international joint commission boards concerned with Great Lakes 

levels and flows. These are the International Lake Superior Board of 

Control, the International Niagara Board of Control, and the International Great Lakes Levels Board.

My statement today will cover the activities of the In ternation al St. 

Lawrence River Board of Control, and a review of the Lake Ontario 

situation. As such, I will be acting in my capacity as U.S. chairman of 

the U.S. section, Interna tional St. Lawrence River Board of Control.

When I act as a member of an IJC board, I am not representing the 

Corps of Engineers. I serve in a professional and personal capacity, 

under the direction of the Commission and neither the Corps of Engineers nor Department of Army are committed in any way by the 

actions I take as a member or by the actions of the board as a whole. 

In other words, on IJC matters I am responsible to the Interna tional 

Joi nt Commission and not the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Department 

of Army.
52

The Internationa] St. Lawrence River Board of Control is responsible for insuring that the provisions of the IJ C ’s orders of approval 

are met relating to the levels and flows of Lake Ontario, the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence River and downstream. The 

Board is composed of eight members, four United States and four 

Canadian.

I might interject a comment here t hat Mr. Bill Kennedy is present 

with us from the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

and Mr. Bob Conner from the Power Authority of the State of New 

York is here.

My Canadian counterpart on the Board is Mr. Ralph H. Smith, 

Chief, Waterways Development Division, Department of Transport, 

Ottawa, Ontario. The Board also coordinates the regulation of Lake 

Ontario water levels and outflows. By the way, it takes a unanimous 

position by the Board or the IJ C must decide any matter related to 

regulation.

In 1954, the United States and Canada joined forces to build three 

dams and 16 miles of dikes, replacing the turbulent international 

rapids section of the St. Lawrence River with the expanse of Lake 

St. Lawrence. As the lake was created its channel bed was deepened 

and three locks built by United States and Canadian seaway organizations provided the final link to open the entire St. Lawrence RiverGreat Lakes water system to deep-draft, ocean-going ships.

The $650 million cost of the power project was evenly divided between the Power Authority of the State of New York and Ontario 

Hydro. Adding in the cost of the navigation channels and facilities, 

there is an investment of well over $1 billion by the Federal Governments, by Ontario Hydro and the Power Authority of the State of 

New York.

While the structures were being built, an operating regulation plan 

was developed to obtain maximum possible benefits for all interests. 

Obviously, I have stated to people here many times before, when you 

look at the many interests, you can’t optimize one against the other.

Considered was a scheme that would provide a consistent source of 

water for power, maintain required depths during navigation season 

and provide a reduced range of stage—reduce high levels and raise low 

levels—for the riparian owners.

The Governments of Canada and the United States approved the 

range of mean monthly elevation for Lake Ontario of 242.77 feet to 

246.77 feet, as nearly as may be. The maximum level recorded in history was 248.06 feet and the minimum was 241.45 feet, both prior to 

regulation. Those two were balanced together, and it was assumed that 

the hundred years of history was a sufficient record to, hopefully, suggest that the project could handle what was coming in the future. 

That is the way it was built, optimizing the balance of levels against 

the cost of the project. And criteria for a method of regulation of outflows and levels of Lake Ontario applicable to works in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence River were also provided.

These are specified in the IJ C ’s supplementary order dated July 2, 

1956. To meet the needs of navigation on Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the St. Lawrence Ship Channel, the project design 

and the regulation plan provided for certain navigable depths as well 

as limiting current velocities and crosscurrents.
53

Power developments on the St. Lawrence River at the MosesSaunders powerhouses and Beauharnois-Cedars powerhouses require 

certain flows and water levels for good power production. Also, velocities must be limited during winter to allow the formation of a stable 

ice cover to avoid disruptive ice jams which would interrupt power 

generation and cause shoreline damage.

The IJ C ’s orders of approval contain criteria and guidelines for 

maintaining water levels within ranges which will avoid damage to 

shore property interests not only on Lake Ontario, but all along the 

St. Lawrence River system, including Lake St. Francis, Lake St. Louis 

and the river at and downstream of Montreal.

These conditions were based on the recorded water supplies during 

the period 1860-1954. However, at times durin g the extremely low 

supply conditions of the 1960’s and the extremely high supply conditions of the 1970’s, some level and flow conditions have violated the 

IJ C ’s criteria. Nevertheless, all three major interests, riparian owners, 

power and navigation still have benefited from the regulation of the 

levels of Lake Ontario.

The Board has carried out studies, incorporating recent operating 

experience, in an endeavor to develop improved regulation procedures 

by making any necessary or desirable modifications to the existing 

operating plan. In essence, the studies showed minor improvements 

to plan 1958-D may be possible from improved forecasting and other 

measures.

It is not practicable, however, within the existing physical constraints to design a plan to accommodate the extremely low and high 

water supplies received after the project was built, while meeting all 

the crite ria governing the regulation of Lake Ontario. Only major 

changes in the project channels, or the criteria, or both, could accommodate the full range of supplies experienced to date. This is because 

the design regulation plan and, consequently, the project channel 

dimension, as well as some of the criteria, were all based on supplies 

prio r to the construction of the project, that is, 1860 to 1954.

Since construction, however, lower and much higher supplies have 

occurred than any of those recorded in the previous 95 years. Furth ermore, regulation plan 1958-D and its predecessors were designed in 

accordance with the overriding requirements of the orders of approval 

tha t downstream interests should have no less protection, tha t is, no 

greater damage than with the unregulated condition, so t hat channel 

works in the Canadian section of the river were not required.

Under such extreme water supply conditions, exercising of discretionary authority under criterion K, as mentioned by the Hon. Don 

Riley, is the only recourse available.

Before reviewing Lake Ontario's level situation, I would like to 

say that we also have problems with high water levels on all the other 

Great Lakes. For the past several months Lakes Michigan and Huron 

levels have been rising at a more rapid rate than 1 year ago and are 

expected to peak higher this summer than in 1975. Lakes Clair and 

Erie are 3 and 4 inches, respectively, above the levels for this time 

last year. Lake E rie’s level was only 1 inch below its all-time maximum 

levei recorded in 1973. Even Lake Superior experienced a rapid rise 

in the early p art of this spring.
54

I will now review the Lake Ontario level situation since last winter. 

Lake Ontario reached its seasonal low level in December of 244 feet, 

which was only about 2 inches above its long-term average level. It 

then began its seasonal rise. The rise was somewhat grea ter than 

normal in late December and early January.

Yet, in early February the level conditions improved, falling below 

the level that occurred at th at time in 1975. Then conditions worsened 

in mid-February. At that time the level began a rise of almost 2 feet, 

to 246.4 feet by the end of March. The level continued to rise to 247.1 

feet by the end of April, and to 247.48 by the end of May.

This level was nearly 1 foot below what it would have been if 

releases this winter and spring had been strictly in accordance with 

plan 1958-D. Also, this level was 19 inches below the preproject level, 

the level that would have existed if the project had not been built.

Indications are that the lake has reached its annual peak level, 

assuming no extreme amount of rainfall during the coming few weeks. 

The present level is about 247.3 feet.

Let me explain the reasons why Lake Ontario is at such a high level 

today in spite of the Board's actions to make maximum possible flow 

releases since December 1975. Although heavy rains fell in the basin 

late last summer, the real problem was the heavy winter snow and 

spring rain. Considering the last 12 months, June 1975 throu gh May 

1976, Lake Ontario’s precipitation has averaged about 31 percent 

above average.

Lake Ontario's water supplies so far this year are significantly 

above average. In fact, February and March monthly supplies were 

greater than supplies of record over the past 115 years. The high 

levels being experienced are the direct result of these extremely high 

water supplies from both the local basin from combined rainfall and 

the large amount of snow-melt runoff and the large flow coming in 

from the upstream lakes.

On the average, about 85 percent of the water supply to Lake 

Ontario flows from the upper Great Lakes. For this reason i t is important to monitor the amount of storage on the upper lakes which 

will flow into Lake Ontario in the coming months.

At the beginning of November, an assessment of future water supplies potentially available to Lake Ontario through June 1976, were 

slightly more than the maximum supplies experienced during the 

period 1900 through 1968. This was again the case at the beginning of 

last December, and, as a result, th e International St. Lawrence River 

Board of Control, at its December meeting, approved outflows as 

large as possible during the winter months, consistent with the need 

to maintain a stable ice cover.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that was made in relation to the possibility of rainfall patterns over the basin that exceeded average rain ­

fall, or were of a probability of occurrence of less than 50 percent, 

that is, a greater than normal amount.

Potentially excessive supplies were again indicated at the beginning 

of January. One month later, the assessment indicated the potential 

supplies through June 1976, had fallen below the 1900-68 maximum, 

tha t Lake Ontario had only one chance in twenty of reaching 246.77 

feet, and would probably peak at 245.6 feet. The level of 245.6 feet 

was predicated on a 50-percent probability water supply.
55

Unfortuna tely, the rec ord wa ter supplie s were the n received in 

Fe br ua ry and Ma rch. As a result, the A pr il 1 indica tor showed the 

supplies poten tia lly avail able throug h Ju ne to be in excess of the 

maxim um of the past. Th is con dition continues fo r the Ju ne 1 

assessment.

As mentio ned earlier, reg ulati on action s since December are re ­

sponsib le fo r signif icantly red ucing the Lake Ontario level. M int er 

opera tions began on Decemb er 19, wi th ice form ati on in the Beauharnois section of the St. Law rence Ri ve r and continued un til the 

end of M arc h with the s pr in g ice br eak up. T he ea rly w inter opera tions 

req uir ed flow red uct ion s iro m 280,000 f tJ

/s to as low as 210,000 f t 3

/s , 

so t hat a stable ice cove r c ould be form ed.

La st win ter, at lea st th ro ug h most of Fe br ua ry , was a severe one 

for the St. Law rence River. I t was chara cte rized by the rapi d form atio n of a relatively thick an d rou gh ice cover. Th is type of ice cover 

constricts the discharg e capacit y of the riv er. A delicate balance betwe en th e force of the flow ing w ate r and the stre ng th o f the ice cover 

mu st be ma int ain ed whi le discha rges are gr ad ua lly increased once 

a stable ice cover is form ed.

Flo ws were gr ad ua lly increa sed du ring Fe br ua ry to 280,000 ft 3

/s 

in early March, with occasio nal red uct ion s in flow when sign ific ant 

increases in head loss occ urred. The flow was inc rea sed on Ma rch 19 

to 300,000 ft 3

/s. The Marc h increases were the first op po rtun ity since 

early Fe br ua ry to dis charg e significantly above p lan 1958-D flows. A s 

a consequence of the Boa rd ’s decision to overd isc harge when possible 

las t winte r, the lake level at th e end of Marc h was abou t 6 inches below wh at the level wou ld ha ve been ha d pl an 1958-D been str ictly 

followed.

Th e In tern ationa l Jo in t Com mission ann oun ced on Apr il 1, 1976 

th at , because of the ra pi d rise in Lake Ontario levels since midFe br ua ry , the In tern atio na l St. Law rence Ri ve r Bo ard of Control 

will form all y begin op erati on s under crite rio n K. Thi s crite rio n requires th at in the event water sup plies to Lake Ont ario are in excess 

of those of the pas t, the contr ol works sha ll be op era ted , an d I quote, 

“to provide all possible relie f to the ripa rian own ers both upstream 

and down stream.”

However, the Comm ission po inted o ut th at the same or de r requ ires, 

in c ondition (i) , tha t, and I quote,

The project works shall he operated in such a manner as to provide no less 

protection for navigation and riparian interests downstream than would have 

occurred under preproject conditions.

Unf or tuna tely, at this same tim e, heavy snowmelt run off and ra in ­

fall on the Ot taw a River was occur ring. Montreal Isla nd is at the confluence of the Ot tawa and th e St. Law rence Rivers where combined 

high dis charg es from both riv ers cause flood ing. Th erefo re, star ting 

on Apr il 1, the Bo ard beg an au thor izing tempo rary red uctions to as 

low* as 275,000 ft 3

/s in La ke Ont ar io ’s outflow to relieve th e serious 

res ide nti al flooding on the low er St. Law rence River in the Lak e St. 

Louis-Montreal area.

At t hat time the levels the re w’ere 2i/> feet above flood s tag e and o nly 

4 inches below the alltim e record . Th e flow th ro ug h Lake St. Louis 

on the St . Law’rence Ri ve r was in excess of 500,000 ft3

/s . Th e flood 

peak o ccu rred on Apr il 3-4, wi th the max imu m La ke S t. Lo uis reach-
56

ing 2% feet above flood stage. During the height of the flood over a 

thousand families were evacuated from their homes.

As the high waters in the Montreal area declined, the International 

St. Lawrence River Board of Control progressively increased the 

Lake Ontario outflow from 275,000 ft3

/s to 320,000 ft 3

/s by April 17. 

At that time, the Ottawa River flows increased again as a result of 

more snowmelt and rainfall in the Upper Ottawa River Basin.

That delayed any opportunity to further increase the Lake Ontario 

outflow until May 1 when it was increased to 325,000 ft 3

/s. The level 

in the Montreal area again started to decline because of decreases in 

the Ottawa River flow, but was still more than V/3 feet above flood 

stage.

A Lake Ontario outflow reduction to 310,000 ft3

/s was again necessary on May 21 due to downstream flooding resulting from rainfall 

in the Ottawa River basin and the Montreal area. This lasted less than 

a week, then downstream conditions began to improve again.

The Lake Ontario outflow was then progressively increased, starting 

on May 28 to the present 350,000 ft 3

/s. This outflow is equal to the 

record set in the summer of 1973. The flood level for Lake St. Louis 

has been defined as 72 feet at the Pt. Claire gage. This indicates an 

outflow of 380,000 ft 3

/s.

Part of the Ottawa River flow combines with the flow from Lake 

Ontario to produce the flow out of Lake St. Louis.

The regulation problems facing us, now th at the lake has seemingly 

peaked and is declining, relate to continuing the high outflows to 

reduce the lake level as quickly as possible, while maintaining minimum navigation depths in the international section of the St. Lawrence River. The problems occur because the Power Dam and Long 

Sault Dam are located 100 miles downriver from Lake Ontario. The 

dams were built 100 miles downstream because that is where the significant drop in the natu ral riverbed occurs.

As Lake Ontario levels decline, the capacity of the river limits the 

amount that can be discharged at the St. Lawrence project at 

Massena, N.Y., while maintaining adequate navigation depths through 

Lake St. Lawrence, some 30 miles upstream from Massena, N.Y.

I have provided this on the slide for you. When Lake Ontario drops 

down to about 245 feet, maintaining high outflown causes the river 

profile to drop significantly. When we maintain high outflows, the 

river profile drops above the power dam, so there is a lower profile 

starting at tha t point and proceeding upstream that quickly reduces 

the depths for navigation, and therein lies the problem. The project 

still has provided benefits to all, although they might not be recognizable at all times.

In other words, maintaining high flows through the project causes 

the river profile level to drop. When high outflows continue as Lake 

Ontario declines, this pulls the water level at the power dam down 

drastically, thereby increasing the river slope.

To maintain the minimum navigation profile when the Lake Ontario 

level is about 245.0 feet, a drop of one inch on Lake Ontario requires 

a reduction in outflow of, say, 2,000 ft 3

/s. As you approach elevation 

244.0 feet on Lake Ontario, a similar decline requires a reduction in 

outflow of about 10,000 ft 3

/s.
57

Because of experienc es in 1973, 1974 and again this sp rin g, the re 

has been gr ea t concern, and righ tly so, exp ressed by the L ake On tario 

ripa rian owners, who wish the level of the Lak e to he ma int ain ed in 

the lower ran ge of levels specified by the Or de rs of Ap prov al. The 

Bo ard expects to continue to autho riz e high flows th is s ummer a nd fall 

to reduce the lake levels as ra pi dl y as possible, con sistent with dow nstream c ondition s and navig ation requ irem ents.

Al l th at can be done un de r ex ist ing str uc tural and re gu latin g constra ints ha s been done. Benefits hav e been achieved.

Ext ra or di na ry actions w ould be req uired to achieve a Lake On tario 

level much lower than 244.0 feet by Dec ember when the lake is nor ma lly 

at its lowest level of the year. Ac tio ns th at m igh t be ins tit ut ed and th e 

impac ts associated therew ith are being inv est iga ted and will be 

inv estiga ted .

Th e Bo ard , assisted by the St. Lawre nce Seaway D eve lop ment Corpo rat ion, will make field me asu rem ents in the St. Lawre nce Riv er 

above the proje ct this sum mer to ob tai n some factual da ta. Th is will 

include d ep th survey s and flow velo city m easurements in c rit ical are as. 

Th is prog ram will identify are as where dredging or othe r str uc tura l 

measure s m ay be necessary.

It is im perat ive th at the field dat a program be ca rri ed ou t du rin g 

times when co nditions are most crit ical, tha t is, d ur in g h igh d ischarges 

in con jun ction with declinin g lak e levels. My office is assis tin g the 

SL SD C in th is endeavo r. W ith the da ta from the inv estiga tions, 

the Bo ard will be able to advise the IJ C . It is not know n at th is time 

wh at actions migh t be possible th is ye ar o r in the lon g-term .

In sum ma ry, I would like to say t hat a t the prese nt tim e the Board 

is d oin g e ve rything within its a ut ho rity to reduc e the hig h lake levels. 

It appe ars t h at the lake has r eac hed i ts peak level of the y ea r at 247.51 

feet on 31 May - 1 J un e, 19 inches below w hat the level w ould ha ve been 

witho ut the pro ject.

Th is is a benefit th at th e projec t has afforded ripa rian owners. The 

lak e’s pr ese nt outflow of 350,000 f t 3

/s is equal to the maxim um of record t ha t was first achieved in 1973.

Th e St. Lawrenc e proje ct was designe d to accommod ate th e historic wa ter supplies received pri or to the time th e constru ction of the 

pro jec t was star ted in 1954. A t th at tim e the ratio na le was th at this 

nearly 100 years of da ta was a reasonable basis to ju stify 

the ex pend itu res of money to constru ct t he project.

It was noted th at a good share of the $1 billion proje ct costs were 

rel ate d to dr ed ging cha nne ls to de pths ade qua te fo r na vig ation and 

powerho use disc harges. Also, the governments of the Un ite d State s 

and Ca nada agreed th at down stream reaches of the rive r should 

receive no worse flood con ditions th an those th at wou ld occ ur under 

na ture since no works were constru cte d downstre am in the La ke St. 

Louis -M ontreal area.

We now know th at the St . Lawrenc e River cannot acco mmodate 

the high water supplie s because of the physical lim ita tio ns ye t meet 

all the cr ite ria specified by the IJC Or ders of Ap proval. Th e reg ulatio n plan was designe d, d ur ing tim es of flooding on the Ot taw a Riv er, 

to produce a level in lake St, Louis no greater th an 72.0 feet. Simila rly , 

the pl an ’s maxim um discha rge was e stablis hed at 310,000 f t3

/s .
58

The Bo ard in the pas t, both in 1973, 1974, and again in 1976, exceeded th is maximum. It is noted th at prep roject outflows or plan 

flow, whichever is hig her , have been conside red the guide line when 

op erating un de r criterion K wi th hisrh wa ter sup plie s, althou gh less 

th an plan and pre proje ct outflows have been necessary at times to 

alleviate severe flooding cond itio ns d own stream.

In tu rn , we have got ten acceptance, as we do now, to dis charg ing 

gr ea ter flows than preprojec t or plan flows for lon g periods of time 

to rapidly reduce the hig h Lake Ont ario level. Such hig h disc harges 

pro duce con ditions th at exceed the 4 feet per second des ired velocity 

lim it in several localities in the navig ati on channel. Th is has been 

done with fine coopera tion of th e navig ation entities who are concerned about the saf ety of t he vessels which make some 5,000 trans its 

throug h the St. Law renc e Ri ve r each season. Th e inform ation from 

the field prog ram will be revi ewe d by the Bo ard and furnish ed to 

the In tern ationa l Jo in t Com mission as quickly as possible for theii’ 

eva lua tion.

The Bo ard will continu e to closely mo nitor the cu rre nt high Lake 

Ont ario levels and conditions on the St. Lawrenc e River, and will 

maintain high outflows as lon g as possible to alleviate the high lake 

levels on Lake On tario.

Si r, th is concludes my pr ep ar ed statem ent . I will be pleased to 

ans wer any questions.

Se na tor Buckley. Tha nk you, General.

Ha ve you any historical per spe ctiv e, not on the levels of the lake, 

but the dama ge done alo ng the sho res o f the lake? Is there a pa tte rn 

th at sugg ests in recent years we have had a gr ea ter degree of erosion, 

prop erty dam age , and so on th an his tor ica lly is the case?

General Moore. I will mak e a person al pro fessional opinio n, if I 

may.

The con trol of lake levels or any levels on a body of water affect 

or are bound to affect to some d egr ee the am oun t o f erosion experienced 

on the shore line of th at body of water. Reducin g the he ight has the 

effect of somewhat reducin g the wave im pac t.

I migh t also suggest th at inc rea sin g the lows h as an adv erse imp act 

on sho reline erosion by not pr ov idin g period s of low water which 

are necessa ry fo r rep len ishme nt of san d beaches, the na tu ra l ba rriers 

again st erosion losses.

Se na tor Buckley. Has there been more of a histo ry of greater 

dam age before the seaway p roject ?

Gener al Moore. I don't th in k there are h istorica l record s th at compare. I s th at w hat you are ask ing ?

Se na tor B uckley. Yes.

Gen eral Moore. There was a d am age surv ey made and prep ared for 

the In tern ationa l Great Lakes Lev els Bo ard stu dy, and a dam age 

survey is go ing on tod ay to d etermine the shoreline flooding and ero ­

sion dam age s th at have occurred over the last several years of hig h 

wa ter, ca rri ed out by the Co rps of En gine ers throug h the different 

Sta tes.

Th e ans wers to th at effo rt prob ably will not be availabl e for an ­

othe r ye ar or two years. An d La ke Su pe rio r got the pr io rity fo r th at 

effort because of emergency exe cution of Pl an SO-901 fo r regu latin g 

the level of th at lake.
59

I wouldn’t have definite figures of that, I can provide you, Mr. 

Chairman, if you desire, the figures we have, and the only figures I 

have are on damages that were prevented by foresight structures provided in 1973. I could provide that to you, and that is about the best 

set of figures on damage that I have available to me.

Senator Buckley. I would appreciate that.

Supervisor Riley stated, as he interpreted the international treaty 

tha t provided cooperation, tha t certain priorities, certain orders of 

precedence were established between different uses, a nd protection of 

riparian rights were considered superior to navigation or power production. But, it seems to me the gist of your testimony, you were 

under a mandate not to prefer one over the other but to balance.

General Moore. At the time the project was debated and it was 

debated publicly, the tradeoffs between what might occur in lake 

levels against past history and what kind of depth we ought to go to 

for navigation and acceptable flows for power and the whole spectrum 

of shoreline interest on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River 

region were balanced.

In fact, like a dam project, once you have decided on the project 

and their releases, you are stuck with tha t structure.

Senator Buckley. The dams and so on are in concrete, but the 

regulations stating target areas are on paper.

General Moore. It was determined tha t since we had reduced the 

natural conditions for the riparian owner and showed the regime that 

nature would have had if we had not had the project, that difference 

between that red line 244 and the natural conditions th at had occurred, 

the present project was considered to be to the riparian owner’s 

benefit.

The benefit to navigation was to settle for a 26-foot d raft, if that 

is what it is, and the benefit to power was minimum flow of 180,000 

cubic feet per second flow, and those were the tradeoffs and benefits 

perceived in that balance. What has occurred is nature has violated 

past history, and will do it in the future. She is ju st not tha t stable 

in her actions.

The question has to do with whether or not the International Board 

of Control has the authority to put a stop to navigation in relation to 

allowing the riparian owners to have greater benefit. The board has 

taken the position, the International Jo int Commission, tha t it does not 

have tha t prerogative; we can’t violate the minimum depths of 

navigation.

We have violated some criteria, but they are elements of engineering 

decision. For instance, we have violated preproject flow. Tha t is, we 

are now flowing more water from the project than nature would have. 

But we have done that while informing the International Joint Commission of such action and inform ing them unless we he ar otherwise 

we are going to proceed to do that.

Senator Buckley. Early testimony suggested that over a period of 

years the upper limit has been violated more frequently than the lower 

limit. Could adjustment in your procedures equalize those violations?

General Moore. I think the testimony was presented by Mr. Dave 

Loy.enheim, and what he suggested was over the historical past the violations by nature have exceeded the highs more often rather than going
60

below the lows and has been three to one by nature. I also suggest we 

violated, since the lake has been regulated, about the same ratio, three 

to one. We had a violation of lows, in the mid-1960s at times, and violations of the highs have occurred at times since 1973, so it ’s three to 

one. So it’s no better than what nature did.

Senator Buckley. You are supposed to try to ad just to nature.

General Moore. We did. And I might suggest to you in the history 

of regulation the only time we have violated the conditions of 246.77 is 

when nature has violated the regime of water provided in the past.

And I must suggest to you, once again, the structure was designed 

to optimize against 100 years of records which everybody thought 

would be a safe way to design the structure. Once you have designed 

it, there is very little maneuver room.

We have talked in the Internatio nal Board. We talked about the 

potential for high water problems again in 1976 as early as last October, in fact, one of the reasons for calling the special meeting in 

December of the board, was to release more water. That was action 

taken by members of the board that suggested by looking at the regime 

of water on the upper lakes, and the prediction of the possibility of 

increased water supplies in Ontario, Michigan and Erie, that we had 

a probability of violating 246.77 feet in the Spring of 1976 and would 

be remiss if not taking water out in the winter months. That was a 

special action.

There are only about three to four months of the year tha t the I nte rnational Board has the prerogative of releasing the water it would like 

to release in relation to conditions. That is about May to July. Early 

August, the minimum profiles for navigation take over. In December, 

as you have already read or has been presented here in testimony, the 

winter problem of regulation occurs. That occurs to about early March, 

and then the flood conditions, if they prevail, prevail on how you 

regulate then.

Senator Buckley. General, the fact is, of course, there has been 

overwhelming damage, and several times in the last 4 or 5 years. 

We have had storms and I witnessed it 2 years ago, and I hope to 

go along the shoreline this afternoon.

So whatever the projections on the basis of which the planning was 

done were, we now have damage to riparian owners.

Do you have any thoughts, including the kind of program suggested 

in the statement by Congressman Horton, as to dredging? Do you 

have any ideas as to practical measures that could be implemented for 

the immediate future, including dredging, including revisions of international agreements, that would be able to provide lakeshore owners 

with greater safety, greater protection ?

General Moore. I have none th at I have discussed with the International Joint Commission or th e other members of the board. I have 

some personal feeling of some of the areas we might look at.

Senator Buckley. I would like your personal assessment as a professional engineer.

General Moore. I think we could look at the current configuration 

of the structure, with pa rticular reference to the channels provided for 

navigation and balance the regime of water we now know violated 

the upper limit of regulation. And possibly we might channel upstream of the power dam in U.S. and Canadian waters th at could pro-
61

vide a greater outflow and assist the board to get to 242.77 as a low in 

winter months, and that is the critical part. It has been expressed by 

riparian owners here that we should get that water down to the lowest 

level possible. We can't do that under the current criteria.

Senator Buckley. The crite ria are subject to amendment.

General Moore. Yes, and we have yet to hear from the Canadian 

study looking at tha t in the all Canadian section of the river. I am 

not sure it will come up with anything productive in th at regard.

We can look at the criteria or look at a combination of both. Those 

are, again, trade-offs. And they are trade-offs to navigation versus lake 

level control.

Senator Buckley. Plus dredging, which presumably might accommodate both.

General Moore. Dredging would be a technical term from my basic 

terms of looking at channel depth. There is solid rock there in that 

area. I would suggest a foot of dredging has a pretty high cost because it is rock, and I don’t have a particular cost accept a ball park 

figure of about $30 million.

Senator Buckley. There is an awful lot of damage being done to 

riparian owners. Has a study been made to assess the trade-offs of 

cost?

General Moore. I am aware of damage to riparian owners. I have 

lived there, and it is not a pleasant thing to go through, and more unpleasant to go through as a member of a Federal agency and not be 

able to do anything about it.

Girly Goodwin, who is in the audience, and I stood together on her 

backyard tha t used to be 50-foot prior to 1973 and now about 20, and 

is about to lose her house.

I did offer a solution for the Honorable Don Riley at the time, for 

placing a rock structure at the cliff of Edgemore Drive in 1973 during 

Operation Foresight. That would be a costly thing to do, but can be 

effective. I am not sure how many owners would want that size of 

structure out there if we got a low-water regime.

I might also suggest that shoreline erosion projects along a body 

of water the size of the Great Lakes, any of the Great Lakes or all 

of them, is a very difficult question as to how you go about it, because 

it implies in intimate terms you are going to express where people can 

live and cannot live and provide protection. The same is true in flood 

control and flood-planning management. They are similar in tha t 

regard.

Some people have said that riparian owners have moved to shoreline property that used to be summer cottages and now are permanent 

residences. Should that have been done? You can get both answers 

to that. Should Chicago have been built by Lake Michigan? And I 

don’t thin k anybody is going to propose to close Chicago, just as I 

am sure the Honorable Don Riley is not going to suggest we move 

the town of Greece.

But those are key questions, and have not only to do with cost of 

protection but impact on local property tax base you might exclude 

from habitation.

The other part of it is at the end of those structures you build to 

protect shoreline, you generally get greater erosion a t the end prop75 -42 1 0 - 76 - 5
62

erties, and, therefore , you become very, very liable to a discussion 

of wh eth er or not the str uc ture has an im pact on othe r people.

So it ’s a delicate questio n an d one th at needs a lot of study. But 

certa inly one thing should be pro vid ed, and wou ld be a gr ea t benefit, 

and th at is a good stu dy to det erm ine sho reline erosion rates and 

where people can and can not exp ect to be harm ed by fu tu re erosion. 

We do no t have those kin ds of stud ies. We have no thing to help local 

pla nn ers and State pla nn ers in th at reg ard . And if yo ur bill gets 

no thing else, I certa inl y hop e it could get a stu dy of th at natur e.

Se na tor B uckley. It is inten ded to lick no t only th at , bu t also 

dr ed ging and balan ces a nd so fo rth .

Tha nk you, General. I am sure we could spend a lot more tim e 

ask ing specific questions, b ut there are o the r witnesses an d we may be 

back to you.

Our ne xt witnesses are Mr. Ro bert Con ner, res ide nt manag er, St. 

Lawrenc e Fa lls pro ject, and Mr. William Kenne dy, assis tan t administ rator-r esiden t ma nager, Massen a, St. Law rence Seaway Dev elop ­

ment Co rpo ration .

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CONNER, RESIDENT MANAGER, ST. LAWRENCE FALLS PROJECT, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK

Mr. Conner. Senator, an d ladies and gen tlem en, I would like to 

express my appre cia tio n fo r coming to Roc hester. I am Rober t 

Conner and------

Se na tor Buckley. I hate to interrup t. Ar e you read in g from a pr epa red sta tem ent?

Mr. Conner. Yes.

Se na tor B uckley. I s it a long stat em ent ?

Mr. C onner. No, sir, about 6 min utes to re ad it.

I am reside nt ma nager of the New Yo rk Po we r Aut ho rity ’s St. 

Lawrenc e power proje ct ne ar Massena. In 1970, I was nom inated by 

Governo r Roc kefeller and subsequen tly appo int ed by the In te rn atio nal Jo in t Commission to mem bers hip on the In tern ationa l St. 

Lawrenc e R ive r B oard of C ontro l.

P ri or to the con struction of the St. Lawrenc e Po we r and Seaw ay 

dev elopment, Canada an d th e Un ite d State s, ac tin g throug h the 

In tern atio na l Jo in t Com mission, mad e studie s to determine the feasibi lit y of reg ulating the leve ls and outflows of Lake On tario.

D ur in g the course of the se studies, public he arings were held at 

va rio us places aro und the lak e to determ ine the wishes of th ose who 

would be affected by regu lat ion. An d af te r these heari ngs, the In te rna tio na l Jo in t Commission esta blis hed 11 crite ria whi ch set fo rth 

the aim s of reg ula tion pl an s for Lake On tar io. Th ere crite ria were 

ap prov ed by the governm ents of Canada and the Uni ted Sta tes and 

are con tain ed in the In te rn at io na l Jo in t Com mission ’s order of ap ­

prov al fo r the St. Lawrenc e Powe r Proje ct.

Th e entire St. Lawrenc e Powe r and Sea way Pr ojec t was constr uc ted du rin g the period 1954—1958. T he resu lting ch ann el improveme nts and control str uc ture s rep res ent the inv estme nt of some $665 

millio n by the Po we r A ut ho rity and Ontario Hyd ro for pow er 

features as well as some $425 million of t he two fed era l gov ernments
63

in navigation facilities. This nearly $1.1 billion expenditure provided the features needed to implement regulation of Lake Ontario 

beginning in April 1960.

A t this point, 1 would like to emphasize th at the Power Authority 

of the State of New York is a public corporation created by New York’s legislature in 1931. The Auth ority ’s role is to provide power for the State of New York at the lowest possible cost, and power is sold without profit to 44 municipal and cooperative systems in the State, cooperatives in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the State of Vermont, industry, and to utilities for resale to their rural and 

domestic consumers. The Authority, by law, cannot use tax money for its projects but 

is required to raise its funds in the private market. Authority pro j­ ects are presently providing over one-quarter of electric energy used 

in the State of New York. The Auth ority ’s borrowing of nearly $350 million for its portion of the St. Lawrence Project relied on the regime of Lake Ontario outflows provided by the early regulation plans for Lake Ontario. One of the early plans, 12-A-9, established the depths to which channels were excavated d urin g the construction period. These chan­ nels are now utilized by Seaway vessels engaged in domestic and 

international commerce. The two governments of Canada and the United States, in approving the 11 criteria promulgated by the Internationa l Joi nt Commis­ sion for regulating Lake Ontario, struck an equitable balance in ap­ portioning the benefits to be derived from the regulation of Lake Ontario among all of the affected interests: ripa rian property on Lake Ontario and in the upper St. Lawrence, riparia n property down­ stream of the control structures in the all-Canadian sections of the 

river, as well as to navigation and power. The St. Lawrence Board of Control under the supervision of the International Joint Commission has observed the performance of reg­ ulation plans and has modified the procedures as experience has been gained over the years. The present plan, known as 1958-D, has and will continue to provide benefits to all of those interests as compared to the conditions which would have prevailed with natural channels and flows. Moreover, the levels and flows of all the Great Lakes have been studied extensively by thhe International Great Lakes Levels Board over the last 10 years. They found no means of improving the 

present plan of regulation.

Since inid-1972 unprecedented high inflows have been received in Lake Ontario. With these high flows there has been some damage. However, the damage would be much worse without the channel im­ provements made as a part of the projects and the regulation plan governing their operation. The board’s computations indicate that the present level of Lake O ntario would be nearly 1.6 feet higher under 

natural channel conditions and with natural outflows. The 1973 supply to Lake Ontario was 3,645,000 ft ’/s-months, was some 335,000 ft’/s-months or 10 percent higher than in the previous record-high year of 1952. Despite this. Lake Ontario’s level in 1973 did not quite reach the level experienced in 1952 under natural 

conditions.
64

The hig hest flow ev er rec ord ed un de r nat ur al con dition s on the St. 

Lawrenc e was 308,000 ft 3

/s in Ju ne 1052 with Lake Ontario a t a level 

of 248.2. In 1973, it was p ossible to release 350,000 f t 3

/s f or a period of 

2 mo nth s with Lak e Ont ario levels as low as 246.8. W it h slightly 

smaller flows the same p at te rn held true in 1974.

Much the same pa tter n ha s deve loped thus fa r in 1976. New hig hsupp ly reco rds were established in both Fe br ua ry and March. Ih e 

Apr il inflow was exceeded only 3 percen t of the tim e in the past, 

an d the May supply was exceeded only once before.

Al thou gh Lake Ontario was very ne ar its lon g-term average level 

in December 1975, these high inflows early in 1976 brou gh t a rapi d 

rise in Lake On tar io levels. Outflows du ring thhe wi nter mon ths, as 

po inted out by oth ers must be lim ited because of the ice coyer which 

form s on the St. Lawrenc e. An attempt to release very high flows 

would collapse the ice cove r and cause an ice jam , th us severely restric ting L ake O ntario outflows.

As has been noted by oth ers , once the ice melted a nd s pring arr ive d, 

the fre shet on the Otta wa Riv er, coupled with the flow’s out of Lake 

Ontario, caused serious flooding in the Mo ntreal area. In e arly Apr il, 

ove r 1,000 families w*ere evacua ted from the ir homes.

La ke O ntario levels a ga in in 1976 have exceeded Intern ationa l J oin t 

Com mission objective level of 246.77, risi ng to elevatio n 247.5 in ear ly 

Ju ne . I would a gain po int out, as others have, that with out reg ula tion, 

the level would now be 249.1.

Th e w’eekly outflows fro m Lak e Ontario are determined by un an imous decision of the eight- me mb er Bo ard of Contr ol. The members 

must tak e into acco unt all intere sts on La ke O ntario and dow nstream 

on the St. Lawrenc e River. Th e powrer entities must follow their 

ins tru ctions.

We are nowr

 passing 350,000 ft 3

/s , despite the fact th at outflows in 

excess o f abou t 325.000 f t 3

/s req uires s pilli ng or w as tin g w ater w hich is 

forev er lost f or p ower purposes. The Moses-Saund ers Pow erdam c annot pass the entire 350,000 ft’/s, and as a res ult, some 25,000 ft 3

/s is 

being released throug h the Long Sa ult Spillw ay.

Th is spill is equiv ale nt to 150,000 kil ow atts whi ch can never be recovered. The fuel r eplace me nt value of such e nergy to New Y ork would 

be appro xim ate ly $500,000 for each week the spill continues. The 

added cost of fuel bu rn ed to produce the replacem ent power is p asse d 

directl y to consumers.

In summary, I am convinc ed th at sin ce it began in 1960, the regu latio n of Lak e Ontario h as produc ed very conside rable benefits to a ll of 

the affected inte rests. I am equally conv inced th at , given the prese nt 

channe l con figuration in the inter natio na l as well as in the entire 

Ca nadia n sections of t he St. Lawre nce R ive r, the va ria tio n of inflows 

an d the nonpred ictable na ture o f such inflows, no sign ific ant imp rov ement can be realized fo r Lake Ontario reg ula tio n.

The reg ula tion must tak e into acco unt all int ere sts using the lake 

an d the riv er, ripa rian int ere sts in Ca nada a nd the Un ite d Sta tes , the 

en tir e navig ation system and pow er consumers in New York, ne ighbo rin g State s, O ntario and Quebec.

The In tern ationa l Jo in t Commission crite ria did so. Supplies va ry 

fro m droughts such as those of the early 1930’s and 1963-64. to high 

flows such as those of 1952, 1973 an d 1976. Th e reg ula tio n mu st ac-
65

commodate all of these conditions and all of these interests. All that realistically could have been done, in view of existing channel capacity, to avoid damage has been done.

Senator Buckley. Supervisor Riley quoted you as saying that the 

riparian owners’ rights should be subordinated to shipping.

Mr. Conner. He was reporting what was in the newspapers. I think 

what I said, in order to increase the flows, in answer to the questions from the audience, shipping might have to stop. I didn’t say all shipping would stop.

Senator Buckley. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kennedy.

STATEMENT OF WILLIA M KENNEDY, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY 

DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have a prepared statement 

briefer than Mr. Conner’s.

Senator Buckley. I want to save time for public members.

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, my name is William H. Kennedy. I 

am the assistant administrator and resident manager of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, one of the operating administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation. I welcome this opportunity to be here today to comment on Lake Ontario, par ­ ticularly since there seems to be a number of people who have miscon­ ceptions concerning the control of the level of Lake Ontario as it relates to navigation. It is sometimes alleged that the level of Lake On­ tario is being manipulated and held artificially high so that seaway ships can dra ft deeper and thereby increase their cargo capacities. The level of Lake Ontario is high, but the high level is due to higher than normal precipitation and lower than normal evaporation rates over the Great Lakes basin drainage area, and in particular the Lake 

Ontario basin drainage area, durin g the past few years.

Since 1959, the maximum d raf t for vessels transiting the St. Law­ rence Seaway has been jointly established by the Saint Lawrence Sea­ way Development Corporation of the United States and The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada. Drafts for safety reasons are caiefully and continually monitored. To my knowledge, no vessels with dra fts in excess of 26'0" have ever been permitted to proceed. It is obvious, therefore, that such statements as Seaway ships being able to increase the size of their cargoes due to higher than normal Lake Ontario levels are completely unfounded. They arise, I believe, 

from a lack of understanding of the facts involved. From a navigational standpoint, we suffer from these high lake levels, and are, therefore, sensitive to the concerns of the shoreline property owners. It would be in our best interests to have the level of Lake O ntario at a more normal or average level than we are presently experiencing. Why does navigation suffer from higher than normal lake levels? Simply stated, it is because high lake levels result in higher than normal St. Lawrence River outflows which are being allowed in order to lower the level of Lake Ontario. Higher than nor­ mal outflows result in higher than normal currents. These resultant high current velocities, which are well above the Seaway design cri-
66

teria of 4 feet per second, force navigation to make compensatory adjustments which decrease the efficiency of both the system and the 

vessels using the system. Furthermore, there may well be a relationship between these high current velocities and a number of ship incidents. Continuous high flows through the St. Lawrence River results 

in lower water levels in Lake St. Lawrence (near Massena, N.Y.) 

later in the season. At this time of the year water depths are minimal 

and adverse wind conditions result in reduced channel depths. Ships 

which draw’ 25 feet must then go to anchor and wait for the wind to 

stop blow ing until the water depths are restored. This causes economic 

hardship for the vessels being delayed by abnormally low’ w’ater.

As you may be aware, in 1973, 1974 and again in 1976 the seaw’ay 

entities instituted temporary speed restrictions in the St. Lawrence 

River during the time Lake Ontario was above elevation 246.77 feet 

to reduce wave action upon the shoreline for the benefit of riparian 

owners. However, it should be recognized that this speed restriction 

may reduce a vessel’s maneuverability in the high currents, thus increasing the potential for severe environmental damage.

As we must all recognize, high lake levels are not new’. In fact, they 

occurred prior to the construction of the power project, and except for 

the month of April of 1973, the high lake levels exceeded anything 

w’e had known since the regulatory plan was implemented. The April 

1973 level came about following the extremely high precipitation 

period recorded during 1972, startin g with Hurricane Agnes which 

hit the area during the summer of tha t year. However, if the seaw’ay 

and power projects at Massena had not been built, the level of Lake 

Ontario would be much higher today than it actually is. Probably an 

improvement on the order of 20 inches over natural conditions has 

been realized because of the seaway/power project. The control works 

at Massena have made it possible to handle a large portion of the net 

supply due to the higher than normal precipitation and low’er than 

normal evaporation rates during these recent years. It should also 

be noted tha t the navigation and power facilities built on the St. 

Lawrence River in the 195O’s were designed so as to permit greater 

control of Lake Ontario levels by improving the distribution of outflows, without changing the flow’ regime to the detriment of downstream interests. Supplies for the period 1860-1954 were used in a rriving at these design criteria and, based on the supplies of record, the 

project has been most successful in that, even w’ith supplies in excess 

of those of the period on record, the level of Lake Ontario has been 

kept well below* the level tha t nature w’ould have permitted.

Having said all of this, one must ask what then can be done consistent with the very real interests concerned ?

There is no question but tha t the solution to high lake levels is to 

be found in an alternative which provides additional discharge capacity for the St. Lawrence River. In the short range, this may be accomplished most efficiently by increasing the capacity in discharge 

flows durin g the winter, when under present conditions flows are substantially cut back due to ice jamming in the Ogden Island area. On 

the basis of studies performed in cooperation with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and other agencies participating in the congressionally authorized navigation season extension demonstration program, it appears as if additional ice control structures in the interna-
67

tional rapids section of the St. Lawrence River would provide the needed additional winter capacity to the mutual benefit of all interests. An extension of the demonstration project has been recommended for the purpose of doing fu rth er work on problems associated with extending the navigation season in the St. Lawrence River. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you this morning. On behalf of commercial navigation on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway I want to thank you. Senator, for taking the time to visit the shores of Lake Ontario and listen to all those concerned with this problem.

Senator Buckley. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you one question. Do i g ather from the earlier pa rt of your statement that you might favor lowering the target 

levels in the lake ?

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to see the lake remain consistently at a 

uniform average level, which is the same interest the riparian owners 

would like to have.

Senator Buckley. That may not be feasible to keep it at a given 

level.

Mr. Kennedy. Definitely a lower level tha n in the last 3 or 4 years.

Senator Buckley. Thank you very much. I would like to call up the citizens panel now. Brian Ives, Com­ modore of the Sodus Bay Yacht Club; Donald Ketchum, Vice P resi­ dent, Lake Ontario South Shore Council; W. J. Marcellus, Director, Lake Road Association; Judge Jane B. Moxham, President, Niagara- Orleans Shoreline Protection Association; Glen S toddard, President, 

Butterfly Shores Property Owners Association. I want to accommodate everyone who has come up and indicated a desire to testify. Therefore, I want to advise that the official hearing record will remain open for 30 days. And once it is printed, a copy of today’s proceedings, including any written statements tha t are submitted during that 30-day period, will be provided to anyone who 

contacts our Rochester or Washington office. So, again, anybody that does not have an opportunity to be heard at this hearing should feel free—in fact, I would urge you—to prepare a written statement which will then be put into the hearing record, and will be read to the benefit of the full subcommittee.

STA TEM ENT OF DONALD F. KETCHUM, VICE PR ESIDEN T, LAKE 

ONTARIO SOUTH SHORE COUNCIL

I am Donald F. Ketchum, a 60-year life-long resident of the shores of Lake Ontario. For the last 20 years I ’ve lived on the lake shore 25 miles east of here in the town of Williamson in Wayne County. I have waited over 3 years for this moment. I know Senator Buckley is one of the few men in Washington today who is dedicated to the principle of government “Of, For and By the People.” I want to thank you. Senator Buckley and Senator Gravel, for bring ing this Hearing to Rochester. In addition, I want to thank you. Senator Buckley, for your very persuasive effort in pushing for a “Public Participation Panel”—and advisory group of riparian owners to the River Board
68

of Control. This panel was approved last April by the TJC at their 

semiannual meeting.

I have confidence tha t Senator Buckley and Senator Gravel will 

listen carefully today and will react accordingly to alleviate our shoreline dilemma as soon as humanely possible.

As vice president of the Lake Ontario South Shore Council, Inc., I 

am speaking for thousands of residents on the shores of Lake Ontario, both in New York State and Canada.

For the majority of those riparian residents, living on the shores 

of this Great Lake is a way of life. Prior to the era of the regulators, 

we admired the magnificent rugged beauty of the shoreline, the fury 

of the winter storms out of the north, the high waters of the spring 

runoffs accompanied by their northerly storms, the dead calms in the 

hot summer days and cooling breezes in the evenings and again the 

fury of summer lightning storms off the lake. And furth er, we 

thoroughly enjoyed the fall low water times—again with the furious 

northerly storms. We especially enjoyed the northerly storms of the 

low water cycles because we knew tha t during these times nature was 

building up the protective barrier reefs so necessary to the shoreline 

during the storms of the high water periods—something that cannot 

happen while the lake is being manipulated in a high 2-foot range.

However, the Great Lakes riparian owners have been living a nightmare of hell since June 1972, the year of Hurricane Agnes. We have 

begged and pleaded with our elected representatives for over 3 years 

to stop this wanton destruction of our shoreline, our homes, our businesses, and a way of life guaranteed to us under the Constitution.

To this day, there is nothing on record leading to a permanent 

solution to what has become our perennial problem. Year after year 

we have had promises of help—promises tha t have dissolved in the 

spring run-offs. In essence we have been given aspirin when indeed 

we have pneumonia.

Gentlemen, we cannot—we will not take another round of high 

water. The Lake Ontario South Shore Council, Inc., a large organization of many smaller associations all around this Great Lake— 

including the Canadians—have elected to proceed with legal action 

tha t would hopefully force the regulators to immediately lower the 

level of the lake to within a range compatible with our shoreline and 

to collect damages sustained over the past 6 years as a result of the 

unwanton destruction of our shoreline, our homes, businesses and a 

way of life.

It is our fervent hope, gentlemen, tha t you will do everything in 

your power to force the regulators to immediately lower the level to 

a range satisfactory to all interests, as specified in the Boundary 

Waters Treaty of 1909 and the 1955 St. Lawrence River project 

papers relating to that treaty. Then, and only then, while the level 

is in the lowered range, can you leisurely work on a permanent solution to that regulation—if you choose to continue with that regulation.

I say that because there is, admittedly, a very delicate balance 

between the inflows and outflows of the Great Lakes system. You will 

have to admit tha t nature has done an excellent job of regulating 

tha t balance since 1838 (the earliest date of my records). Under God’s 

supervision (nature, if you prefer) there was never wanton destruction of our shoreline. Admittedly, there is about 15 percent of the 

11,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline that is subject to critical erosion.
60

However, since 1972 through 1976, the other 85 percent of th at shoreline has joined the 15 percent subject to critical erosion, thanks to 

the regulators mismanagement of the lake levels. In a recent statement by the regulators (the International St. Law­ rence River Board of Control) the following information was 

brought ou t:

Any regulatory efforts are dwarfed by the na tural forces affecting the levels of the lakes. The problem remains that a few years of heavier than average precipitation can push the levels of some lakes by as much as 6.6 ft. above the ir low level marks. Add to that furth er effects of wind which can push the water to about 8 ft. at the downward end of the wind and the problems of control become ever more complicated. Greater tha n any regulatory works can accommodate. Amen.

In another statement by the regulators Henry Smith II I & Stewart Fonda of the IJC, and Brig. Gen. Robert Moore of the ACE generously conceded th at: “The ability of mankind to regulate the 

level of the Great Lakes is very limited.’’ In the light of these two statements by the regulators, I say to you Senators: How can you continue to allow those regulators to jeopard­ ize thousands of miles of shoreline in the Great Lakes system while using their admitted limited ability at regulation ?—Especially in view of the destruction wrought during 1952, and again in 1972 through 

1976? Now I would like to present a number of facts concerning our shoreline dilemma since 1952. These facts are indisputable. 1. The rules for regulation of the level of Lake Ontario can be found in the 1955 papers concerning operation of the St. Lawrence River project. These papers refer to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. 2. It is the contention of the LOSS Council that the 1909 treaty and the 1955 papers relating to it are being violated by the regulators. You will have to admit, gentlemen, assuming (and I ’m only assuming) tha t the regulators are not legally violating the treaty, they are in­ deed morally obligated to give first order of precedence to the riparian 

owners—which they are not doing. 3. According to the 1958-D plan of operation, the level of the lake was supposed to be regulated in a range from 242.7 to 246.7 ft. Yet, the regulators have attempted to operate the level in the top 2 feet of the range. But only once in 17 years (in about 1964) of operation has the level been in the low h alf of the range. And therein lies the major cause of our shoreline damage in the past 6 years. Operation from the mean (244 f t to 246.77 ft) . It should be noted at this point tha t for 16 of the 17 years of dam operation, by operating in the top half of the range, the regulators have gradually increased the 

“average” level of the lake. 4. The regulators tell u s: “The St. Lawrence River doesn’t have the capacity to operate in the lower part of the regulation range and that Nature is to blame for o ur high water problems.”

Gentlemen, doesn’t it seem strange to you th at: At the public hearings in the middle fifties, prio r to construction and 

operation of the dams, the public was told that:

a. The level would be m aintained within a range of 242.7 to 246.7 

ft.

b. Tha t the extremes of stage of 6y2

 ft experienced under Nature 

would never happen under regulation.
70

c. Tha t any property damage resulting from operation of the dams 

would be ameliorated.

d. That one interest would never be served to the detriment of 

one another.

5. We have had three major shoreline disasters in the last 5 years. 

All within the regulation range.

In the last 4 years the level of the lake has been at least 1 foot 

above flood stage (so-called by ACE) of 246.7 ft three times. This 

means th at during fierce north wind storms, the level of the lake has 

reached 250 ft; and so, the disasters.

6. The riparian owners, backed by the Lake Ontario South Shore 

Council, have repeatedly requested the regulators to reduce and maintain the level in the lower half of the range, namely 242-245 ft above 

sea level—a range compatible with our shoreline.

The answer to this request was given to me in a letter from Stewart 

Fonda, U.S. consulting engineer to the I.J.C., and dated Feb. 13, 

1976—and I quote:

It is not feasible to reg ulate the level in the range you advocate because it 

would damage shipping and power interests, and would cause severe problems 

for shoreline owners by res tric ting the ir recreational boating and the use of 

their beaches.

Gentlemen, I ask you: Aren’t two interests (shipping and power) 

being served to the detrim ent of one other (rip aria n owners) in 

direct defiance of the trea ty ?

Concerning the severe problem (?) of restricting our recreational 

boating, we have two riparian owners who would like to testify today 

and who would take serious and beligerent opposition to that part of 

the statement.—They are: Brian Ives, Commodore of the Sodus Bay 

Yacht Club and Donald Shu r of the River View Yacht Basin in 

Rochester, N.Y. Mr. Shu r states tha t with another 6 inches of water 

he will be out of business.

And what was once a beautiful marina-harbor on the eastern boundary of the town of Williamson, Norman Hughes has lost his harbormarina business of 20 years to the ravages of high water, winds, and 

waves—a loss in the neighborhood of $250,000.

And during a meeting with our Canadian friends last night in 

Toronto, we were informed tha t several marinas in tha t area are 

ready to join the loss council—as are residents on the shores of Lakes 

Huron and Erie.

Finally, the Pultneyville Harbor and Marina in the town of Williamson also has been taking a severe beating, with losses in the 

thousands.

Concerning the two Williamson harbor-marinas, the Pultneyville 

management received Government grants in the thousands of dollars, 

yet Mr. Hughes has not received one cent and is currently out of business. Isn ’t it strange ?

7. The Finger Lakes are flooded, not merely because of excessive 

precipitation, but mainly because of the extremely high water table 

caused primarily from the excessively high level of Lake Ontario.—It 

is worthy to note at this point tha t the waters from central New York 

areas ultimately end in Lake Ontario.
71

8. In Con gressm an H or to n’s weekly column of Ju ne 8, 1976, he 

states, and I qu ot e: “U nprec edented rainf all and im pe rfe ct lake level regu latio n policies 

and plans hav e caused 1976 to be ye t an oth er ye ar of d isa ste r, fr ust ra ­

tion, and an ge r for Lak e Ont ar io sho reline reside nts. Comm unities 

alo ng L ake s Mic higan, Hu ron, an d Erie have been sim ila rly o utr aged 

by the conti nuati on of high water levels.”—Mr. Hor ton ag ain admits 

the fallac y of this misre gulat ion , bu t is the re any sign of push fo r a 

perm anent solution ? 9. The IJC and AC E say the St. Law rence Ri ve r doesn’t have the 

capacit y to low er the level to the low er h alf o f t he r ange—that is 242.7 

to 244.7 ft. Is th at a fac t, or a misr epres entat ion of the fac t? Gen tlem en, you 

be the judge and jury. I subm it the follow ing e vidence:

In 1972, 1973, 1974 an d nec essarily again in 1976, the reg ulato rs 

lowered the level 31/2 to 4 ft —do wn to 244 ft. Ye t in 1975, with a peak 

ju st u nd er 246 ft, the level was lowered only 18 inches, b ut ag ain down 

to the m ean o f 244 ft. Ple ase n ote : T he ca pacity was there to lower the 

level to 242 ft —th at wou ld hav e been a low ering of 31/2 ft, ju st as 

was done in 1972, 1973,1974 an d 1976. I f the lake were lowered 2 more 

ft in 1975, dow n to 242 f t, we would now be at 245.3 f t ins tea d of the 

prese nt dis astro us 247.3 ft.

As kin g the reg ula tor s why—w hy—why ? The answer is:

“W e are op erating acco rding to pla n (plan 1958-D) and mu st necessarily tak e the level down to th e mean of 244 ft, a level (th ey say) 

th at is s atisf actory to all inter ests. ”

I ask y o u : Wo uld we be here tod ay if th at mean level of 244 ft 

satis fied all interests?

The reg ulators go on to sa y: “We tak e it to the mea n of 244 because there is only a 1 in 20 cha nce of going over the maxim um of 

246.77 f t. ”

Gen tlem en, I repe at: Th ree major sho reline dis aster s in 5 years, 

all wi thin the reg ula ted ran ge, and 3 out of the last 4 years the 

level rea ched 1 foot over the max imu m planne d lim it—a 1 in 20 

chance ?

At th is po int in time, sh ou ldn’t the regu lator s sta tis tic s be throw n 

over the dam? Sh ou ldn’t the reg ulato rs be forced to imm ediately 

lower the level to 242 feet, a level com patible wi th our sho reline?

10. A t a meetin g with ri par ia n owners in Niagara -on-t he-la ke, in 

On tario , Ca nada, about 3 weeks ago, a rep resentati ve of a large 

sh ipping concern sta ted th at:

“S hi pp in g intere sts nev er com pla ined of low water. Our major 

concern is the excessive rates of flow th roug h the St. Lawrenc e.”

I wou ld say Senator s th at po int is wo rth investigatin g.

11. On ly 4 percen t of all th e pow er in th is coun try is gen era ted 

hy drau lic ally, and the great major ity o f t ha t in ou r n ort hw est .

Ar e the hy draulic dam s on the St. Lawrenc e wo rth the 3-day 

March 1973 H olocau st, which cost the rip ar ia n own ers in Wa yne and 

Monroe Counties $20 millio n?

Really , is ma n’s pun y atte mpt at reg ula tio n wo rth th e des truction 

of 11,000 miles of G rea t Lakes s horelin e? We th in k not.
72

12. Now the final po int:

We are sick and tired of being brainwashed by the regulators with 

this horrendous statement:

“The lake would be 2 feet higher if the project on the St. Lawrence 

hadn 't been built.”

We admit the St. Lawrence had been deepened and widened prior 

to operation of the dams. But, with the regulators continually increasing the average level, and adjusting their data to this false 

average, their statement simply is not true.

At present, Lake Superior is about 5 feet above its all time average. 

Lakes Michigan, Huron and Erie also are at an all-time high. Isn ’t it 

time to deregulate and give the controls back to nature ? We thin k so.

As part of this testimony today, I have prepared several tape 

recordings of a public service documentary, concerning “Lake Ontario Regulation,” which was presented over the Rochester Radio 

Station WHAM-1180 on May 30, 1976. Mr. Mike Morgan, Director 

of this Kaleidoscope 1 hour tape, produced an excellent commentary, 

on which were heard the voices from the IJC , ACE, the U.S. Congress, Lake Ontario riparian owners, the V.P. of the Loss Council 

and comments by Mike Morgan.

The five Lake Ontario Congressmen, Senators Gravel, Buckley, and 

Javits, and President Ford all have copies of tha t program.

Now, in closing, I want to thank you for listening.

[An additional statement and photographs supplied by Mr. 

Ketchum follows:]
73

f t

DONALD F. KETCHUM

1550 Lake Rd. West

Williamson. NY 14589

LAKE ONTARIO South Shore Council, Inc.

j y l y 2.3 1 9 7 6 16 56 Edgemere Dr ., Ro ch ester, N .Y . 146 12

H o n o ra b le Ja m es L . B u c k le y 

S e n a te O f f ic e B ld g .

W a sh in g to n , D .C ., 205 10 

D ear S e n a to r B u c k le y , l e v e l Th e R e g u la to r s o f th e L ak e O n ta rio ,, h a v e t o l d u s r e p e a t e d l y t h a t : " I t i s n ' t f e a s i b l e to o p e r a t e a t 2 4 2 -2 4 5 f t . b e c a u s e i t w ould da m ag e s h ip p in g an d pow er i n t e r e s t s an d w ould c a u s e s e v e r e h a r d s h ip to R ip a r ia n o w n ers b e c a u s e th e y w ould n o t b e a b le t o la u n c h t h e i r b o a ts .

C o n c e rn in g t h a t s t a te m e n t:

1 . B i l l Ken ed y o f th e Se aw ay A u th o r ity s t a t e d a t th e Ju n e 15 S e n a te su b -c o m m it te e H e a rin g i n R o c h e s te r , t h a t : " S h ip p in g i s NOT h u r t by o p e r a t i o n i n t h e lo w end o f th e r a n g e . The o n ly c o n c e rn o f t h e s h ip p in g i n t e r e s t s i s t h e HIGH RATE OF FLOWS th r o u g h th e S t . L a w re n c e .

2 . The o n ly R ip a r ia n o w n ers who may " s u f f e r " a h a r d s h ip d u r in g lo w w a te r o p e r a t i o n a r e th o s e t h a t m ig h t h av e b u i l t i n th e w et la n d s o r m ars h a r e a s o f th e v a r i o u s b a y s an d r i v e r s j o i n i n g th e l a k e . ----- T o d a y ’ s o u tr a g e o u s ly h ig h l e v e l s have r u in e d t h e " e f f e c t " o f t h e s e n a t u r a l

w et la n d s and m a rs h a r e a s .

3 . The t h i r d i n t e r e s t i s th e Pow er E n t i t y . T h e r e f o r e , I h av e o b ta in e d YEe f o llo w in g d a ta fr om th e C o rp s o f E n g in e e rs a t B u f f a lo ( B i l l E r d le )

J u ly 1 2 , 1 9 7 6 .

AVERAGE POWER PRODUCTION:

1 . A ll J a n u a r y s , 1 9 6 0 -1 9 7 5 5 0 2 ,7 2 3 Mega W att H ours .

J a n u a ry 1965 (2 4 1 .8 f t . ) 4 1 7 ,3 2 3 Mega W att H o u rs.

S in c e 2 4 1 .8 f t . was th e lo w e s t l e v e l d u r in g th e 17 y e a r s o f Dam o p e r a t i o n b elo w 24 4 f t . , th o y e a r 19 65 was th e o n ly c o m p le te y e a r o t o p e r a t i o n i n th e low end o f t h e r a n g e . T h e r e f o r e :

1 9 6 0 -1 9 7 5

19 65 **

(A n n u al) 6 ,5 0 6 ,7 4 9 Mega W att H o u rs. 

5 ,3 9 1 ,9 1 7 Mega W att H o u rs.

NOTE-

 Pow er g e n e r a t i o n d e p e n d s upon tw o f a c t o r s : ------- a . Hea d o f p r e s s u r e o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n la k e l e v e l an d th e l e v e l a t t h e t u r b i n e s . b . F lo w - r a te th r o u g h t h e t u r b i n e s .

T h e r e f o r e , th e LOSS IN POWER PRODUCTION WHILE OPERATING IN THE LOW END (2 4 1 .8 f t . ) OF THE SP EC IFIE D RANGE CAN READILY BE OBTAINED 

FROM THE FOLLOWING RATIO:

*♦ 1965 a v e . Mega W at t H ours p r o d u c tio n ________ * A v era g e Mega W at t H ours p r o d u c tio n 1 9 6 0 -7 5
74

LAKE ONTARIO South Shore Council, Inc.

J u ly 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 . — - P ag e 2 1656 Edgemere Dr., Rochester, N .Y . 14612

10 0 m in us ( 5 ,3 9 1 ,9 1 7 tim e s 10 0) = 100-8 3= 17% .

\ $ , 5 0 6 ,7 4 9 y

I t l o g i c a l l y f o llo w s , th e q u e s t io n yo u and y o u r c o lle a g u e s m u s t, o r a r e 

o b lig e d to , a n sw er i s t h i s :

" I s th e 17% l o s s in p o w er p r o d u c t i o n , by o p e r a t i n g i n th e lo w end o f th e 

r a n g e , w o rth th e r u i n a t i o n o f th e 1 1 ,0 0 0 m ile s o f G re a t L ak es S h o re lin e ?

In a d d i t i o n , in vie w o f th e ab o v e d a t a , yo u an d y o u r c o lle a g u e s s h o u ld 

l o g i c a l l y a s k th e f o llo w in g q u e s t io n o f th e R e g u la to r s :

"C an th e e x i s t i n g t u r b i n e s , r e q u i r i n g a h ig h hea d o f p r e s s u r e f o r maximum 

o p e r a t i o n , b e e c o n o m ic a ll y r e p l a c e d w ith t u r b in e s r e q u i r i n g a mu ch l e s s 

head o f p r e s s u r e ? I f t h i s ca n b e d o n e , th e R e g u la to r s w ould hav e 

a b s o l u te ly no e x c u s e f o r n o t o p e r a t i n g in th e ra n g e o f 2 4 2 -2 4 5 f t .

I w i l l r e s p e c t f u l l y a w a it y o u r r e p l y .

S in c e r e ly y o u r s ,

D onald F . Ketch um

V ic e P r e s i d e n t

Lak e O n ta r io S o u th S h ore 

C o u n c il, I n c .

E n c lo s u re

c c : McEwen, W als h, H o rto n , C o n a b le , L a F a lc e 

J a v i t s .
75

LAKE ONTARIO South Shore Council, Inc.

Ju ne 2 9 , 19 76

1656 Edgemere Dr., Rochester, N.Y. 146 12

DONALD F. KETCHUM

1550L«keRd. West

Williamson, NV 14589

V ic e P r e s id e n t

S e n a to r Ja mes L. B u ck le y

S en a te O ffic e B ld g .

W a sh in g to n , D .C ., 20510

ATTENTION: Do nn a D av is an d / o r J a c k e e S h a fe r

D ea r S e n a to r B u c k le y ,

D uri ng my man y m on th s o f d i r e c t c o n ta c t w it h th o s e who a r e t r y i n g t o r e g u l a te th e 

l e v e l o f La ke O n ta r io , I hav e u n co v ere d man y u n an sw ere d q u e s tio n s an d many 

d is tu r b i n g p ro b le m s.

Aa a r e s u l t , I hav e tw o v e r y p e r t i n e n t q u e s tio n s t h a t ca n b e , an d sh o u ld b e , an sw ere d 

io n e d la t e ly b y th e A rn y C orp s o f E n g in e e rs . I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS Lerii m ,

AND THE ANSWERS TO THE POSED QUESTIONS, BECOME A BART OF YOUR JUNE 15 HEARING MINUTES 

AS FART OF MY TESTIMONY. (T hese q u e s tio n s w ere g iv e n t o Do nna D av is o v er th e pho ne 

on Ju n e 2 k , 1 9 7 6 ).

Th e R e g u la to rs o f th e l e v e l o f La ke O n ta rio w ere FORCED t o o p e r a te th e S t . Law re nc e 

Power Dams w it h la k e l e v e l a t a b o u t 2k 2 f t . once in th e 17 y e a rs o f o p e r a tio n (a b o u t 1 96U -6 5). They w ere FORCED t o o p e r a te in th e lo w ered en d o f th e k f t . 

s p e c i f ie d l e g a l r e g u l a t i o n ra n g e b e c a u se o f a v e ry lo w p r e c i p i t a t i o n p e r io d .

S in ce th e R e g u la to rs f l a t l y s t a t e ( r e f e r t o l e t t e r fr om S te w a rt F onda, U .S . c o n s u ltin g 

e n g in e e r t o th e I . J . C . ) : " I t i s n o t f e a s i b l e t o o p e r a te i n th e low en d o f th e ra n g e

b e c a u se i t w ou ld damage s h ip p in g an d po w er I n t e r e s t s ----- " , th e fo ll o w in g q u e s tio n s

a r e m ost r e l e v a n t .

1 . W hat , IF ANY, wa s th e PERCENT LOSS in po w er p r o d u c tio n as a r e s u l t o f o p e r a tio n i n th e low h a l f o f th e s p e c i f ie d ra n g e d u rin g th e low p r e c i p i t a t i o n y e a r o f 19 6k o r 65 ?

2 . When th e l e v e l o f Lak e O n ta rio a p p ro a c h e s 2k 2 f t . , i s pow er p ro d u c tio n INTENTIONALLY re d u c e d , o r i s i t NECESSARILY (INVOLUNTARILY) red u ce d b e c a u se o f an 

i n s u f f i c i e n t head o f p r e s s u r e ??

A cco rd in g t o Mr . Wm. K en ned y, o f th e S t . Law re nc e Se aw ay D ev el opem en t A u th o r ity , a t th e J u n e 15 La ke L e v e l H e a rin g , s h ip p in g i n t e r e s t s a r e NOT h u r t by o p e r a tio n a t 2k 2 f t . 

L ik e w is e , i t i s q u it e o b v io u s th e s h o r e lin e o f La ke O n ta rio i s NOT damaged b y o p e r a tio n in t h i s lo w er en d o f th e r a n g e . T h a t le a v e s o n ly po w er I n t e r e s t s . T h e r e f o r e , h o ° * ’ £ e r s

t o th e ab ove q u e s tio n s w i l l t e l l u s w her e y o u r p r i o r i t i e s s h o u ld l i e .

We, th e R ip a ria n o w n e rs, a r e a n x io u s ly a w a iti n g an sw ers t o th e s e tw o v i t a l l y im p o rta n t 

q u e s ti o n s . S in c e r e ly Y o u rs,

' D onal d F .K etc hum
LAKE ONTARIO South Shore

A . A. A A A A. X A A 4. x

Council, Inc.

A A A A A A

J u ly 14 , 1976. 1656 Edgemere Dr., Rochester, N.Y. 14612

DONALD F. KETCHUM

1550 Laie Rd. Wcsl

WllH wno., NV 14589

S e n a to r Ja mes L. B uckle y 

S en ate O ffic e B ld g. 

W as hin gto n, D .C .

r

 20 51 0

V ic e P r e s id e n t

D ea r S e n a to r B uckle y,

The accomp any p h o to g ra p h s d is p la y th e h o r r o r o f th e e x c e s s iv e ly h ig h 

la k e le v e l sto rm s, sh ow in g th e n a tu r a l b e au ty b e fo re th e st o rm s an d 

th e a r t i f c i a l i t y o f th e r e p a i r s a f t e r th e sto rm s.

Many R ip a ria n ow ner s, in c lu d in g th e Ket ch um s, b o ught la n d on th e 

s h o re s o f t h i s G re at Lak e b ecause o f i t s ru gged an d n a tu r a l b e a u ty .

We en jo y ed th e b ig b e a c h e s an d th e f i e r c e sto rm s o f th e fo u r s e a so n s.

Go ne, now, a re th e b e a c h e s an d th e ru gged an d n a tu r a l b e a u ty . I n s te a d 

we ha ve th e u g ly w a lls o f a r e s e r v o i r an d we d re a d th e fe ro c io u s 

sto rm s o u t o f th e n o r th . We l i v e in d a ily f e a r o f y e t a n o th e r an d 

a n o th e r an d a n o th e r ------- c a la m it y .

I ho pe my te sti m o n y w i l l h e lp yo u an d y o u r c o lle a g u e s to come to

a q u ic k an d j u s t d e c is io n . ----- One t h a t i s c o m p a ti b le w it h our

s h o r e lin e b u t s a t i s f a c t o r y to ALL i n t e r e s t s .

S in c e r e ly Y ours ,

' P c r M z

D on al d F. Ke tch um

V ic e P r e s id e n t
77

J

u

/

z

M il e ( J e s t A ' 7

'* ' 3

-'

’o u e .r ' T>!x--*t'-

>efa>^e-» co 7 r

M - — 1 \ ! , r

 fo /is v ,: # * ?

a_^ b^tuzV es. e / A e x ^ i 'w ^

^■f-k / sv -*<” ?/ . .

n f l 7 0

DOM*ID F. KETCHUM

1550 L«keRd. Wnt

75-4 21 0 - 76 - 6
78

I

2.

I

US E SH EE T I & I I TO 

CO MP AR E:

1 ) THE SH ORELI NE

( p i c t s . 1 - 5 )

2 ) THE PO IN T ( 2 )

( p i c t s . 1 - 5 )

3 ) THE SYCAMORE TR EE S 

( 3 ) ( p i c t s . 2 - 5 )

4 ) THE AP PL E TR EE ( 4 ) 

WITH RESP ECT TO THE 

B A N K ( p i c ts . 1 - 5 )

5 ) THE PE NC E PO ST AND 

L IL A C BUSH ( 5 ) WITH 

RESP ECT TO TH E BANK

( p i c t s . 2 & 6 )

6 ) TH E VE GE TA TI ON ALONG 

S H O R E ( p i c ts . 2 , 3 , 5 )

7 ) THE BARN ( 7 ) WITH 

RESP ECT TO THE 

PO IN T ( 2 )

( p i c t s . 1 - 5 )

C n a rc ta 7 3

*

Vnaw Ai i o , 1 5 1 3
79
80

DONALD F. KETCHUM

1550 LMc»*. W**» WU'imon. MY 14589 1Z

(U 3 e 3 Z « 3 ? )

Ho w A W «A 4- o \\aV Ocn 4

Mo^t. *

0 'J*

3 , 4 , s )

i ) 2 « bc\ \ taaV«.rt«\

CflAs. 5,4 ,5 )

3 ) (\cX Ati -Vtt q bAv

LftaU. Z -1 )

4) U ilA l A t rt K u^t

4 -7 )

5 ) ViA u.rO 4 — 7 art.

«A &*»«. sV otv at«a

— —
81
82

Viltia*nsoa, MY 14589

I I

C o m p » ft la k t. b a n k a« A koa4 Ooi'<4'<on +0

v < t_

ft

u

3

J*)C7

ft

ft

P

r

I

H,

1973
83

DONALD F. KETCHUM

ft

P

r

i m s

1 9 7 C ?erV»a\

* \oi-V U txI

/

R

P

19 7G

'9 7 U

\^ T U k ja s \\f t« A

4

* t U l d t\

8 5

o n a l F. Ke t c h u m , 

Willi a m s o n, N. Y., A pril 6, 1 9 7 6.

T o: Fr a n k H ort o n, Ja m es L. B uc kle y, Jac o b K. Ja vits, Bar ber B. C o na ble, J o h n 

L. L a Falc e, a n d J o h n J. Wals h.

e n t l e m e n : S. O. S.----- S. O. S.----- S. O. S.

La ke O ntari o le vel t h reate n s s h oreli ne f or si xt h year i n a r o w :

Fe b. 1, 1 9 7 6: 2 4 4. 0 ft.

Mar. 2 7, 1 9 7 6: 2 4 6. 0 6 ft.

A pril 1, 1 9 7 6 : 2 4 6. 3 3 ft.

A pril 5, 1 9 7 6: 2 4 6.6 2 ft.

A pril 1, 1 9 7 6: T he ne wl y re vise d pre dicte d pea k is nea r 2 4 8 ft. i n earl y J u ne.

T he pre dicti o n has bee n re vise d 3 ti mes i n t he last 5 wee ks, eac h pre dicti o n pr ogressi vel y hi g her.

Beca use of t he Ott a wa Ri ver e xcessi ve r u n- off, d o w nstrea m of t h e St. La wr e nce

Da ms is a di saster area, w hic h is a g g ra v ate d b y t he o utfl o w fr o m L. O nt ari o 

(e ve n t h o u g h t he Da ms are h ol di n g bac k t he maj or p orti o n of t h at o utfl o w).

U pstrea m of t he Da ms, t he s h oreli n e, a dis ast er f or t he last si x year s, c o ul d, 

i n t he face of t he m ost rece nt fri g hte ni n g ris e i n t he La ke le vel, bec o me a maj or

dis ast er t h at w o ul d o bliter ate t he me m or y of t he Marc h 1 9 73 H ol oc a ust.--------

Wa y ne a n d M o nr oe C o u nties al o ne s ustai n e d da ma ges i n e xcess of $ 2 0 milli o n.

T his m ost rece nt t hre at t o t he La ke O ntari o s h oreli ne is n ot hi n g ne w, a n d is 

N O T nat ure’s f a ult as t he f oll o wi n g d at a clearl y s h o ws.

L A K E O N T A RI O P E A K S A N D L O W L E V E L S F O R 1 9 7 3, 1 9 7 4, 1 9 7 5, A N D E S TI M A T E D B Y T H E A R M Y C O R P S F O R 1 9 7 6

[I n f e et)

P e a k L o w < Diff e r e n c e

J u n e 1 9 7 3 _ _ _ _ _

D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 3

J u n e 1 9 7 4..........

D e c e m b er 1 9 7 4

J u n e 1 9 7 5..........

D e c e m b er 1 9 7 5

J u n e 1 9 7 6..........

D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 6

2 4 8. 2 _ _ _ _

2 4 4. 3 _ _ _ _

- 3 . 8

2 4 7. 5 _ _ _ _

2 4 4. 0 _ _ _ _ _

- 3 . 0

2 4 6. 0 _ _ _ _

2 4 4 . 0 .........

- 2 . 0

• 2 4 8 . 0 + _ _ _ _ _

2 4 4. 6 ..........

- 3 . 4

« L o w e r li mit of r e g ul a* e d r a n g e, si n c e 1 9 5 5. I J . C . will n ot l o w er l e v el b el o w 2 4 4 ft.

> All o w a bl e l o w eri n g b y t h e I. J. C.

’ P e a k pr e di ct e d b y Ar m y C or p s, A p r. 1, 1 9 7 6, wit h a 5 0 p e r c e nt pr o b a bilit y.

N ot e: 3 o ut of t h e l a st 4 yr w e will h a v e b e e n 1 t o 1 } £ ft a b o v e s o- c all e d fl o o d st a g e of 2 4 6. 7 ft.

S p e ci al n ot e: I n J u n e of 1 9 7 2, w h e n H urri c a n e A g n e s hit, a n d a g ai n i n t h e H ol o c a u st of M ar c h 1 9 7 3, t h e l e v el of L a k e

O nt a ri o w a s wit hi n t h e r e g ul at e d r a n g e of 2 4 4. 7 t o 2 4 6. 7 a n d b el o w fl o o d st a g e of 2 4 6. 7 ft.

Ge ntle me n: O n a b o ut A pril 6, 1 97 6, we will a gai n be a b o ve t he A. C. E. Fl o o d 

Sta ge a n d hel ples s t o resi st a dis ast er t h at c o ul d stri ke at a n y m o me nt fr o m 

n o w u ntil at lea st Dece m ber 1 97 6. All of t he i n gr e die nts are t her e j u st waiti n g 

f or a S T I F F N O R T H, N W, or N. E. Wi n d. We pra y t o G O D it d oes n’t ha p pe n, 

b ut i f it d oes, all H ell will bre a k l o ose.

We ha ve bee n calli n g o n y o u f or hel p si nce Ja n u ar y 1 9 70, a n d we ca n n ot 

sa y o ur pleas ha ve falle n o n deaf ears, beca use y o u ha ve a ns were d. Y o u ha ve 

gi ve n us m ore La ke le vel Re g ul ati o n s a n d a p pr o priat e d $ 17 milli o n, f or “ F u rt h er 

St u dies of Gre at La kes Le vels” b y t he I nt er n ati o n al Gre at La kes Le vel B oar d 

a n d t he Gre at La ke s Basi n C o m missi o n. We d o i n dee d a p p reciate y o ur eff orts 

b ut we s h oreli ne resi de nts face t he sa me dis ast er t o da y t h at we ha ve si nce at 

lea st 1 97 0. — Y o u ha ve gi ve n us n o per ma ne nt s ol uti o n t o t hese Ma n- ma de 

disa sters.

We k n o w y o u ca n d o n ot hi n g at t he pre se nt ti me t o relie ve t he pre dica m e nt 

t he I.J. C., t he A. C. E., a n d t he St. La wre nc e Ri ve r B oar d of C o ntr ol ha ve i n discri mi na ntl y place d us i nt o. H o we ver, y o u ca n ta k e i m me diate acti o n t o see 

t h at we n e ver a gai n are face d wit h s uc h a ma n- ma de pr o ble m.

Of c o urse Ste wa rt F o n da’s ( of t he I.J. C.) lett er of Fe b r ua r y 1 3, 1 9 76, File 

# 6 8 - 3- 2, t o C o n gress ma n Fra n k H ort o n, states i n p ara gra p h si x :

“It is n ot feasi ble t o re g ulate t he La ke at t he 2 4 2- 2 4 5 ft. ra n g e a d v oc ate d 

b y Mr. Ketc h u m. S uc h re g ulati o n — w o ul d pr o d uce da ma ge t o s hi p pi n g a n d p o wer
86

production, and would cause severe problems (?) for shoreline owners by 

restric ting t heir recre ation al b oating”.

To this I would direct your attention to Article VIII of the Int ern ational 

Boundary W aters Tre aty of Janu ary 11,1909:

“—The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various 

uses enum erate d for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which tends 

materi ally to conflict with or restr ain any other use which is given precedence 

over it in this order of precedence :

(1) Uses for domestic and s anita ry purposes ;

(2) Uses for navigation— ;

(3) Uses for power—.

The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses—.”

I would furth er direct your attention to page 9 & 10, parag rap hs g, i, k, of the 

I.J.C. “Dockets 67 & 68” dated October 29, 1952.

“ (g) Consistent with other requirements, the levels of Lake Ontario shall 

be regulated for the benefit of property owners of the shores of Lake Ontario 

so as to reduce the extrem es of stage which they have experienced.”

“(i) Under regulation, the frequencies of monthly mean elevations of approx. 

247.0 ft. and higher * on Lake Ontario shall be less tha n would have occurred 

in the past—”. —(♦ Higher than 24<.O three periods in the last four years.)

“ (k) In the event of supplies in excess of supplies of the past, the works 

shall be operated to provide ALL possible relief to riperian owners—”.

Concerning I.J.C. Accountability to ameliorate damages of the las t six years, 

I would call your attention to parag rap h (a) of the Sta te Department Bulletin, 

a press release #851, dated October 31,1952.

“ (a) All inte rests on eith er side of the Inte rna tional Boundary which are 

injured by reason of the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Works 

shall be given suitable and adequate protection and indemnity in accordance 

with the laws in Canada or the Constitution and laws of the U.S.—”.

“Gentlemen, since the regulated range of 244.7-246.7 ft. has proven to be 

incompatible with the shoreline, we urgently and respectfully request that you 

make an immediate committment to regulate the level of Lake Ontario within 

the range of 242-245 ft. as soon as possible. The suggested range is compatible 

with the natural shoreline of Lake Ontario.

In the event tha t I have not answ ered all pertinent questions to y our complete 

satisfaction, I would respectfully request that you call an immediate Congressional Hea ring so that the tru th will be known once and for all. Our Congress 

is the only remaining hope we have for future rational regulation of the level 

of Lake Ontario.

Sincerely yours,

Donald F. Ket ch um .

STA TEM ENT OF W. J. MARCELLU S, DIRECTOR , LAKE ROAD 

ASSOC IATION

Mr. Marcellus. My name is W. J. Marcellus, and I reside at 1312 

West Lake Road in the town of Williamson, X. Y.

I would like, first of all, to thank you, Senator Buckley, for arranging this hearing. It is our fervent hope that this hearing will be 

a first step in alerting the Congress to our predicament and tha t additional steps will be taken by the Congress to alleviate the problems 

of lakeshore property owners. Believe me, when I say tha t we have 

tried desperately to obtain at least a promise of relief from the exceedingly high water level on Lake Ontario, but to say that we have 

failed would be the understatement of the year. We are ever hopeful, 

however.

I will not dwell here on the damages along the lakeshore. The extent of the damages is well known by all. The reason for the damages is also well known. Very simply, Lake Ontario is out of control 

and those who are charged with the responsibility of controlling the 

lake level are frantically searching for plausible reasons so that an 

effective snow job can be done on lake residents. I can assure you that
87

Jakeshore property owners are fed up with baloney, and we want 

action and we want it now. When I say tha t we want action now, I shall qualify that. I do not mean that action can be taken now to alleviate this year’s high 

water problem. The damage has already been done and, other than allowing the maximum outflow from the lake at the present time, nothing further can be done. What I am talkin g about is definite action to plan ahead so that lakeshore property will be safe and sound 

next spring. Every effort should be made toward this objective and safety valves 

should be included in such planning to correct errors in planning such 

as have occurred in the past and will, undoubtedly, occur in the future.

In this respect, the views and ideas of lakeshore people should and must be sought and seriously considered in future deliberations rel­ ative to lake-level planning. I have said it before and I say i t again. There are people who have spent the ir lives living along the lakeshore, and they know the lake like the back of their hands, but have 

they ever been consulted? Not by a darn sight. It would seem to me that their views should be sought out and given serious consideration. I realize tha t they have no fancy scien­ tific instruments, and they have no fancy charts, but I will put my 

money on their predictions any day of the week.

In this regard, many of us applauded the announcement by the International Joint Commission on April 9th of this year, to the 

effect that the Commission had approved the establishment of a public-participation advisory panel to work with the Internationa l St. 

Lawrence River Board of Control. I realize that these things take time, but I would hope that this panel 

would be formed shortly. Chairman Smith of the IJC informed me over the telephone last week that the formation of the panel was in the planning stage. Let us hope for prom pt action. It is my belief that such 

a panel can be very helpful to all concerned. In all fairness to the IJC , I should point out that I spent an enjoyable day at the ir offices in Washington, with Chairman Smith and 

Stewart H. Fonda, J r., Engineer Adviser to the IJC, and I am glad to see you both here today. I received a very cordial greeting from 

everyone, and the discussion relative to lake problems was both pleasant and informative. I learned some things I did not know, and I believe my views were 

informative to Chairman Smith and Mr. Fonda. It is my further be­ lief that reasonable people on the proposed panel dealing with a reasonable IJC can come up with reasonable answers to our problem. To approach the problem in any oth er manner would be a complete waste 

of time. At one time, I felt strongly that the Army Corps of Engineers was a 

topflight organization that could do no wrong. My views in this respect 

have undergone a drastic change. Unfortunately, I believe tha t Congress still holds to the belief that the corps is above criticism and above 

reproach. Apparently, the corps can go merrily on its way and neither worry 

nor fear the consequences. I believe tha t they should be held accountable for their errors. I have attended numerous meetings with repre­ sentatives of the corps in attendance, and have tried to be patient
88

while list eni ng to the same old ti re d stories a bout why the lake is high 

an d what to do to prote ct one's prop erty. No m at te r how it is sliced, 

Senator , th is is sti ll ju st a bun ch o f baloney.

I, for one, am fed up with the holier th an thou attitud e of the 

corps. It is time th at they were mad e aware of the fac t th at they are 

wo rki ng for you an d me. We pay the frei gh t bu t deliveries have been 

extrem ely poor.

W ha t can the U.S. Congres s do to help us in our predic am ent? 

I think they can do qu ite a bit. I would like to see legisla tion 

introd uced and passed in both houses of Congress, dire cti ng the A me rican rep res ent atives on the Intern ationa l Jo in t Commission and the 

Intern ationa l St. L aw ren ce Rive r Bo ard o f Control, and d ire cti ng th e 

U .S. A rm y C orps of E ng ineers to heed the views o f la keshore people in 

th eir deliberations .

We know th at power and sh ipping inte res ts are listened to, an d we 

believe it is hi gh time someone p aid a tte ntion to us. A ft er all, Senato r, 

we are talking about o ur homes and businesses, and we have been igno red a nd n eglected fo r too long. W e a re look ing to yo u for help.

Tha nk you so much.

ST AT EM EN T OF B R IA N IV ES , COMMODORE OF SODUS BAY 

YA CHT CLUB

Mr. I ves. I am Brian Ives, Commodore of Sod us Ba y Yacht Club. 

Our y acht club consists of 300 people from as fa r away as Florida.

I guess I speak from two p oin ts of view. One, of course, is as a p ro perty owner along the s hores of La ke Ontari o. However, I would like to 

addre ss m yself to dam age done to rec rea tional fac ilities.

In many cases this dam age is reversible. Now, th e recrea tional user 

does no t dir ectly o wn pr op erty , but suffers the effects of high water. 

Th is hig h lake level has been detrime nta l to the he alth and saf ety of 

both swim mers and b oaters, especially in areas such as S odus P oin t. In 

Sodus Po int, you have to remember, we are on a septic system. The 

high lake level has raised the water table. Th e sep tic systems don’t 

wo rk; we are po uring raw sewage in the lake, a healt h ha zard to 

swim mers.

As fa r as boaters, the erosion tore the tree s up, and all thi s tra sh 

an d junk floats arou nd the lake. Th is pre sen ts a navig ational 

ha za rd to rec rea tional boaters. I do n’t know how many of you are 

boa ters . I assume you are , if shore residents. Bu t I have a sailb oat and 

I go ou t on Lak e Ontario and see logs 20 feet, 30 feet long. Some of 

these tree s have iron spikes. I f yo u hit them going 10 kno ts, you are 

go ing to go spinning . We have had several instances where this ha ppen ed, and people have h ad to be towed in and suffered lots o f d amage 

to t he ir boats and end angered th eir lives.

I t was m entioned we ar e going to be hav ing a rega tta . We are going 

to be host for the yacht races. We are expected to hav e som ething like 

200 boa ts and over a tho usand people. We do n’t quite know what we 

are go ing to do about sewage fac ilities when the y show up. I am no t 

sure we can ren t enough po rta -pottie s to service all of them.

We hav e been fac ing th is prob lem every four y ears ever since H urrica ne Agn es dum ped all th at water on us, and it ha sn ’t gone away. 

The village o f Sodus Poin t is bu ild ing a sewage system to, hopefully,
89

take care of some of these problems. I am not sure they are going to 

be able to finish this year. Now they tell us in September, the rumor 

is, because of the high water level, when they dig trenches they are 

not able to connect people and hook us up. And I guess my final point, I would like to say the erosion is 

destroying the beaches and other recreational areas. I don’t know how many of you have gone to see Chimney Bluffs. The State bought 

that and there was talk of making a State park. But the erosion from the high wave action is destroying it. It’s a loss to the entire State.

The Canadians are facing the same problem. I have been to the 

Kingston area. They are suffering from the same problems tha t we 

are.I thank you for the opportunity to make the views of the recreational users known. We are not often thought of. People seem to think 

we don’t care, but we really do. A recreational facility is part of our 

heritage we pay taxes to support.

Thank you Senator.

Senator Buckley. I had asked General Moore earlier if he had any 

kind of history of the periods of heavy erosion along the lakeshore, 

and, I gather, that he did not. But two of you have mentioned the fact you have lifetime experience. If anyone here knows or could compile, say, over the last 50- 

year period sort of a record of extrao rdinary erosion along the lakeshore, I think it would be helpful to help Congress get a perspective 

of the problems. As I said, the hearing record will be open 30 days and you can 

forward the information.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE JAN E B. MOXHAM, PRESIDENT, NIAGARAORLEANS SHORELINE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION

Judge Moxham. Ladies and gentlemen, I am Jan e B. Moxham 

from the town of Wilson. Senator, Wilson is approximately 70 miles 

from this area bordering on Lake Ontario.

I am president of the Niagara-Orleans Shoreline Protection Association. We are young, about a month old, so we don’t have too many 

axes to grind at this point. But I will accept all the prio r statements 

of the people who testified before me other than the gentlemen over 

there.

I would like to tell you very briefly a couple of instances t hat we 

have in our area in Wilson. Prior to that, I must tell you that my 

group represents the whole area from Youngstown, New York, in 

Niagara County, and includes neighboring Orleans County. So, when 

we get through with this we are going to have many thousands of 

people, probably millions, and I know we will have each and every 

shoreline owner because so many already have shown a great desire to be a part of the Niagara-Orleans Shoreline Protection Association.

Now, I can say tha t probably, in 1976, we personally have lost 

probably 12 to 15 feet. I also think that it was as bad this year as it 

was in 1973, except we didn’t have the high winds that came with 

the storm of 1973. But I do think the erosion was almost as bad.

Most of these people have put rock and/o r something along their 

property, but all of this is eroding behind, and the water is coming
90

between the rocks. It doesn’t seem to make any difference how good 

a job you had done. That doesn’t seem to be the answer. I t is the high 

level of the lake. We must work for, and get the lake level lowered.

I also would like to add tha t in 34 years living in Wilson, we personally have lost about 300 feet of frontage, which is a lot to lose and 

very distressing to see your yard being washed away year afte r year.

In the town of Wiison we have an area called Kossevelt Beach. 

In this area, the have lost a road and many homes which p ut many 

of the people in great jeopardy.

I would personally like to escort you around Wilson anytime, Senator. Please feel free to come down and I will take you all around. So 

you can see how sad this all is.

And, I thank you very much for having us come today. You were 

like the grea t white hope to us because we have had not real satisfaction from anyone. We have written letters to no avail. I thank you 

very much, and please let me show you our area, so you can have a 

first hand knowledge of our problems.

Senator Buckley. Thank you. I would like to take you up on that.

Mr. Glen Stoddard.

STATEM ENT OF GLEN STODDARD, PRESIDEN T, BUTTERFLY SHORES 

PROPE RTY OWNER S ASSOCIATION

Mr. Stoddard. Senator Buckley, I don’t intend to bore you people 

with what has been said previously. I concur 100 percent.

However, I would like to state tha t I, too, have been out on the 

shores of Lake Ontario for 60 years and I never can recall seeing that 

lake as high as it is at the present time. And I can prove it by rock 

on the shoreline in our area; also, offshore. In 75 to 100 yards, 12 and 

15-foot water. Ordinarily, in previous years tha t one rock in particular on the last part of June star ts coming out of the water. And 

it hasn’t been out in 4 years, gentlemen. Why? If you could get Lake 

Ontario at 244 feet from December through the rest of the winter, why 

can’t you lower that lake more ?

I know you are going to say we have got to end that ice cover. But 

it all adds up to two words. If my memory serves me, I think there 

was ice breakers experimenting with the opening of that channel on 

the St. Lawrence River for future winter shipping.

Senator Buckley, I am sure that you are going to consider very 

seriously the best interests of all people, we the property owners, and 

the testimony the property owners have given before this committee.

I thank you very much.

Senator B uckley. Thank you, Mr. Stoddard.

I have here a telegram from Mr. Joseph Romola, which will be put 

in the record.

[The telegram follows:]

[Western Union Telegram]

Watertown, N.Y., Jun e H , 1916.

To: Hon. Jam es L. Buckley, care Marjorie Sentiff, Upstate Regional Office of 

Senator Buckley, Rochester, N.Y.

While we find th at a previous commitm ent has precluded our atte nda nce at 

your hearing on high lake levels the Saint Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission wishes to make the following comments part of the record on this most 

imp ortant and timely topic.
91

The Commission recommends that the following elements be added to an 

investigation of problems associated with changing lake levels as proposed by 

the Lake Ontario Protection Act of 1976. An important issue is the question whether total damages incurred by high wa ter could be reduced thro ugh changes in the plan of control or its implementa­ tion to determ ine if adverse impacts could be reduced. One of the critica l ele­ ments required would be stage damage relationships for both Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River. Above controlled structur e and for the St. Lawrence River below the control structure other necessary elements include the relationships between economic impact and v arious channel depths and on power intere sts from various 

modes of operation. With this information estimates of the impact of alt ern ati ve operation plan s could be derived and tra de offs between adverse impacts to any two or more 

par ties could be evaluated objectively. Currently this is not possible because these relation ships have not been de­ termined or used in deriving the optimum mode of operatio n thus decisions con­ cerning water level regulation are not made to minimize tota l damages con­ sidering all interests. The Commission also recommends that in addition to continued investigation of engineering problems associated with Great Lakes levels the proposed act be expanded to authorize a thorough investigation of existing ins titu tional arrang ements our ana lysis of the high water problems indicate s that cur ren t regulation procedures give low prio rity to Rip arian in­ ter est s and do not take into account the impact of changing water levels unless sustained productivity of wa ter dependent natur al resources. Investig ation of these elements would add new dimensions to the lake level program ami perhaps assis t in the achievement of a mode of operation which gives equal recognition to all inte rests impacted by changing lake levels.

J os ep h A. R omola,

Chairman, S t. Laicrcnce-Eastern Ontario Commission.

Senator Buckley. I am afraid we have come to the end of the time 

allotted. A number of individuals indicated they would like to present 

statements: Norbert Schroth; William Steinfeld t; John Lendro; E. S. Germain; Father George S. Wood; G. Goodwin; Mary Hannick; A1 

Steiglein; Katherine Bolton; Pete Frank. As I indicated earlier, if you will present a written statement, it will be read and be put into the permanent record of the hearing for 

the benefit of my colleagues who were not able to be here. At this point, I am scheduled to move out and visit the sites under Supervisor Riley’s guidance. And I understand he has several cars outside and would be happy to bring others along on this inspection. In any event, I want to thank you all for attending. Thank you all for the informative testimony, that, obviously, have conflicting points 

of view which I hope we can get resolved.

And I shall push for the adoption of the bill I introduced.

Thank you all.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.]

STATEMENTS, COMM UNICATIONS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS

95

JO H N B DALY

ASSEMBLYMAN I3 B V DISTR ICT

93B NIAGARA AVENUE

IAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14 30 5

(719) 2S2-23BI

T H E A S S E M B L Y

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K

A L B A N Y

June 17, 197 6

Honora ble Ja mes L. Bu ck le y

United S tat es Sen ate

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Se nat or Buckley:

Unfortuna tel y, I wa s u nable t o a tt en d the pub li c h ea ring in Roc hester on 

Tuesday, Ju ne 15, co nc er ni ng the probl an of e ro sion due to hi gh wate rs in La ke 

Ontario because of a pr ev io us le gis lative oormitment.

Therefore, I wo ul d dee pl y ap preciate it if y ou wo ul d allo w this lett er to 

be introduced as te st im on y be fore yo ur subcc mnittee.

There is n o d ou bt t hat e rosio n of l an d on Lake On ta ri o is beco min g a gre at er 

and gre ate r probla n t o th e pe ople of Ni ag ar a Co unty, Qr le na p Count y and Mon ro e 

County, etc. I a m th e Stat e Assemblyman fo r the 138the As so nb ly Dist rict and I 

repre sen t ap proximately fo rt y mil es of shoreline on La ke Onta ri o in Niaga ra Cou nty. 

Since I have take n o ff ic e in Ja nuary, 1973, th e e ro sion pr oblan ha s been o ne of 

the mos t consist ent and difficult pr oblons i n my Ass on bl y District. Cert ainly, the 

high water probla n tha t faces u s this ye ar a nd in pr ev io us ye ars is a maj or contribut or t o the erosion pro ble m. I be lieve tha t int ensive i nve sti gations mus t be hel d 

to dete rmine if we ar e d oi ng wh at we sh oul d b e do in g in ma in taining the dept h of lak e 

Ontario at th e p rese nt le vel. I wou ld hope t hat we woul d fin d t ha t Lak e On tario 

ca n b e kept at a l ower leve l than we are p re se nt ly mai nta ining. The heartbr eak of 

ma ny homeo wne rs a long L ak e On tari o is ob vio us. As th e wat er s e rod e mo re land, mo re 

homes ar e placed in jeo pardy. In ad diti on to t he stud y of better de pt h con trol, I 

bel ieve that y ou s hould a ls o look at p rope r wa ys of pr ev enting ^erosion at the sho relin e wi th potent ial h el p from the federal gover nment.

Thi s problan, wh ic h has exis ted for a num ber o f y ear s, is b ecomin g an ev en 

greate r an d mo re com pl ic at ed one, and I be li ev e t hat act io n sho uld be ta ken inmedia tel y by the f ede ral gover rm en t in inves tig ati ng all th e pr esen t rules, regulations 

an d ch ang es whi ch wil l he lp th e pe opl e wh o o wn pr op er ty on thi s gr eat lake.

If there is an yt hi ng I ca n do to be of as sistance t o you r subccmni ttee, please 

feel free bo call o n me. I conside r t hi s o ne of the grea te st probl ons in my 

Asso nb ly Distri ct an d wou ld h ope indeed that s ane sol ution ca n b e found or s ane help 

given.

JBD/ jb
96

M rs. Henry Babcock

101 Gra nt Street

Lockport, N ew York 14OP4

/e /?T< i

/ f 7 3 4 fc ~ tS 7 S - "

' W l £ , r <f a .

fa ,
BLIN O SODUS BAY IM PR OV EM INT A SSO CIA TIO N 

RED CREEK , N .Y .

P E T I T I O N

WE the undersigned ar e all owners or occu piers or users of

lake sho re property along Lake On tario and the St Lawrence River and

ar e concerned with the erosion of the shore lines of said lake and

river since 1970. We hsve all read the le tter of Donald F. Ketchum

* i ’

dated the 6th day of April, 1979 (a copy of which is attached h ere to : nd

1

made a pa rt h ereo f! and unanimously agree It represents our feelings In

th e mat ter. We Implo re you to take whatever affir mative . ciw n is

necessary to co rrec t this situ ation and elimina te the continu. 1 . .osion

of these shorelines. We feel that this ts due solely to the re g u la ti o n o f the

■ r - r '

St. Law rence Seaway level and Is in violation of the In te ra c ti o n 1

’ I /

Boundary Wa ters Trea ty of January II , 1909. ,

It Is the feeling of the undersigned that many ofkhe erosion

’ 1

 ' (

problems that ea lst in the spring could be elim ina ted If the w in te r 

level were sub stantia lly reduced to allow fo r the spring rvn off.

■ U fl. Th Cr----------------------L u c a l io n LLtc c

~7^aOr

r L » ~ -(/,

- W < J e ^ (■ I*

A t U e c

bUt*.

fo- / f i t * _____ j / ^ ) J

l ^ .
 ft a m i t ° U a c.a~tTi? n

98

„p O W l 11»e< -

' X ' r ^ r

-' “ O 4 > A - » - < Z i U _

£ ^ v .

-r<-dr- - f ‘ .. _

C^C / i s * l / J t . t f / f e r n s * / / . -

/ / / /P ew •

6 5 U O * * U b . ^ J

l/*i sn s bC t/s c - i/ / 3 / ^ s / X

z r Z 1. Zj’^rZz^z <7 , z / z f - '/ ? /? ' * '

C t/e /ld !■ \J IZZtfcfaa/ /} ,/ ' / J/zrJt/t/*A

Ic tu s- jff lvLeJ Lh u- ^ *_ 7 _ . ’ _

ll&a£a±JLsLe4££(—_____ ____M______'/___ 1 C^ l'L tZf—

> M ^ v l Icx f o ^ “•___ 1 _ ____ ‘ y u 4 ^ c _ . C rX £t!2&

' T ^ y * „ 72j^

/^<t-t<_e. '_ ' ,. ' ’'7'7lOA4-<_ /G l^ e J g ._______ ■
99

£ a mI C ff L ..

It). £8«m

*19-421 fj&.i&iu'g

\L ip o .i, 9 L j 1*0 9*

CL.a Cod. 716

• iafipKoo. *33-58 00

July 8. 1978

Hon. Jacob K. Jav its

United States Senate

Washington. D.C . 20510

Dear Senator Jav its:

I have had a summer home on the south shore of Lake

Ontario since 1944. We have watched the bank gradually erode over the

years due to high lak e lev els .

The publicity and pr omises that were made concerning the

St. L awrence Seaway was that the level of Lake Ontario would be lowered and

regulated to sa fe height to protect the land.

Also, it is stated in the Treaty of 1909 between the United SUtes

and Canada that shore owners and riparian owners were to have preference as

to the regulation of water lev els .

Instead of the aforementioned, the record will show we have had

higher lake lev els every year, and there has been no effort to correct the

situation. Even the shipping Industry has stated they do not require the higher

lev els in the lake or harbors.

It has been claimed that studies are being made regarding this

matter. Th e’itudles" have been going on now for 12-13 years. It see ms that

if they have not arrive d at anything after this time, they a re probably hiding

facts.

I feel this matter should be taken up directly with the President

as no cne on the International Joint Commission see ms interested. This

Commission ser ves at tht will of the President without Senate Confirmation.

People on the Comm ission cannot appreciate our plight as none of them lives

anywhere near the sho res of Lake Ontario.

- continued -
100

- 2 -

The lake shore landowners want the lake lev el lowered.

The longhrrthe Com mission takes to honor our wishes, more land will

be lo st along our sho res .

Therefore, 1 implore you to take steps to see that our

request is honored immediately.

V ery truly yours,

W. ALFRED BRIM

WAE/m

cc: Hon. James L. Buckley

United States Senate

Washington, D. C. 20510

Hon. John J. LaFalce

House of Representatives

Washington, D. C. 20515
101

- y r

D < ‘* 't ' ■ . , , -

r C ^ V t *•' y /^ -O -C ^iu t- D l _

(J ^T l ' cZ y*' * -& /

l £ t - , C J S Cl.jyZP-'

'~(yZi_s /~ / L-c^v/^ y ' l/^-c-^\,e>P^^<- Ct 2^5 ^< -'^^ L

‘'

>y

t4->'-^r^L^,^-Cxz'7L

 y! Cx'’A -V-«.'»_e> (-~-<? l i L J t- Z &

(J 'e rt' i/ fe i t F ‘ / - -S s s 7-

l - ^ ' f ^ .-O~> , < / ( Z & S (A c & £ { U u

^- t)-^ 7.‘r

 ^ ■-£■ ;*^<--i>3i; ., <^-'/- - p i 2 - i s£^X2£~<Zj (. jZZ&.

f r - / &. s f a t L i l . 'I'JTC'I'L. <p ( ■{

P / l s Ls I (_ ~EJPc~ < ___ _ .

t^ P - J L - C tc fa - A '" /-

C Z > 6 - " *

,'ps''L'C\L*>;i.Z Z '/f^ 'V < > -^ i

- ^ <

-'i r t{

''Zf r____ ^/O t ' P c*£ . > cc-Csit-J ^/.s ' / l &-■<'''P c f

"\s<-

f i t * -i't.'J sd'K ^o f £f

s b - Z ^-'\7<-

/C'c^ u , ~ .

tv -*-^ >-i. , (

^ 7 - ^ r u e < * { e c y y a ^ f { .

fi- S U ^ L 'l . / j rts i , £ ^ 1 " .

- fP -'d -v O p < x s \ p s is p lx > \. "Z C e r n - jd c T ^ t

( J & y x y /C y «-■<>'fc t> s f a u ' S ip L b .'i A ^ i. ,

f r P s ^ 6 ^ , '

’'S -P i- .e / Z i P a / _

C-^*T<

/ / ? ? 3 E & f

J S p Z (_ s * / £ / . /
102

sCv~i u l / j b c^c c s C tc ^ c a .t <j.sL

( ^ - . 1 ^ 1 1 6 : 6 Z ;* s

l b '' c /. c ^ -e L Jb s y<>V<y,/>>pZL ^ '^ ^ 't r c ^ & \ r. j

b - t t a . ^ . - j , p l / i /

b & ^ C b b a ^ X i ^ j

£& tb^{_4 i, cs f'~' Z -b /t-6 b\ '■'*''f \ £b/c\^c/(~

M > X s\,3

J L*.^< i/ .< ^ w <£*Cr ^ < f~ ^

C-S

7

c -X ' ^ -- -^ ■ (j £& -(? C b ^-^ i; /c S i. y f o T ^

- '^-w < ,< .x .

L*'- • {_ L'b(

</b(}' U s- ts -b S;

bb ^-f / f '■'C^Ct'-i! > cy '\^t,<s^<-,'O'-j-:'

C ' ^

y

i

i t ( Z-O^ j " Z '5?’
103

Resolution No.

Memorializing the International Joint Commission regulating Lake Ontario together with

Governor Hugh Carey, the New York State Legislature and the Congress of the United

States to undertake Immediate action to stop property damage along the southern shore

of Lake Ontario.

By Legislator W. Bernard Craine

WHEREAS, the outflow rates which directly affect the level of Lake Ontario are

determined by the International Joint Commission according to guidelines it has

established, and

WHEREAS, such commission has the responsibility, amongst other things, to

regulate such water level in a manner that will not Jeopardize the lives and property

of homeowners residing along the southern shore of Lake Ontario, and

WHEREAS, the level of Lake Ontario is rising at an alarming rate to the point

where such level may exceed the historic high level mark of 1973 which resulted in

serious property disaster and losses of millions of dollars, and

WHEREAS, as of the veek of May 20-26, 1976, the lake attained a level of 247.05

feet for an Increase of one foot four Inches over the lake level for the same date

last year, only five inches lower than May of 1973, and

WHEREAS, if such lake level continues at its current level or exceeds the current

level, substantial property damage may result, which could cause damage in the

millions of dollars, now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, by the Legislature of the County of Cayuga, as follows:

Section 1. This Legislature strongly urges the following remedial action be

undertaken forthwith to remedy the problem of excessive lake level on Lake

Ont ari o:

A. That the International Joint Commission Immediately undertake a

review of its guidelines to determine whether or not such guidelines are

the contributing factor to the high water problems that are occurring in

1976.

B. That the International Joint Commission review its existing criteria

and immediately Implement outflow rates that will reduce lake levels so as to

avoid property damage along the southern shore of Lake Ontario.

C. That the International Joint Commission establish a more realistic

basis to project lake levels than the projection system presently being utilized.

D. That Governor Hugh Carey take all preliminary steps that will be

required to declare the affected southern shoreline a federal disaster area.

E. That the International Joint Commission establish as a "First

Priority" in making its determination of lake level the preservation and

protection of southern shoreline properties, as per treaty provlsons.

F. That Che Clerk of this Legislature is directed to forvard certified

copies of this resolution to the International Joint Commission, Governor Hugh

Carey, the Senate Majority Leader Warren Anderson, Speaker of the Assembly

Stanley Stelngut, The Honorable Robert McEwen, Honorable Jacob Javits, Honorable

James Buckley.

Section 2. This resolution shall take effect Immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY. THAT I HAVE COMPARED THE FORECOINC COPY OF A RESOIUTION OjlY

CURA COUI
104

La ke Etoad

J j ^ s t o w n , M.Y,

J l i y c , ± 9 7 o .

S e n a to r Ja m es BucxJLey, 5 « n a t a O f f l c e B u il d in g , S en ato r Ja m es B ucxle y, 

3e n a t a

 o f f i c e B u il d in g

2c-: S n o re lin e E ro sio n

B ea r S e n a to r,

I am w r itin g to e x p re s s my co n cern an d o u t l i n e th e 

p ro b le m s I am e x p e rie n c in g w it h th e h ig h l e v e l o f 

La ke O n ta rio .

My fa rm I s s i t u a t e d on th e La ke O n ta rio S h o r e lin e , 

a p p ro x im a te ly on e an d on e h a l f m ile s from th e m ou th 

o f th e N la g a ia B lv e r. I hav e 10 00 f e e t o f la k e sh o re 

f r o n ta g e w hi ch I s u sed f o r th e o p e r a tio n o f th e fa rm 

b u s in e s s .

The fa rm Ira s e s ta b lis h e d In 19 10 by I t s p re v io u s 

o i n e r . S in ce t h a t ti m e u n t i l A p p ro x im ate ly 1968, 

la k e e r o s io n h as cau se d th e l o s s o f a p p ro x im a te ly 

f i f t y f e e t o f la n d from th e d e p th o f th e p r o p e r ty . 

How ev er , from 19 68 u n t i l th e p r e s e n t, la k e e r o s io n 

h as a c c o u n te d f o r th e l o s s o f an a d d it i o n a l f i f t y f e e t . 

l j n

 a d d itio n to th e l o s s o f la n d th e r e h a s been th e 

s s o f tw en ty f r u i t t r e e s to th e e r o s iv e f o r c e s o f 

th e h ig h l i k e l e v e l , s in c e 1988. The se w er e m atu re 

h ig h b e a r in g t r e i e an d t h e i r lo s s h a s s u b s e q u e n tl y 

cau sed a l o s s o f In co m e. T h is , a s yo u ca n s e e , h as 

been as m ark ed I n c r e a s e d In th e dama ge ca fo ied by la k e 

e r o s i o n . .

I am b r in g in g t h i s In fo rm a tio n to y o u r a t t e n t i o n In 

th e s u re ho pe t h a t I t w i l l h e lp c r e a te a mo veme nt o f 

a f f l r m l t l v e a c tio n , on y o u r p a r t an d on th e p a r t o f 

y o u r c o lle a g u e s In th e s e n a te , to w ard th e p r e s e r v a tio n 

o f th e La ke O n ta rio s h o r e lin e an d th e c o n s e r v a tio n o f 

on e o f o u r m ost p r e c io u s r e s o u r c e s , , th e la n d .
105

Ju ly 2, 1976

Dear S ir s:

I own a co tta ge on Lake On tar io, at Shadageen N.Y. If the wat er le vel 

I s n 't kep t down, my cottage will be in the lake . I have tr ie d to grew, 

grass and pla nt s to keep the ground firm . But the la s t storm we have had 

took 200 ton3 of d ir t in fr ont of the co ttag e. I can 't und erstand why,

I should pu t more money in to the lan d i f you can 't ge t the water le ve l 

down. I have Joined the Lakeshore Pro tection A3s. I hope th is w ill put 

our idea s across to the government, th at i t is the United Sta te s side 

ri ght now th at we are worried abo ut, I know the Canadians have a problem al so .

I t seems to me th at the water le vel should be lower in the sp rin g, when 

the worst storms are due. Right now I would li ke to know i f the governement 

would fo ot my b ill fo r an extended wall to keep my co tta ge from going in to the 

lake??

Something has to be done to help the peo ple th at own land on the sh or eline.

I am re ti re d and i f th is keeps up I sha ll have to ge t loa ns to keep my co tta ge 

on lan d and no t in the water.

I think something should be done now, before the nex t storms are due, fo r 

I don't know how to preve nt my cotta ge going in to the lake i f the storm is 

from the Ea st.

Plea se , understand our problem and he lp us.

ne sp ec tiuu y you rs,

s ? .;* s>'_ J

75-4 21 168
106

Re: Lak e O n ta rio S hore L in e 

Town o f '.V ila on - P a r t o f 

L ot 34 - Tow ns hi p 15

'lie a re ow ne rs o f th e above p r o p e r ty . I t was p r e v io u s ly owned by 

C o r n e ll L a b o ra to r ie s and u s e d f o r e x p e r im e n ta l p u rp o s e s . I n 19 73 th e 

K ia g a r a - C r le a n s C ou nt y s h o r e lin e wa3 d e c la r e d a d i s a s t e r a r e a and 

F e d e r a l fu n d s wer e p ro v id e d u n d e r th e s m a ll b u s in e s s lo a n s t o la n d - 

ow ner s to c u rb f u r t h e r e r o s i o n . C o rn e ll La b d id n o t a p p ly f o r re a s o n s 

un kn ow n to us - p o s s ib ly b e c a u s e th e y wer e n o t aw ar e o f i t , as wa s th e 

c a s e o f many p ro p e rty o w n e rs . C o n se q u e n tl y o u r p r o p e r ty s h o r e lin e was 

l e f t u n p r o te c te d .

T h is y e a r th e r e was a p a r t i c u l a r l y dam ag in g s to rm in l a t e M ar ch .

We l o s t a p p ro x im a te ly 15 f e e t o f s h o re l i n e a t t h a t tim e .

When vie w ed by R e p r e s e n ta tiv e Jo hn J . L a F a lc e an d S t a t e A ss em bly - 

man Jo hn B. D ale y on F r id a y Ju ne IS , 19 76 d u rin g a to u r w it h mem bers 

o f th e N ia g a ra -O rle a n s S h o r e lin e P r o te c tio n A gen cy , i t was e v id e n t 

t h a t th e p r o p e r ti e s p r o te c te d by s to n e in 19 73 had s u b s t a n t i a l l y le s s 

e r o s io n th a n th e u n p ro te c te d a r e a s . A ls o t h a t th e e r o s io n o f th e 

u n p r o te c te d p r o p e r ti e s is g r a d u a lly c u t t i n g back in t o th e p r o t e c t e d 

p r o p e r t i e s m ak in g th e wo rk JEmded in 19 73 a l l in v a in u n le s s th e r e is 

pro m pt a c t i o n .

We r e s p e c t f u l l j ' r e q u e s t:

1 . T h a t fu n d s a g a in be a p p r o p r ia te d im m e d ia te ly t o c u rb f u r t h e r da m ag e. 

In p a r t i c u l a r to sh o re a re a s l i k e o u rs t h a t wer e n o t p r o te c te d In 1973.

2 . T h a t, in a c c o rd a n c e w it h th e d is c u s s io n s a t th e p u b li c h e a r in g of 

th e S ubcom m itte e f o r th e C om m itte e on P u b li c Wo rks h e ld in R o c h e s te r 

T uesd ay Ju ne 15 , 19 76 an d c h a i r e d by U. S . S e n a to r James L . B u ck le y , 

th e Lak e O n ta rio l e v e l be lo w e re d p a r t i c u l a r l y d u rin g th e f a l l so as to 

s to p th e m illi o n s o f d o l l a r s o f da mag e c a u se d by h ig h w a te r in th e 

S p r in g .

R e s p e c tf u lly s u b m it te d

G eo rg e A. G la s e r , D .D .S .

V er a K. G la s e r (M rs . G eorg e A. G la s e r) 

125 S o u th F i f t h S t .

c c : S e n a to r James L . B uckle y L e w is to n , Ne, L e w is to n , New Yor k 14 09 2

R ep . Jo hn J . L aF alc e 

S t a t e Assem bley man Jo hn B. D a le y 

J o se p h A. F o le y , Army C orp s o f E n g in e e rs 

M rs . Jan e Moxham, Town J u s t i c e , W il so n , N. Y.
107

J u ly 12, 197 6

S e n a to r Jam es L. B uck le y 

S e n a te O ffic e B u il d in g 

W ash in gto n, D. C. - 20 51 0

D ea r S ir :

We, N or aa n C. and W il ls S . Hev er on own p ro p e rty on La ke O n ta ri o wh ose fro n ta g e i s f a l l i n g away as th e L a k e 's h ig h w a te rs ero de 

our la n d s .

C om pl et e d e s tr u c tio n o f o u r home Is g e tt in g c lo s e r and c lo s e r as th e h ig h w ate r le v e l i s In c re a s in g In s te a d o f so m eth in g b ein g 

do ne to lo w er th e la k e l e v e l .

Tax es we a re p ayin g on la n d th a t has a lr e a d y been sw al lo w ed -u p 

by Lake O n ta r io 's h ig h l e v e l i s ver y u n f a ir to us as ta x e s a re r a te d on th e am ount o f l o t s iz e ^ lc h has d e c re a se d tr em en d o u sly .

The U .S , Army Co rp o f E n g in e e rs v is it e d us r e c e n tly an d o ffe re d a g r e a t d e a l o f sy m pa th y a t th e c o n d it io n o f o u r banks b u t a c tio n sp eak s lo u d e r th an words an d i t see ms we ne ed a LOWER LAKE LEVEL 

s o lu tio n r a th e r th a n j u s t t a l k .

The "S ru aw I s la n d ” p r o je c t c e r t a in l y Is n o t th e answ er as in a l l 

p r o b a b i li ty , ex o ess w a te r w ou ld d ra in In to La ke O n ta rio fro m th e o v erf lo w o f Lake E rie an d we do n o t wan t t h i s to hap p en .

We s h a l l be I n te n s e ly I n t e r e s t e d In a l l l e g i s l a t u r e th a t wo 

f e e l yo u s u r e ly w ill in tro d u c e In o o n g re s s. T h is p r o te c tio n of o u r s h o r e lin e Is Im p e ra ti v e and sh o u ld ha ve su pr em e p r i o r i t y 

in e v e ry r e s p e c t to o u r I n t e r e s t s .

A ll p u b li o m eeti n g s p e r t a in i n g to th is pro ble m w i l l be a tt e n d e d 

by us w it h th e ho pe o f h e a rin g ab o u t a d e f i n i t e s o l u ti o n .

Horm an C. H ev er on 

W il la S . Hev er on

Home a d d re s s : 77 Gr eenw ay B lv d ., C he ek to w ag a, N.Y 

Lake ” W est Lake R oa d, L y n d o n v il le , N. Y.

14 22 5
108

B a rk e r, N .T . 

Ju ne 30.1 976

S e n a to r Jam es B uck le y 

S e n a te O ff ic e B ld g.

W ash in gto n,D .C . 20 51 0

D ee r S e n a to r:

I am w r itin g yo u re g a r d in g th e le v e l o f La ke O n ta rio .

I was b o rn an d r a i s e d n o t f a r from l t ; a n d s in c e 1 9 5 0 ,1 hav e 

made my home on th e s h o re s n o rth o f 3 a rk e r,N .T .

Ov er th e y e a r s , I have w atc hed my la n d d is a p p e a r in to 

La ke O n ta rio . I had a b o a th o u se w it h room f o r tw o o u tb o a rd s , 

w hi ch we ha ve had to mor e b ack on ce an d t h i s y e a r i s g e tt in g 

a g^ od poundin g w henever we hav e a n o th e r ly b lo w . A la r g e 

w il lo w tr e e n e x t to i t , t o p p l e d on i t du e to th e h ig h w a te r 

w ash in g th e r o o ts b a r e .

In 1 9 7 3 ,e ce m ent w a ll was e r e c te d to p r o t e c t wh ht was 

l e f t o f th e f r o n t la w n. At th e ti m e ,t h e r e was b each to th e 

n o rth o f th e w a ll. T o d a y ,t h e re i s n e a r ly tw o f e e t o f w a te r 

a g e in s t th e w a ll. A te n fo o t p r o t e c ti n g win g wa s b u i l t in ­

la n d a t th e en d to h o p e fu u ly s to p th e w a te r fr om w ork in g 

b e h in d th e w a ll . Due to th e h ig h w a te r , i t h a s f i n a l l y managed to wo rk b e h in d a t th e e n d ,d u rin g th e sto rm s .

S in e th e a d v e n t o f th e se aw ay, we hav e had many st orm s 

an d c o n ti n u o u s h ig h w a te r. I th in k i t ti m e t h a t c i t i z e n s 

w er e th o u g h t o f ; a s w e ll as th « po wer an d s h ip p in g lo b b y .

Due to th e f e e t t h a t we who e l e c t to l i v e on th e 

la k e s h o re b ecau se we l i k e i t ; we a re d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t 

w it h h ig h e r a s s e ssm e n ts an d c o n s e q u e n tly ,h ig h e r ta x e s

R e s p e c tf u lly
109

Senato r Ja m e s L. B uc kl ey :

SENATE HEARING ON LAKE ONTARIO LEVEL REGULATION. Ju ne 15, 19 76 .

R o c h e s te r, New Yo rk, New F e d e ra l B ld g ., Room 40 2, 1O:AM. 

Tes tim on y o f In gr ah am Hum phrey

1150 La ke Road West 

W il li am so n, New Yor k, 14 58 9.

What seem s to he f o r g o tte n in a l l d is c u s s io n s o f la k e le v e ls i s th e 

e f f e c t o f sm all in c re m e n ts ?

c r d ecu m en ts ,o v er a lo n g p e rio d o f ti m e.

To b eg in w it h , ea ch d i f f e r e n t i a l o f 1000 cu. f t . p e r se co nd o f w ate r 

fl o w in g in to Lake O n ta rio , o r w it h h e ld from i t , chan ges th e le v e l 

0.1 476 in c h e s p e r m on th . T his seem s i n f in i t e s i m a l , BUT:

1 . How lo n g h as th e Lo ng L ac -O ga ch i R iv e r D iv e rs io n bee n in e f fe c t?

------ e a s ily f o r 35 y e a r s an d p ro b ab ly lo n g e r . The I . J . C . ad m it s to a

d iv e rs io n o f 5000 cu . f t . p e r s e c . an d d u rin g flo o d p e rio d s t h i s

h as p ro b ab ly bee n much m or e. A ll t h i s w a te r e i t h e r g e ts s to re d in 

La ke S u p e rio r, which i s a t an ex tr em ely h ig h l e v e l a t th e p re s e n t 

ti m e , o r go es in to th e lo w e r la k e s , a l l o f whi ch a re a ls o h ig h .

To c a lc u la te th e e f f e c t on Lak e O n ta rio , si m ply m u ltip ly

420 ti m es 0.1 476 in c h e s . T his e q u a ls 5.1 66 f t . Ev en i f I o f t h i s

w a te r i s s t i l l in La ke S u p e rio r, we s t i l l ha ve q u ite a tid y sum.

2 . C o n v ers ely , th e am ou nt o f w ate r r e le a s e d th ro u g h th e Chi ca go 

D ra in age C an al was l im ite d by a suprem e C ourt d e c is io n in a case 

in v o lv in g th e sh ip p in g i n t e r e s t s a g a in s t th e C it y o f C hic ago. The 

d ra in a g e was lim ite d to kee p th e l e v e l o f La ke M ic hig an h ig h f o r 

sh ip p in g p u rp o se s. E a s ily a n o th e r 500 0 cu . f t . p e r s e c . co uld be l e t 

o u t th ro u g h th e C hic ag o D ra in age C a n al. T h is d iv e r s io n wo uld lo w er Lak es Hu ron an d M ic hi ga n and^th e e v e n tu a l e f f e c t o f l e s s w ate r coming 

in to Lake O n ta rio . T o g e th e r keepin g mo re w a te r o u t o f La ke S u p e rio r 

an d g e ttin g more w a te r o u t o f Lak e M ic hig an wo uld ha ve th e e v e n tu a l 

e f f e c t o f lo w e rin g ALL o f th e G re at L akes.

T her e a re only 3 s o lu tio n s to our s h o r e lin e dil em n a:

1 ^ L et mor e w ate r o u t o f La ke O n ta ri o NOW an d kee p l e t t i n g i t out 

u n t i l th e La ke h as re a c h e d an d m a in ta in e d a d ecen t l e v e l .

7 5 -4 2 1 0 - 76 - 8
110

SENATE LAKE LEVEL HEARING — H um p h re y T e s tim o n y -■ P a g e 2 .

<Lz. K eep t h e e x c e s s w a t e r fro m t h e L o n g —L a c —O g a c h i R i v e r D i v e r s i o n 

o u t o f L a k e S u p e r i o r .

3« L e t m o re w a t e r o u t o f t h e C h ic a g o d r a i n a g e C a n a l.

F i n a l l y , I t i s no a c c i d e n t t h a t t h e L a k e s a r e a t a n a l l ti m e h i g h 

IT I S NOT DUE TO "MOTHER NATURE" BUT RATHER TO MANS ATTEMPT TO BRING 

MORE WATER IN TO THE LAKES..

R e s p e c t f u l l y , 

I n g r a h a m H um phre y
I ll

L A K E B A Y A S S O C I A T I O N

400 LAKE ROAD 

WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 

AREA CODE 716-467-3879

Elected Executive Othcers to

Coordinate Organizations

Patar W Frank

President

Ryal De VoJst

Vice President

Ronold J. Schnaidar

Treasurer

Elmar V. Smith

Secretary

Ju n e 2 3 , 19 76

S e n a to r James L . B u ck le y 

S e n a te O ffic e B ld g .

W a sh in g to n , D. C. 20 51 0 

D ear Jam es,

E n c lo se d is a co py o f o u r p r e s e n ta tio n to th e S e n a te Suh 

C o m m it te e 's h e a r in g .

B ecause o f th e s h o r ta g e o f ti m e we d id n o t have ch an c e to 

d e l i v e r i t a t th e R o c h e s te r h e a r in g .

I ho pe yo u w i l l g iv e i t som e c o n s id e r a tio n .

A tt J u l i e S c h a fe r
112

Te xt o f th e LAKE, BAY an d PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 

To

The U .S . Senate su bcom m it te e' e h e a rin g , to in v e s tig a te th e h ig h Lake O nta ri o 

w ate r le v e ls , on Ju ne 15, 19 76 , p re se n te d by P e te r W. P ra nk.

We a re ask in g S en ato r Jam es L Buc kl ey who is th e R an ki ng R epublican 

Member o f th e Comm itte e on P u b li c Worksf to ask fo r a C o n g re ssi o n al 

S enate in v e s ti g a tio n ,o n th e h ig h w a te r la k e le v e ls in th e G re at La kes B a sin .

In o rd er to hold th is in v e s tig a tio n , th e Co mmittee on P u b li c Wo rks, 

m us t h ir e a p riv a te C o n su lt in g E n g in e e ri n g H y d ro lo g is t fi rm to make th e

stu d y o f th e G re at La kes B asi n ---- s e p a ra te fro m th e Co rps o f E n g in e ers ,

Pow er e n g in e e rs an d Ship pin g e n g in e e rs . The re a so n f o r th is is th e big 

e n g in e e rin g p lo t and d e c e p ti o n o f r a is in g th e w ate r le v e ls o f a l l th e 

G re at L ak es. You S enato r B uckle y, th e se n a te su b co m m itt ee an d th e co mmitt ee 

on p u b li c wo rks can make t h e i r d e c is io n on th e se f a c t s .

On May 3, 19 73, th e I n te r n a tio n J o in t Comm ission h eld a p u b li c m ee ting 

in R o c h e ste r, N.Y . fo r th e im ple m enta ti on o f P la n S0-9 01. The d is a s te r of 

Ma rch 16 th ru March ? 3 rd . 19 73 , ca use d th e purp ose of th is h e a rin g to be 

l o s t .

P e te r W. Pr an k p re s id e n t o f th e Lak e, Bay an d P ro p e rt y Owners A ss oc, 

an d Co ng ressman Pr an k H or to n op po se d P la n SO 901 . The only on es as f a r 

a s I know.

P la n S0901 was d esi gned to ch an ge th e r e g u la tin g ra nge o f Lak e O nta ri o 

fro m 242.7 7 f t . to 246. 77 f t . in t h i s m an ne r. P la n S0901 lo w er s th e 

maximum le v e l by 0.0 3 f t . r a i s i n g th e minimum le v e l by 6 .0 ? f t . Th is 

r a i s e s th e avg. le v e l o f Lake O n ta rio an d ch an ge s th e o u tf lo w s o f Lake 

O n ta rio unde r p la n 1958D.

The q u e s ti o n h ere is why wo uld th e e n g in eers wan t to ch an ge th e 

r e g u la tin g ra nge of Lake O n ta rio th is sm all f r a c tio n o f a fo o t? In th e 

p a s t th re e y ears th ey ha ve bee n over 1^ f t . ab ov e th e low an d h ig h ra n g e . 

T hi s is one o f th e re aso n s th e Co mm ittee ne ed s a p r iv a te C o n su lt in g 

E n g in e eri n g Firm to make a s tu d y o f th e hydro lo gy an d h y d ra u lic s o f th e 

G re at La ke s B a sin . The p la n n in g is c h ie f ly fo r Pow er an d S hip pin g i n t e r e s t s , 

w it h o u t re g a rd , fo r th e d e s tr u c tio n o f th e sh o re la n d an d p ro p e rty .

W ith th e p ro p o sa l o f chan gin g th e r e g u la tin g ra nge o f Lake O nta ri o 

h u n d re d th s o f a f o o t. The S t. La wr en ce R iv e r Boa rd o f C o n tr o l a re t e l l i n g 

us th ey ha ve co m pl et e c o n tro l o f re g u la tin g Lak e O n ta ri o to a f ra c tio n 

o f a fo o t and I b e li e v e t h i s ,r e g a r d l e s s ,o f th e amount o f r a i n f a l l in 

th e La ke O n ta ri o a r e a .

B rig . Ge n. E rn e s t G ra ves, Ch airma n of th e I n te r n a tio n a l G re at Lakes 

L ev el Bo ard and Ch airma n o f th e S t. La wrence R iv e r Bo ard o f C ontr ol was 

th e man in ch ar ge d u ri n g 197 2 an d 19 73 . E ith e r Ge n. Gra ve s wo uld no t 

make a pi m pl e on th e r e a r-e n d o f a goo d e n g in eer o r he d e lib e r a te ly 

ca use th e hig h w ate r o f 19 73 . I th in k i t is th e l a s t sta te m e n t of th a t

re m ar k, but i t may ha ve b een , he was a c tin g under o rd e rs fro m h is s u p e rio r s .

At th e h e a rin g o f May 1973 I q u e s ti o n Ge n. Gra ve s on th e f lo o r .

Why not p la n SO 602 or p la n SO 80 3, which did e v e ry th in g p la n SO 901 d id , 

but ch an ge th e ra nge o f Lak e O n ta rio . I d id no t g e t an answ er.

What elBe did p la n SO 901 c a ll fo r? We w er e to ld i t wo uld s to r e

more w a te r in Lak e S u p e rio r th u s i t wo uld lo w er th e le v e l o f th e o th e r 

fo u r G re at La kes by r e le a s in g i t g ra d u a lly . T hi s sta te m e n t is a g re a t 

d e c e p ti o n '. In f a c t i t r a i s e s th em .

Lak e S u p eri o r is 100# c o n tr o lle d by man b o th in fl ow land o u tf lo w .

I t has a re g u la te d in fl ow o f 5,0 00 cf e know as th e Og ok i d iv e rs io n 

fro m th e Al ba ny R iv e r B a si n connec te d to Jam es Bay in C an ad a.

In March 19 74 , I wen t to W as hin gto n, D .C . on Lake L ev els an d saw 

a r e p o rt a t th e Army Co rps o f E n g in eers H ea dquate rs . I t sho wed 14 ,0 00 cfe 

w ate r fl ow in g in to La ke S u p e rio r al m ost th re e tim es th e amoun t p e rm it te d .

Con’ t
113

I f you m ain ta in a Maximum le v e l of 602 f t . on La ke S u p e rio r and th e more w ate r p e rm it te d to fl ow in p lu s r a l n f a l l t

 i t in c re a s e s o u tf lo w s, 

th e o th e r fo u r la k es w ill be r a i s e d . The r e s u l t s is h ig h le v e ls in a l l th e G re at La kes w it h a v g . r a i n f a l l . Above a v g . r a i n f a l l w ill ca us e hig h w ate r d e s tru c tio n on a l l th e G re at L ak es .

S en ato r Buc kley we ne ed th a t C o n g re ssl o n al in v e s tig a tio n ! We ca nnot ha ve a s e t p la n lik e SO 90 1, whi ch was im pl em en te d under wh at is c a lle d guid e l i n e s , a g a in s t a v a r ia b le o f n a tu re s r a i n f a l l .

Was th e hig h w ate r dam age t h i s sp rin g 19 76 , ca use d by th e S t. La wr en ce R iv er Bo ard o f C o n tr o l or h e re a g a in is G enera l Moo re (C ha irm an ) a c tin g under o rd ers fro m th e S e c . o f th e Army th ro u g h th e P re s id e n t of th e 0 .3

D uri ng th e f a l l o f 19 75 , th e Lak e, Bay an d P ro p e rt y Own ers A ss oc. , s e n t a te le g ra m to P re s id e n t F ord ask in g him to o rd e r th e I n te rn a tio n a l J o in t Comm ission to lo w er th e le v e l o f Lake O n ta rio or we wo uld be fl ooded in th e sp rin g o f 19 76 . Aga in on Ma rch 17 , 19 76 , we s e n t a te le g ra m to P re s id e n t Fo rd t e l l i n g him ," B ecause ou r w ar nin g was not ta k e n s e rio u s we wer e now bein g fl o o d ed by h ig h w a te r. C r ite r io n K of p la n 1958D be pu t in to e f f e c t and Long S a u lt Dam be op ened as so on as p o s s ib le " , a copy 

o f th e s e te le gra m s wer e s e n t to a l l o f e le c te d r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s an d peo ple r e g u la tin g th e le v e ls o f Lake O n ta rio w it h no r e s u l t s .

E ith e r our e le c te d r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s mus t ta k e th e le a d e rs h ip on th is pr ob le m or th e peo ple w i l l . On Ju ne 14 , 19 76 , mem bers o f th e Lake O n ta ri o South Sho re C ounci l I n c ., w hic h is an o rg a n iz a tio n o f o rg a n iz a tio n alo n g th e s o u th e rn sh ore s of Lake O n ta rio , (A m er ic an ) a tt e n d e d a m eeti ng in T oro nto , Ca na da , w it h th e F e d e ra ti o n o f O n ta rio C o tt ag es I n c . (C an ad a)

In th e P ro vid ence o f O n ta ri o th e y a re one m illio n s tr o n g .

I t was bro ught up a t t h a t m eeti n g , th e Am er ican c i tiz e n s mus t Jo in w it h th e c itiz e n s o f Ca nad a to g e t a l l th e G re at La ke s w a te r le v e ls ba ck to norm al , th is in c lu d e s Lake O n ta rio . I t was a ls o ag re ed th a t ou r Co ng ressmen sh ould wo rk w it h t h e i r co u n te r p a r ts in Ca nada on th e pr ob lem fo r t h i s is an in te r n a tio n a l pro ble m . I t is very p o s s ib le th e S ec. of S ta te w ill become in v o lv e d . I f no r e s u l t s a re o b ta in e d th e m a tte r mu st be 

d ecid ed in th e c o u r ts .

The Lak e O n ta ri o S outh Shore C oun ci l In c . has a lre a d y s t a r t e d th is pro ceed u re w it h ag re em en t o f th e F e d e ra ti o n o f O n ta ri o C o tt ag es In c . I t m us t be e s ta b lis h e d who is re s p o n s ib le f o r th e G re at Lak es sh ore dam age in th e p a s t th re e y e a rs an d th e fu tu re h ig h w a te r da mag e.

Damages mus t be p aid f o r an d i t must be e s ta b lis h e d who is go in g to be le g a lly an d f i n a n c ia lly r e s p o n s ib le , b e fo re anym ore ch an ge s a re made to th e G re at La ke s l e v e l s , w in te r s h ip p in g o r c o n s tru c tio n in th e 

G re at Lak es B a sin .

We ne ed a pe rm an en t an d p o s itiv e s o lu tio n to t h i s p ro ble m . I f not fro m our e le c te d r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s th en fro m th e p e o p le . I t r e v e a ls th e peo p le ha ve no r e a l le a d e r s h ip fro m ou r e le c te d r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s .

The Lak e, Bay an d P ro p e rty Owners A s s o c ia tio n , ho pe yo u S en ato r Jam es L . B uck le y, w ill g iv e ou r vi ew s some s e rio u s c o n s id e ra tio n in e s ta b lis h in g th e ne ed f o r a C o n g re ssio n al h e a rin g on t h i s s u b je c t.

Tha nk you fo r p e rm itt in g us tim e to e x p re ss our v ie w s .
114

LAKE ONTARIO South Shore Council, Inc.

A X X

1656 Edgemere Dr., Rochester, N.Y. 14612

June 15, 1976

STATEMENT

Senator Buckley,

Senator Gravel,

Members of the Senate Sub-Committee on Water Resources,

Ladies & Gentleman

On behalf of all Lake Ontario South Shore Council members,

I am making the following requests of the United States Senate 

through your committee.

1. That action be taken that would "demand" that the

International Joint Commission, as the beaurocratic body 

charged with the responsibility for "controlling" the 

level of Lake Ontario, adhere to regulating that level to 

a lower range which will be compatable with the "Rights" 

of Shoreline Owners. Precisely, that in the off-season, 

(June thru De cemb er), the level of Lake Ontario be 

lowered to "242.77" ft. above sea level, as per their 

"Regulation Limit," rather than the "244" ft. they have 

been regulating to.

This will cause the Shoreline Owner to be protected 

from the "High Inflow Event" which causes "Extensive" 

shoreline damage, rather than protecting the Power and 

Shipping interests from the low inflow event as is now 

being done. According to the Sea Way plans, and subsequent 

regulations, the Power and Shipping interests are 

"supposed" to be "adequately" served at "242.77 "ft .,"If" 

they are operating within the established constraints.

Therefore, the resultant damages by adhering to the 

policy of lowering the Lake to "242.77" are non-existant. 

The Power & Shipping interests may lose some benefits 

they have been reaping, but they have not been entitled 

to them at the shoreline owners expense.

2. The LOSS Council's membership is convinced that the 

extreme high water in 1973 and subsequent years has 

been caused by "gross mismanagement" of the levels of 

Lake Ontario. Consequently all damage incurred during 

this period is a result of someones negligence.

Therefore, we ask that legislation be introduced, and 

expediently passed, grain ting the expenditure of monies to 

allow shoreline owners to restore their properties to the 

pre 1973 status. This expenditure could be directed to 

the individual homeo wne rs, through "constructive" 

public works projects. J a/ An-SAs X ,
115

- 2 -

D ir e c t pay m en ts t o th e i n d i v i d u a l ho m eo w ne rs w ould a ll o w 

th em to h i r e c o n t r a c t o r s on a one t o one b a s i s . T h is p la n 

sh o u ld in c lu d e a m eth od f o r o b t a i n i n g re im b u rs e m e n t f o r m onie s 

a lr e a d y s p e n t o u t o f p o c k e t a tte m p tin g t o r e s t o r e an d p r o t e c t 

o n e 's s h o r e l i n e , as w e ll as f o r a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e d c o n s t r u c t i o n .

Th e P u b lic Works P r o j e c t s c o u ld c o n s i s t o f th e f o llo w in g :

A. P erm an en t b r e a k w a lls c o n s t r u c t e d on th e s h o r e l i n e s 

o f th e p r o p e r t i e s .

B. G ro in s i n s t a l l e d p e r p e n d ic u la r t o th e c o a s t w hic h 

w ould a ll o w n a t u r e to s t a r t a n a t u r a l b u i l d up o f 

b e a c h e s .

C. P o s s ib le i n s t a l l a t i o n o f o f f s h o r e b r e a k w a te r s to 

e l i m i n a t e w av e a c tio n a g a i n s t an a lr e a d y re v a g e d 

s h o r e l i n e .

I t i s f u r t h e r f e l t t h a t t h e s e c o s t s b e c h a rg e d b ack t o 

th e S ea Way O p e r a tio n , an d s u b s e q u e n tly t o th e Pow er & S h ip p in g 

i n t e r e s t s who h av e w r o n g fu lly b e n e f i t e d fr om th e m is m an ag em en t 

o f th e l e v e l o f L ak e O n ta r io . Th e A m eri can T a x p a y e r s h o u ld n o t 

h av e t o pay f o r t h e i r g a in s .

I t i s o u r c o n c lu s io n t h a t b o th a c t i o n s a r e a b s o l u te ly 

r e q u ir e d to p r o v id e a d a q u a te s o l u t i o n s t o th e v a s t m u ltitu d e 

o f p ro b le m s t h a t h a v e b e e n c r e a te d a lo n g th e s h o r e l i n e .

We w ould f u r t h e r a d v is e a l l th o s e p r e s e n t , th e La ke 

O n ta r io S o u th S h o re C o u n c il, in te n d s t o p e r s u e i t s la w s u i t 

a g a i n s t an y an d a l l p a r t i e s r e s p o n s ib le f o r Lak e O n ta r io L e v e l 

C o n tr o l. T h is w i l l b e c o n tin u in g u n t i l an " a c c e p ta b le "

PERMANENT s o l u t i o n i s p r o v id e d , e i t h e r th ro u g h o u r f e d e r a l 

la w m ak ers , o r by j u d i c i a l d e c r e e .

L ak e O n ta r io S o u th S h o re C o u n c il , In c

N o rb e rt H. S c h r o th , P r e s i d e n t
116

32 7 Buffalo Ave.

Niagara F all s, N. Y. 11*303 

June 27, 1976

Honorable

Senator James 1. c

 tick le y 

United State s Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Buckley,

I attended the hearing pert aini ng to exce ss shore damage suffered 

by Lake Ontario res ide nts idilch you recent ly oonducted In Rochester, N. Y.

We sin ce re ly appreciat e your chairin g this hearing regarding our pli ght.,

I should li k e to st at e tha t the shore owners are not the only ones 

who are losing land, fo r as the loc ati on is on a border area, th is co ns titutes 

loss of land perimeters of the United State s of America.

At the hearing, I w • struak by the sl id e prosm tution c r e d it s --- on

the scre en i t showed that of the Inte rna tion Joi nt Commission members 

li ste d , fou r of the seven were associate d with hy dr o- elec tric In te re st s.

To have over hal f of the representatio n on th at commission to be "Power"

People could suggest co nflic t of in te re st which could be subjected to 

weighted d ecis io n making.

You asked for sp eci fi cs : Our lake property between Wilson and Olcott, 

co ns ist s of about 200 fe e t. In the la st two yea rs we have lo st approximately 

20 fe et on the bank. We have no protectio n and the previous owner did not 

take advantage of the Small Business Administration Loans at the tin e of 

the storm dis as te r. Proof of our recent damage are large tree s uprooted 

and lf ln g at lake si de. Two lar ge ones s t i l l have lea ves growing from 

them though lyin g in the lake . They were vict ims o f the Ap ril 25th high water 

and wind combination.

On one sid e of the property 1ft a stream tdiich empties in to the la ke.

Here the high wate r le vel s with high wind actio n has eroded away another 

approximate 8 fa s t.

We welcome your inspec tion eit her per sonally or by nembers of your s ta ff.

Ws are planning on having lar ge stones placed on our shore but unless 

the lake le vel is lowered i t T ill be a waste of money we can i l l af fo rd . 

The refo re, we anx iously await word tha t the lake le v el w il l be caused to 

be lowered by your good eff ort s so we can proceed with some pro tection as 

best as we can af fo rd .

Sin cerely you rs.

Dana S. Mandeville 

(Mrs. Gregory W. Mandeville)
117

579 Lake Road, 

Youngstown,

NEW YORK 14174

July 13 th 1976

Senator J am es L. Buckley,

304 Ru ssel Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Buckley:

I am a mem ber of the Niagara Orlean s Shoreline Protectio n 

Association, living on the sho re of Lake Ontario.

The Association was formed to protect and prmote the 

interests of res pon sible year-round r esi dents whose property is 

continually being eroded by high lake water lev els. Since 1839 when 

my own property was firs t surveyed, over 100 feet have been lost to the 

lake. This rate has inc reased in the last ten ye ars and a ppear s to be 

due prim arily to high water levels occasioned by locks and relate d 

str uc tures at the easte rn end of Lake Ontario.

Funding to prov ide protection adm inistered by the Small

Busines s AH ministratio n from Elm ira in 1972/3 did not alle viate the 

situatio n. In fact, they made it worse by applying sho reli ne protection 

on a completely random ba sis .

We welcome your suppo rt of our Organization. Anything

you can do to as sist us in prote ctin g our property from furth er loss 

will be grea tly appreciated .
118

C o u n ty of M on ro e

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

>01 COUNTY OF FICE BU ILOINO

FOC MESTE R. NEW YORK I4AI4

DON B. MA RTIN. DIRECTOR

NEW YORK

TELEPHONE:

(716) 428-5461

July 7, 1976

The Hon ora ble Janes L. Buckley

Federal Bui lding

Rochester, Ne w York 14614

Dear S ena tor Buckley:

The M onroe Cou nty L ake Ont ario Policy Committee has been formed as part

of the N ew York St ate Coa stal Zone Manageme nt Prog ram. One of the m ajor concerns of the mem ber s of this commi ttee Is the pro blem of erosion

and w ave action da mag e alo ng our shoreline. Closely relat ed is the

concern that the lake leve ls on Lake Ontari o have not been cont rolled

pro perly by the Intern ati ona l J oint Commission.

We w oul d like to s ubm it to you our position regar din g the control of the

levels on Lake Ontario.

The findings of the Lak e Ont ario Po lic y C omm itt ee con cerning the regulated levels of L ake O ntario are as follows:

1) The Bou ndary Water s Treaty of 1909 bet wee n the United States and

Can ada states in A rti cle VIII:

"The fol lowing o rde r of prec edence shall be observ ed amon g the

var ious uses enu mer ate d hereinafter for these waters, and no use

shall be per mit ted which tends mat eri ally to confl ict with or

rest rain any other use w hic h is gi ven prefe ren ce over It In

this order of precedence:

(1) Uses for dom est ic and sanit ary purposes;

(2) Uses for navigation, Including the ser vice of canals for

the p urp ose s of navigation;

(3) Uses for power and for Irri gation purp ose s."
119

- 2 -

2) C r ite r io n B o f th e I . J . C . c r i t e r i a g o v e rn in g th e r e g u la tio n o f 

La ke O n ta rio s t a t e s :

"T he r e g u la te d w in te r o u tf lo w s fr om La ke O n ta rio fr om 15 Decem ber 

to 31 March s h a l l be a s la r g e a s f e a s i b l e and s h a l l be m a in ta in e d 

so th a t th e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f w in te r o p e r a tio n a r e m in im iz e d ."

3) C r ite r io n G s t a t e s :

" C o n s is te n t w it h o th e r re q u ir e m e n ts , th e l e v e l s o f La ke O n ta rio 

s h a l l be r e g u la te d f o r th e b e n e f i t o f p r o p e r ty ow ner s on th e 

s h o re s o f Lak e O n ta r io in th e U n it e d S ta te s and Can ad a so a s to 

re d u c e th e e x tr e m e s o f s ta g e w hi ch have been e x p e r ie n c e d ."

4) C r it e r i o n H, 1 , and J s p e c if y t h a t th e le v e l o f Lak e O n ta rio s h a ll 

be m a in ta in e d b etw een th e le v e ls o f 24 2 .7 7 I.G .L .D . (1 955 ) an d 

246.7 7 I.G .L .D . (1 9 5 5 ).

5) C r i te r io n K s t a t e s , " In th e e v e n t o f 'e x c e s s iv e s u p p l i e s , ' th e 

w or ks in th e I n t e r n a t i o n a l R apid s S e c ti o n s h a l l be o p e ra te d to 

p ro v id e a l l p o s s i b l e r e l i e f to th e r i p a r i a n ow ners u p str e am an d 

dow nst re am . In th e e v e n t o f 'l o w s u p p l i e s , ' th e w ork s in th e 

I n t e r n a t i o n a l R ap id s S e c ti o n s h a l l be o p e ra te d to p ro v id e a l l 

p o s s ib le r e l i e f to n a v ig a tio n an d po w er i n t e r e s t s . "

6) From 1959 ( th e y e a r b e g in n in g th e r e g u la tio n o f Lak e O n ta rio ) to 

19 63 (th e y e a r b e g in n in g ex tr e m e s o f low w a te r ) , th e le v e l o f La ke 

O n ta rio f l u c t u a t e d , on a c o n s is te n t b a s i s , b etw een a low le v e l o f 

2 4 3.0 f e e t an d a h ig h l e v e l o f 2 4 6 .0 f e e t .

7) In Ja n u a ry o f 1965, a s a r e s u l t o f e x tr e m e ly low s u p p lie s in 1963 

an d 196 4, th e l e v e l o f La ke O n ta rio re a c h e d a low p o in t o f 2 4 1.8 

f e e t , a lm o st a fo o t lo w e r th a n th e a ll o w a b le min imu m l e v e l .

8) S in c e 1965, th e l e v e l o f Lake O n ta rio h as n o t go ne be lo w th e le v e l 

o f 2 4 3.7 f e e t .

9) For th e p a s t 25 y e a r s , th e a v e ra g e r i s e o f La ke O n ta r io , fr om i t s 

low l e v e l in w i n t e r , t o i t s h ig h l e v e l in l a t e s p r i n g , h as be en

2 .2 f e e t ; th e h ig h e s t r i s e b e in g 3 .3 f e e t in 1973, th e lo w e st b e in g 

0 .8 f e e t in 1958 .

As a r e s u l t o f th e s e f i n d i n g s , th e La ke O n ta rio P o lic y Com m itte e ma kes 

th e fo ll o w in g re co m m e n d ati o n s:

T h at th e r e g u la te d o u tf lo w s o f La ke O n ta rio d u rin g th e l a t e summer 

an d w in te r m ont hs s h a l l be su ch a s to p ro v id e f o r a low w a te r le v e l
120

- 3 -

o£ 2 4 3.0 f e e t . The r e g u la te d o u tf lo w s fr om 15 Dec em be r to 31 Marc h 

s h a l l be c o n s is te n t w ith C r ite r io n B o f th e " C r i t e r i a G overn in g 

th e R e g u la ti o n o f Lak e O n ta r io ."

T hat th e I . J . C . co m pl y w it h th e p r o v is io n s o f A r t i c l e V III o f th e 

Bou nd ary W at er s T r e a ty o f 1909, an d w it h C r i t e r i a G & K, o f th e 

" C r i t e r i a G overn in g th e R e g u la ti o n o f La ke O n ta r io ," w her e h e r e to - 

f o r th e y hav e n o t c o m p li e d .

T hat th e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Com mission g iv e c o n s id e r a tio n to 

Im ple m enting th e re com m endati ons o f th e La ke O n ta rio P o lic y 

C om m itte e.

Very t r u l y y o u rs ,

r X Ci

Dot F ell o w s 

C o o rd in a to r

Mo nroe C ount y C o a s ta l Zo ne 

Managem ent Pro gra m

DF/c m

La ke O n ta rio P o li c y C om m itt ee

La wre nc e M e r r i t t Norman B ri n k

Ral ph Cohn Ed wa rd B eers

M il to n K a is e r A u sti n W ar ne r

S kip M ille r C a ro l Mc Do nald

M or ton L in s c o tt R ic h a rd K lo tz b a ch

Pam Langdon R o b ert O 'N e ill

Edwa rd S e itz E lin o r O 'B ri e n

D on al d B u sh n e ll D r. C h a rle s K. B u ell

R ic h ard C oole y V io le t B e n n e tt

Jo se p h R eln sc h m ld t J .F . J e n n e ja h n , J r .

Thom as You nk er Jo hn G re en

K ath ry n B o lt o n W il li a m A. Wise

Don al d J . R il e y C h ery l D 'l m p e rio

G ra ce Gol de n Ken R ue din

Herman S t o l l P a t r i c i a Leram

Sam J . Chi pp Jo hn S c h a n tz

D on al d Demin g J a c k ie F ie ld s

S ta n le y Hoffm an B en te Kin g

Jan S h a p ir o
121

NIACa RA county legislature

FROM: Eco no m ic D evelo pm ent & P la n n in g C om . DA TE: Ju ne J , 1976______RESOLUTION ) 2 0 7 -7 6

APPROVED AS TO FORM 

NIAGARA CO. ATTORNEY

by -

LE GISL AT IV E ACTION

A p p ro v ed : v A y es____ Noe s

R e j e c te d : A y es____ N oes

R e fe r r e d :

RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COM MISSION 

REGULATING LAKE ONTARIO TOGETHER WITH GOVERNOR HUGH CAREY,

THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED 

STATES TO UNDERTAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO STOP PROPERTY DAMAGE 

ALONG THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF LAKE ONTARIO.

WHEREAS, th e ou tfl ow ra te s w hi ch dir ectl y af fe ct th e le v el of Lake 

O nt ar io are de term in ed by th e In te rn ati o n al Jo int Co mmission ac co rd in g to 

guid eli nes It ha s esta b li sh ed , an d

WHEREAS, su ch Com m ission h as th e re sp o n sib il it y , am on gs t oth er 

th in g s, to re gula te su ch w at er le vel in a man ne r th at w ill no t Je op ar di ze th e 

li v es an d pr op er ty of home ow ne rs re sid in g alon g th e so ut he rn sh ore of Lak e 

O nta ri o, an d

WHEREAS, th e le vel of Lake O nta ri o is ri si ng at an alar min g ra te to 

th e poin t whe re su ch le vel may ex cee d th e his to ri c hig h le v el ma rk of 1973 

w hich re su lt ed in se rious pr op er ty d is a s te r an d lo sses of m illions of d o ll ars , 

an d

WHEREAS, as la te as April S, 19 76 , th e Lak e att ain ed a le v el of 246 .6 2 

fe e t, fo r an in cre ase of six -te n th s (6 /1 0) of a fo ot from th e prior m ea su re m en t 

of M ar ch 27 , 1976 of 24 6. 02 fe e t, an d

WHEREAS, th e Lak e le v el has a fo rty per ce nt (40%) ch an ce of ri sin g 

ev en hig her th an Its maximum of 24 6.7 7 fe e t, ac co rd in g to th e Uni te d S ta te s 

Cor ps of Eng in ee rs , and

WHEREAS, If su ch La ke le vel conti nues at Its cu rr en t le v el or ex ­

ceed s th e cu rr en t le v el, su b sta n ti al pr op er ty da mage may re su lt , w hi ch co ul d 

ca u se da m ag e in the m illion s of d o ll ars.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE 

COUNTY OF NIAGARA, as fo llow s:

Sec tion 1. This L eg is la tu re str ongly ur ge s th e fo llo win g re m ed ia l 

ac ti on be un de rtak en fo rth with to remed y th e pro ble m of e x c essiv e la ke 

le vel on Lake Ontario:

a . That th e In te rn at io nal Jo in t Co mmission Im m ed iately 

un de rt ak e a re vi ew of it s guid eli nes to de te rm in e w he th er or not su ch gu id eli n es are th e co nt rib utin g fa ct or to th e hi gh w at er pr ob lem s th at are oc cu rrin g 

in 1976.

b . That th e In te rn at io nal Jo in t Com missio n re vie w It s ex ­

is ti n g cri te ri a an d im med iately im pl em en t ou tflo w r ate s th a t w il l re du ce 

la ke le v els so as to av oid pr op er ty da m ag e alon g th e so ut her n sh ore of 

Lake O nta ri o.
122

- 2 -

c . Th at th e In te rn ati onal Jo in t Com m ission e s ta b li s h a mo re 

re a li s ti c b a sis to pro je ct la ke le v e ls th an th e pro je ction sy st em p re sen tl y 

bein g u ti li z e d .

d. Th at Gov erno r Hug h C ar ey ta ke a ll pr el im in ar y s te p s th a t 

w il l be re qu ired to decl ar e th e a ff ecte d so ut her n sh ore li ne a Fed er al D is ­

a s te r Are a in th e eve nt of floodi ng du e to high la ke le v e l.

e . Th at th e In te rn ati onal Jo in t Com m ission e sta b li s h a s a 

"fi rst pri ori ty " in ma kin g it s dete rm in ation of la ke le v e l th e pre se rv ati on 

an d pro te ction of so ut he rn shore li ne p ro pert ie s.

f. Th at th e Cle rk of th is L egis la tu re is dir ecte d to fo rw ar d 

cert if ie d copie s of th is re so lu ti o n to th e In te rn ational Jo in t C om m is sion , 

G ov er no r Hugh C ar ey , th e Senate M aj ori ty Le ad er W arren And er so n, Spe ak er 

of th e Assem bly St an le y Ste in gut, th e Hon orab le John J. L aF al ce , th e 

H on or ab le Jaco b K. Ja vit s an d th e H on or ab le Jame s L. Buc kl ey .

Sec tion 2. Th is re so lu ti o n s h a ll ta ke eff ect im m ed ia te ly .

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

O r

/

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) SS:

COUNTY OF NIAGARA )

Th is is to cert if y th a t I, th e unders ig ned . Clerk of th e N ia ga ra 

Cou nt y L egis la tu re of th e Cou nty of N ia ga ra hav e co m pa re d th e fo re ­

go in g co py of re so lu ti o n w ith th e ori gin al re so lu ti o n now on fi le in 

th is off ic e, an d w hic h w as p a ss e d by th e N ia ga ra Co unty L egis la tu re 

of sa id co un ty an d app ro ved by Ken ne th K. Co merfo rd , Co un ty E xecuti ve,

on t h e _______ 7 -th __________day of______ June 1976 _________and th a t

th e sa m e is a co rr ect an d true tr a n scrip t of su ch ori gin al re so lu ti o n an d 

of th e w hole th ere o f.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hav e he re unto s e t my 

ha nd and th e o ff ic ia l s e a l of th e N ia gar a Co un ty

L e g is la tu re , t h i s _______ 14t h__________ da y of

June 1 9 7 6 .

C le rk of th e^ N ia ga ra C ou nt y L e g is la tu re

124

1^pivot pin ch corporation

J u ly 7 , 1976

The H onora ble James B uckle y 

U n it e d S ta te s Sen ate 

53 27 Senate O ffic e B u il d in g 

W a shin gto n, D. C. 20515

U C Q 1 I U • M U t - K X C y j

T h is i s to in fo rm yo u th a t we ha ve ha d trem endous am ou nt o f d i f f i c u l t y in 

th e O lc o t t , New Yor k a re a w it h th e h ig h w a te r o f La ke O n ta rio .

In th e la s t fe w y e a rs we have sp e n t a p p ro x im a te ly $16,0 00 in du mping 

r i f f r a f f i n th e shore o f o u r p r o p e r ty , and re e n fo rc in g th e c o n c re te abutm ent 

th a t p r o te c ts a p o r tio n o f o u r p ro p e r ty on Lockwo od H e ig h ts . A p p ro x im a te ly 

$5000 o f t h i s am ount ha s be en re fu n d e d to us by th e F e d e ra l G overn m ent.

P re s e n tly , how ever, o u r b re a k w a ll an d o th e r p re v e n ta tiv e sh ore p r o t e c tio n 

ha s be en e a tin g away whe ne ve r th e re i s a s to rm , and has c o n ti n u e d to ero de 

o u r la k e f r o n t p r o p e rty .

S in c e re ly y o u rs ,

PIVOT PUNCH CORPORATION

R ob e rt H. K in g 

P re s id e n t

RHK/cw

6 5 5 0 C A M PB ELL BO ULEVARD ■ L O C K P O R T . NEW Y O R K 1 4 0 9 4 ■ 7 1 6 - 6 2 5 - 8 0 0 0
125

Raymond M. Pu nch 

1O7U8 Lake Sho re Rd . 

L y n d o n v il le , New York II4.O98

Ju ly 1 , 1976

The H ono ra bl e Jam es L. B uck le y 

U nited S ta te s S e n a te 

W as hi ng to n, D.C . 20 51 0 

S e n a to r Jam es B u ck le y :

I b e lie v e i t i s h ig h tim e we g e t sa ne low w ate r in ou r 

Lake O n ta rio . An yon e who do es n o t ag re e i s a l l wet and sh o u ld 

d ry u p . The go v ern m en t, (ta x p a y e rs ) ha ve a lr e a d y g iv e n mos t 

of us $5000.0 0 t o p r o te c t or re p la c e w ha t we l o s t . S h o u ld n ’ t 

so m et hin g be do ne t o p r o te c t th e p ro te c tio n ?

Huge b o u ld e rs were dumped on my f r o n ta g e a t a huge 

ex p en se . P i l l was b ro u g h t in an d p u t on to p . I ha ve l o s t 

some of th e s e b o u ld e r s . I am lo s in g some of t h i s f i l l .

I ha ve p u rc h ased my own l i t t l e ce m en t m ix er and am do in g 

my b e s t t o t r y an d sa ve wha t I hav e b u t th e ex pense is more 

th a n I c a re to c o n ti n u e , as no m a tte r wha t I do th e old m o n ste r 

la k e r i s e s up an d ta k e s a n o th e r b i t e . He g u lp s down a 10 to n 

b o u ld e r li k e yo u or I (maybe n o t you ) wou ld a poo r mans m a r tin i.

I d o n 't li k e t o com pla in to o much as th e r e a re o th e rs w or se 

o ff th an I . How ev er, I wo uld l i k e yo u t o c o n s id e r th i s an 

i n v i t a t i o n to v i s i t ou r n ic e l i t t l e sh a c k . We co u ld s i t down 

and d is c u s s th e s i t u a t i o n ove r a bo wl of s p ik e d so u p , w it h o u t 

th e u su a l f a n f a r e yo u o fte n e n jo y . L ocate d a t th e en d of Rou te 

6 3 - 2 m il e s w e st.

Bu t he y - d o n 't ig n o re us la k e r s - we m ig ht d e c id e a n o th e r 

re v o lu tio n i s in o rd e r - and we a lr e a d y g o t P o r t N ia g a ra , a 

v o lu n te e r Nav y, an d a damn go od c a u se .

You rs t r u l y ,

R

RMP /dl

M. Pu nc h

7 5 -4 2 1 0 - 76 - 9
126

Ren sh a w ba y Co r po r a t io n

g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s

B o x 2 5 3 . Fis h e r Ro a d

E a st St r a c i'SE. N. Y. 1 3 0 5 7

A /C 3 1 5 ■ 4 3 7 - 3 6 6 8

June 25, 1976

Senator Janies BuckleyUnited States Senate

Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: High Water

Lake Ontario

Dear Mr. Buckley:

As a property owner on the East end of Lake Ontario, I am very

much concerned about the current high level of the water. It

is presently causing great damage.

After the high water of two years ago, a joint commission was

established to determine the causes of that condition. Last

year the St. Lawrence-Ontario Commission released the results

of their study.

It said that the record breaking high water level of that period

was caused by two factors: (l) Rain and (2) The high level maintained by the control dams on the St. Lawrence River.

The study pointed out that the high lake level was maintained

because the shipping and power Interests found this to be to

their advantage. It also stated that the high water did cause

considerable damage to the property owners around the lake. The

report Indicated the property owners were not sufficiently organized to have their voice heard.

The natural balance between lake level and shore line preservation is very delicate and any change will be felt.

Those who control these dam structures periodically release

news bulletins stating that they are releasing more water than

would be discharged if the St. Lawrence Seaway had not been

built and the water level would be higher if they did not control it.
127

Page Two

Continued

June 25, 1976

I am not sure If they expect any one to take them seriously but

what they say does have some element of truth. They are discharging at a high rate but what they fail to point out is that

they have not allowed the water to reach a natural lower level

in the fall and winter of the year thus allowing the lake a

larger capacity for the very wet years, such as we are having

now. During these periods of low water the beaches and sand

dunes are naturally rebuilt. If these periods are not allowed

the shore cannot rebuild, it can only be destroyed.

I am not optimistic about the results that can be obtained by

writing those who represent us in Washington because of the

powerful Interests that benefit from our destruction, but I

feel there is no alternative but to make you as much aware of

our plight as possible.

Very truly yours,

RENSHAW BAY CORPORATION

Royden S. Parratt

RSP/lnc
128

OOJV -\ VJ27^2£^£^_ CTV \ V o X x . C ) ,T t lx v v k < ? . C ” ? ^ 42)

. ^ o o ^ t S t o u j kj V \i K . 3 I M "K Xs- ip-<*a-&X <\^£j&/iAX x x -S - p jT x f c ^ X j i c ^ S k iJ ^ X Q n ^ - S t S . LoS Xs- O tr& P u -o

rm_>^_ ^l a jo - ^ sX ^ ^ O jo J O a ^ <X_ v /\X s c

~1 ~ V O CX_ x jy £ jz v \_ . ^ < - < mvZu J Z ^

^ t Z x y v v c k x ^ x j _ C J V \ < X _ 0 j6-A _ a<_ ^ 3 Z X T C rC X 0 < ^ O -A J l< x _

~ ^ I s k V _ k n A s ^ - ( Z - fi- C r k k /^ . C A JiS L^W -n r^ ^ “ ^ 7 

A 3bZ M ^L^_ ~^LC> P -k J j^ -S -^ x ^ -tr C A - C V k _ k K > ^ _ C W \A A^ CK> 2J 2 

S^C vu cr kx J X je n o J ) i C\Q -cxi^_ _ k> -» Z 5 ^ x “ k^ -^ njuOzk zh x^ La- 

< 5 ^ o MX &a- CjvxPvSK^Y_ ^-Qs X _ .

^ O - X > O^_ /\ x S^~ rrxvo-A<\ A c ^ J C

1. Wx A£ _S k_ fY Y V O x X X z x - C l/ M iX P-AJ-^Os/yvxSH^. Q j- X x jJ L < L v v ^ l 

O - k_kre> XS < / x U X k c ^ v X SX cr^ is »<\ kJjT3-kxQ-<S a X i t j - ^

"k D x a . ( L v v ^ A 52-XZ53LJLj«rw \ . VS-S k^ OxS i_ X ty x J - k Q X k 3 ?

X - ^ - S ^ - /S V \Z jJ ^ L y k J O ^ x X Q » X ^ ^ < s J L o ; ~fc o

C ^A jyvv^ _ x^_C5VC) O ^ ^ X ^ J L w ^ w V < ~ X - o X X CT'-X Q /k - 

^ Q e ^ v C k . - ~ v £ k & ^ Cla xJ " ^ skc. p O z v v v i, Qj o -oQlC ^ -C is r^ cx /vsd i ~ ^ S L sl J o jx k £ L ^ > » X < 2 . ^ vat^ £ > > Q X u

k K T O ^ k . O o o ^ u c k tQ vk ftS L. r » ^ v c r ^ A f t . c ^

Qt» x 2 V Qa CzkX -W ^ Q zxQ_7CV_ J ^ Z k X X t ^ ; XPxJZ- kk% kQ 5l 

p v - '^ y C W k . x^K xsQ-^lX < x X t M -C fe b "F ^X s- G -Z k X k - 

~ t X > fiU>c-cx<J. ^ x > s k a S X c s - ^ O q ^ v S u A ~ 7 f e . \ Z ) o ^ o v -> ~ 

S ^ ' W b J K -> oC to -X >_3x ^.CU tScA - LXx>— f t f i j - , / I (

prr t g y y ^ X - . Q < zv aX ju X s n S A — p j X ^ j t z V O o x J o ^ i - '

130

(W \k , “IdG O ^ K jX -^ v v

~K>ULA- OA>~A <3— , "T Q a ^ W QjJU

'"jS aS ^ L uow*- c- ^ ( A h c Q G e -^ - i- ~ QjCjX-I .

£kflA<\ CkA^AXA ax A^JCslx. CVX-SX- A^XS-O^-tLStP-^

O ^ A ^ c r v - k j e ^ - fr“ ^ » C ‘c x 3L zlC> ^_ “t o 7t0<2 Cr jcu yux^n 

K ^ a - C z 'V ^JL > C jS * 3 3 u A t oJ^/u><JCxA>a-'

<3 ^ k

r ^J tA >X^v A lxA aA

X a jX , kaj- o -xaG A O ^-o^ x^ . rv ^o . ^L a_c>^t ^ u*vA - .

C U - O>— p_^-0-ZL\-v<4 fYVjJ^Lx- A K< 3V r-^b c\ cJ A lx>

Q_v£kx ”^ js> (Cba-A^_ ~ ( A /VSuoJiA>a<X r*\^o

^ _ o * v \ -< ^ J 2 . c ^ < r x * a ^ v ^ i> A & > a x jf y O ^fi _ AXj ^ X .

JoJtAe -v. KA\ VA~7 2> . ~k^\j3A j> -^ X _ ~ j^ C ^LM-aA X ^ 4 _ A _

£ u < \ S Lqsva g I x^ k g J 9 > ^_ A -S ^ k k 

O -a\jA ~Akfi- O^ Qs a'v ^XAxA aj A —O-A /XaoA. c<^2_^i D^X<A.^^3\_ 

^jjjc Ao Axa A cmi i-A c x % \ ^ fYvv<y~>-xs*|_ ^yv»~cn^_ -jc^SQ^jC r^-A^ —\ £ l j A (Le^JO-aJi-A ±9^2- (^ ^^ VOJ^ SL. .

~ t£ A ^ _ a - o jA t A i q^ A o A S ^ J “V o ~Akc pf*v6>\S>^

Qj^oA ’A ” Ij LTCt-o G A Q a~O~aa£<_ A-G ~ A X a -ctU - ^ \

4 ^ c S Crfi^sjLcfiAA. k/vx ^ G avA aJK . K i V •,

A * \ ^ _ G ^ * \xaz> ^ , ro ,' < '. \ 5G>y ” k-A ZA

fVv'J U _C a J - C ^ v\

A ^ k x r u ^ ^ ^LxxxjAka-a-SU cS- ^ ^ w . Qv^ -et JLxCa^ v p j i j ^ /

2t ^ QjrO -A ^X , ^_6_AGl>'*- ^-AyUTT-' "£_fe "fclks- (3-2jtr<Avi

Pfvo-A vs ^ KaJ ’X - /Y\yS-k? <3 V\ - t A U . cSIgaA o 3 r k ^ u 

[ " ^ X maJ u < 3 ^ ‘T^ k jL . cJ Acx yW x P - O ^ - A ^J O ^- £st»

(X at^ V ka^ f V\J Q_az_X ko - 9 a«4s-xZ ^-^ pJc Lodh A - .

132

6 Bu chan an Road 

P it t s f o r d , N .Y . 14 534 

J u ly 1, 1976

716-3 8 1 -4 9 3 6 (hom e) 

716 -4 5 8 -1 0 0 0 (b u s in e s s )

E x t. 75 70 0

S e n a to r James L . B u ckle y

S enate O ffic e B u il d in g

W ash in g to n , D. C. 20510

A t t n : Donna D a v is a n d /o r Jack ee S h a fe r.

Dea r S e n a to r B u c k le y :

I am w r it in g t h is on b e h a lf o f th e E a g le Is la n d A s s o c ia tio n , I n c . , 

t o e x p re s s o u r in c re a s in g co n c e rn o v e r th e h ig h w a te r le v e l o f 

Lak e O n ta rio .

We a re an a s s o c ia tio n co m p ri se d o f r ip a r ia n owners on E agle 

Is la n d in So du s Bay , w h ic h is p a r t o f Lak e O n ta rio . Our memb ers 

ha ve s u ffe re d g re a t in c o n v e n ie n c e and lo s s as a consequence o f 

th e a p p a re n t i n a b i l i t y o f th e I . J . C . to m a in ta in th e la k e a t th e 

p re s c rib e d le v e l. S p e c if ic a lly , lo s s o f la n d due t o e ro s io n , 

a d v e rs e e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p a c t, lo s s o f dock s tr u c tu r e s fr o m h ig h e r 

wa ve h e ig h t, e x tr a exp ense s f o r r a i s in g o f e x is t in g d o cks, an d 

u n s a fe c o n d it io n s on dock s w h ic h a re p a r t i a l l y aw ash , a l l ca n be 

a t t r ib u t e d t o th e h ig h la k e le v e l w h ic h c o n tin u e s t o p e r s is t an d 

w h ic h seems t o be so u n n e c e s s a ry .

I t is r e a s s u rin g to us th a t yo u a re ta k in g an in t e r e s t in t h is 

m a tte r, as in d ic a te d by th e Ju ne 15 H e a ri n g and y o u r c o lla b o r a tio n 

w ith th e Lak e O n ta rio S outh Shore C o u n c il . On th e b e h a lf o f th e 

A s s o c ia tio n , I th a n k yo u f o r th e e f f o r t s th a t yo u ha ve made so f a r

We a l l w i l l be mos t in te r e s te d in th e p ro g re s s th a t ca n be made 

in th e n e x t fe w mon ths to d e a l w it h th e s p e c if ic is s u e s o f why 

th e "p ow er I n t e r e s t s " r e q u ir e th e h ig h la k e le v e l an d wh y th e 

la k e le v e l c a n n o t be m a in ta in e d a t a lo w e r le v e l th a n i t ha s be en 

f o r th e l a s t fe w y e a rs .

S in c e r e ly ,

W. J . Sta udenm aye r 

P re s id e n t

E agle Is la n d A s s o c ia tio n , In c
133

Ju ne 18 , 1976

Sen at or Jam es L. Buc kl ey 

U. S. Sen at e 

W as hing ton, D.C . 20 51 0

Sen at or Jam es L. B uck le y:

I t i s in dee d a p le a s u re to be p e rm it te d to add a d d itio n a l v o ic e su p p o rti n g th e 

cl ai m fo r im prov ed le v e l c o n tr o l (l ow er ) o f Lak e O n ta ri o . I was in v ite d to a t ­

te nd th e S en at e Subco nm itte e H ea ri ng in R ochest er on June 15 , 1976 an d fo un d 

th e e n tir e p ro ceed in g s fa s c in a tin g as w ell as d is c o v e ri n g th e acu te p erc ep ­

ti v e n e s s o f S en ato r B uck le y.

Sin ce tim e d id n o t p e rm it me to t e s t i f y a t th e h e a rin g I sh ou ld lik e to p re ­

se n t some o f my p e rso n a l in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e ev id ence p re se n te d , as w ell as 

some o b se rv a ti o n s made over a 50 y e a r p e rio d .

1. One p e r tin e n t c h a r t p re se n te d by B rig . Gen. Moore showed la ke le v e ls fro m 

19 00 -195 4. Dur in g t h a t p e rio d i t showed low le v e ls ar ou nd 242 f e e t and on ce o r 

tw ic e arou nd th e 2 4 l p lu s f e e t. T his was a l l b e fo re th e Seaway O pera ti on. And 

duri ng th ose y e a rs , more to my kn ow ledg e fro m 19 57 -1 95 4, th e s h o re li n e s re m ai ned ver y much th e same w it h none or p r a c t i c a l l y no s h o re li n e e ro sio n . A fte r th e 

s t a r t o f th e Seaway O p era ti o n , b u t more s p e c if ic a lly th e l a s t 10 y e a rs , alm ost 

unac co unta ble damage h as be en done to th e s h o re li n e and p ro p e rt y . Why? W el l, be ­

ca use r a is in g th e la k e le v e l and never goin g lo w er th an 244 f e e t ab ov e se a le v e l, 

THE RESERVE CAPACITY OP LAKE ONTARIO HAS ARTIFICIALLY BEEN LOST! B ef or e th e 

Seaway , th e n a tu r a l f lu c tu a tio n o f th e la k e le v e l p ro v id ed a re se rv e c a p a c it y

to han dle ab no rm al y e a rs o f r a i n f a l l and ru n o ff. I ’m su re th e y ears 1900-19 54 

pro vid ed tim es o f he av y ru n o ff and he av y r a i n f a l l s eq u al to 19 76. And sin c e th e 

r iv e r ha d no o b s tru c tio n s l ik e dam s, lo ck s and c a n a ls i t to ok care o f th e hig h 

le v e l p eri o d s w it h o u t en dangeri ng p ro p e rty . R epeati ng my p o in t once a g a in , th e 

REGULATING AGENCIES HAVE REMOVED TOE RESERVE CAPACITY fro m Lake O nta ri o by r a i s ­

in g th e low lim it fro m 2 4 l p lu s f e e t to 244 p lu s f e e t . I f th a t 5 f e e t o f d i f f e r ­

en ce, o r even 2 f e e t , w er e re s to re d th e re wo uld p ro b ab ly be no more s h o re li n e 

dam age. Some e ro sio n m ig ht s t i l l oc cu r b u t i t wo uld be m in im al .

2 . When ta lk in g o f s h o re lin e dam age, n o t only mus t th e damage e sti m a te in c lu d e 

th e a c tu a l lo s s o f p ro p e rty b u t to th a t m us t be ad de d th e RESALE LOSS o f th e ent i r e p ro p e rt y in v o lv ed . Wha t ch an ce do es one ha ve o f s e llin g any p ro p e rt y wh ich 

i s in da ng er o f d is a p p e a ri n g in to th e la k e .
134

-2-

5. Last week I per sonally b oat ad a long Lake Ontario so uth shore fro* Port

Bay to P air Haven Bay, a d ista nce of 8 -1 0 idles. There are no beaohe s left

and the bluffs are b adl y undermin ed w hi ch will cause furthe r erosion- fo r the

next 1-2 years. The shoreline ero sio n cau sed by h igh wat er supported b y h eav y

storms w hi ch slam and smaah the w ater Into t he b luffs m ust be st epp ed a s soon

as possible. Other l ow lying areas, no rmally above w ate r damage are b ad ly flooded in the Spring e specially If th e lake is no t d ropped si gni fic ant ly b elow the

2kk' level in the Pall. Pew pe ople r ealize ho w de structi ve a 5 day storm accom panied by 5 0 mile gale winds, oft en repeat ed several times In the Spring,

can be. The claim by the Se awa y C ont rol B oar d to ma int ain uni form lev els of

fl ow during the winter to prev ent Ice Jams wi th subs equ ent f lood ing a nd danger

to p owe r utiliti es, is al so a Seaw ay c ont rib uti on to the high level wh en the

Pall and V inter should permit more lowering of the lake. The S eaw ay has re mov ed

the nat ural balance of wate r f low and level, and Is direc tly respon sib le for

the high lake level and to the almos t unest ima ble p rop ert y l oss and damage.

If, as is done, the highwater m ark defin es pro per ty bounda ries , the arti fici al

highwater. mar k caused by the recent h ig h levels w ill Increas e the size of Lake

Ont ario an d reduce the taxable si£e of N. Y. State.

A. There are thousands of people al ong the south shore of Lake O nta rio Involved with problems of prop ert y loss, flooding, pol lut ion and re cre ati ona l

losses due to the abn ormally and I llega lly mai nta ine d level of thi s lake.

(treaty of 1909). These people are all TAXPAY ERS A ND VOTERS. As vot ers their

aff ect wi ll be of sign ificant va lue In the up- com ing elections.

Pre sident (/

Bli nd Sodus Bay Impro veme nt

Ass oci ati on

NOTEi Refer enc e to Item #1. When level s are r egu lat ed as no w between 2kk plus

to 2*7. 5 f««t above sea level, a differ enc e of 5.5 feet, and if d rip ped at least

2 feet, this represents better than 50 % o f the reserve capacity, and If the low

level Is ret urn ed to 2*2 plus feet, 100 % of the reserve capa cit y will be restored.

This w ill be a return to the na tural lake balance prior to the Sea way Insta llati on

and Operation.
135

1° i^ ih - x o n . J , L. t f u c t i u s y

(-1-6*111*6 - L a* £ ^ n r /n t io - L m Cc # b C u i/ \ n e n

\) J K t - I i - I

Pc<ivs<5 A s>9, I f - rL>v io© U tre y

 T o I M y 

le vflM O w 'y £>nts M tfl.6 Tk-iw £, .

I n i |e > r« K & n v k>/.> ^o ijr»< i i r c 9 6 h 6 - n - 7 £ .

IjoH-N HoT h i i i f r i if$ r m (o $ v tn o p e *^

(t> (Zc POCA? lo nw /t oc ”^O A5 i«* I^ Q u /r X C / I f 

t e r r ^ e tS o v L<?5> O iM f T . yy

c ^ n r iu A- H u »e e J " ,

6>rtt

1 * >) to ow uo kc?*«v-i "T to vo «3 rttw i 

(-* £A /T ’*Yljo Otx^- -fa aT p«»4. , « f /^<?IN<£>^

^tTt^'T I p’ovunvjxtL^ i-4-i^c Lffucu Tech no
136

1$U5 Lake Road 

Toungstown, New Tork 

Ihl7U

Ju ly 8, 1976

Senator William Buckley 

Senate O ffic e Building 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Buc kley:

This le tte r is to inform you of the damages su ffer ed as 

as a re su lt of the high water le vels on Lake On tar io. I li v e 

on the south shore of Lake On tar io, $ miles ea st of the 

Niagara Ri ve r Ou tle t in the Vill ag e of Toungstown, Town of 

Po rter, Niagara County, New Tork.

In 1973 app roxima tely 20 f t . depth of land and 5 la rg e 

Willow tr ee s along our 200 fe e t of lak e fron tage were washed 

away in the storm of March 17 . The nex t autimwwe r e fil le d the 

land and constru cte d a 7 fo ot hig h, 1 fo ot th ic k bre akw all 

alon g th is fron tage under the SBA Loan program. The co st was 

approximately $ 7$.00.00.

In the Spr ing of th is ye ar the lak e le v e l, which is hig her 

now than any time in the pa st four years th at I have res ide d 

he re, re su lte d in wave ac tion st ri kin g th is w all and cr es ti ng 

13 fe e t above the w al l to f a l l on the land re ce n tl y replaced . 

T h ir ty -f iv e per cen t of the resto red land ha s, as a re su lt , 

again washed away areund the ends and through the drainage 

holes of the breakw all . This th ir ty -fi v e perce nt of the wal l 

leng th now stands exposed and is ap t, with the next storm, to 

top ple over in to the la ke. The remainder w ill most li k e ly soon 

fo llo w as the pro cess continue s. The lo ss of th is $ 7500.00 

recent investment, although co ns iderab le, is sm all in comparison to the lo ss of our home which is the ne xt stru ctur e 

in the path of the lak e wa ter .

I urge you to do a l l in your power to reduce the pre sen t 

lak e le v e l as soon as po ss ib le and to mai ntain i t a t le ast 

two fe e t below i t s ' presen t le v e l. This is the only step which 

w ill pr ot ec t the lake shore homeowners ag ai ns t the lo ss of money 

alread y in ve sted in b arr ie r co ns tru cti on as w ell as the lo ss of 

th eir very homes and would s t i l l be wi thin the lim it s allo wed by 

Canadian-American Treaty agreement. I t would als o avo id the 

tremendous fi n an ci al burden of cons tru ction o f bar ri er s along 

the en tire lak e shore, a so lu tio n which would most ce rt ain ly 

f a i l aga in i f the pre sen t high le vels are mainta ined .

Si nce re ly

JFS/vma
137

X ' / f a ? ^

>

d' H ei -£ r* '- i . y y L n ^ f - — / f 7 C

6 0 S v r r o aJ 7 i ^ S a ^ r x f S '

f a y / f a A' fa . / 6 ° * .3 ^

S SSa^ac ^^ e. *-t/e ^, ^- ,'

C< i <-i^t>X.- asu ,i> ^A .- < ',. < . vt'C b S t

S f a / z c ■ 6 k S Sk < . ' ' ^ ” 7 S * 'J *ss

/ . - S y & ^ W y y c -l S ^ h T . i n .

' 0 iS X s \~ S

* f t

t+ 6c t+ r'~ c/• y ' / ,

7 f a i t , / ^ i S v 7 ^ 7 ^ Ct y ^ c 7 4 ^ 

/ / s s ^ i z s < ^ S 4 ^ f a f a 7 & S y S S ~ ~ ^ - c

tS S^ -c t~ ' ^ i - y f a y ^ . .

y , t A * v £ 4 .f a * ’ f e / b - 4 , c4 4 a < y d - 4t~ *A - 4 £ i -

y /t fr u-t -c* A A ,A * ,A < i- S>Ct ■ , 4 ^ iy t ^ S . iasc^ I £<4— ^. .-1, A_~A /0 A .{-„

>- /S . ^ v e tte s m l, 4U<A£S->—&a j_ , . 4fa t- vu .-A j^ . S ^ y y t-t \

'T tu r'S. n^ V 4 oA a. .jt't,WA.A’->-\_,

X-> tl ff'li< ” ' £ 4 4 ,1 , s u x r t y ) t^L - / ? ? £ " S S A a. , 

2^

t

'

/ t y t t ^ i S i A ^ * ^ ' m . A S v ^ y . ^J -< L ' ^ —y e ^ y l c - C /lAA ^e-'t-cS"

f? '^ y4 tA n >

0 'l ^ A A I - 4 ^ fa * L - A ^ A S - y ^ A / £

4 - > r y iS c A y •. - c S l i o d 4 s n * S & ~ y y * y q vr ~ 7 4 4 - y i~

/ £ /» > m -s 4 > S 4 , i t r v £ ± A * { C 4 4 S y /

' s c y y 4 < 4 y s4 , - cj/ ,

{jA ii aJ S strCV'±AAry\~ A . 4 t V -lA l ^^A LA-t . 4 ^ /£<- S S l S ' ^ ' ^ ' Z*'S. ,,4 -A -~e4 -

O-, ^ 4 ^ o 4 4 4 ^ 4 - y - <H~-rusA. o A ^ ^ , ^ a6 C

" - S ^ 3

 S ' J

'

^ 7 & z £ S 4 % i z £ .

y * ' £ 4 ^ ^ 4 . S f a S f a '< f a -

3 ^ £ t z A S g £ j G % £ £ & f e z ^

^ ^ . S S f a S S ^ S / T t -
138

^4 h- > t£ £

y ^ Z ' f -

4-^*7

'*-4..

sfa'Qs <rrt-4.-

^. -, -. __ ' yi.

/t f- c-/. & e .^ t> a .t . f' t- A y & z ^ y /s /i /Dis>' '/ a

/ & /t ^ £ 's ty .J te + s '- * 'f -i- s ^ ' r'r f‘i'

/ t r u A ^ (e '4

— _ . ►V- ^C ' 4 ^ 9 ; w - X r6 + e a -^ j~ t _

tA # y y £ - p ^ r u . ca-\

4 £ t^ k * -,< £ - J^ -C r.

, {/&■■*<-4i■ /& >,&-& ££ ■ 6-c--

<5T

^ * S * ^ & i S £ £ T Z Z & .

_____________________________
139

z ^ tz z ^ C y£

A r* > £*‘& y & _

. yA<^ 'O^sCr*>xs.

</7lS

s ' ,&£<< fo A $ ** < *^ 2 ? - C'*' ' S ’ /Z,

t sy lc+c& C / t / Z z , /< ; . ( / ■ ^

/ ^ X * Z Z A * ^ * ^ - Ao S& ’v A A “A

. ' - A — 7 y ~ «

/ > A c < '^ A s * A A jb tp A tj < ^ t ^ - A A A % A s £ ^ y £ i * % y

A A y y y ^Mm -f-o-^’- A -*Z a j /><*-£■ tA

^ y ^ s ^ v - y r ' 7

y ^ j S ^ J S i r i / f ^ p w ' & a .

y ^ T y y ^ . ^ i . - ^ y ^ ' ' ~ & A ~ ~

/A s'J ^A'-^-y
140

7 ^ 2 , / 9 7 6

7-AJls ec-^t/^ J-'7^

7 ^ ~ ~ ,

6&<-£<~<L~< ~>>^»,

'^2-o-ni,

L^~b-c y’ ^Z. ^<-^t j <

T^ . / 916 ^"' <<<< —

<£Z-a> ‘y/ 7^*- y-~*-

z£& ' J s/'--/

^^a^.^7.7 yf^. . J o~~ 7^/> -~~ y ay

J^'y J*"

Z t^lf 7+1-7^

~7- - - _^*7

C c ^ %>? ’}jrC£xj^_^

7 /„ 7

C<±j- }

>}■ y. ^°'^~.
141

SENATE HEARING ON LAKE ONTARIO LEVEL REGULATION 

R o c h e s te r , N . Y ., J u n e 1 5 . 19 76

In 19 68 my h u sb a n d an d I b eg an th e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 

w h at was to becom e, in 1975* o u r r e t i r e m e n t ho m e. Th e 

s i t e i s o f f o f C o u n ty R o u te 2 0 , n e a r h a r s h R oad, in 

th e Moon B each O n ta r i o S h o re s a r e a . In 19 74 we w ere 

f o r c e d to b u il d a $ 1 4 ,0 0 0 .0 0 s e a w a ll ($ $ 5 * 0 0 0 .0 0 wa s 

r e c e iv e d fr om th e U . S . S m a ll B u s in e s s Adm .) b e c a u se 

o u r 1 5 0 - f t . f r o n t a g e on th e la k e had b e e n p u sh e d back 

by h ig h w a te r and e r o s io n a p p ro x im a te ly 20 f t . in th e 

in t e r v e n i n g y e a r s . Now , in 1 9 7 6 , j u s t 2 y e a r s l a t e r , 

th e 1 0 - f t . h ig h w a ll b u i l t o f r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e 

m o d u le s by th e b e s t m a rin e e n g in e e r in g m eth o d s a v a i l a b l e 

i s c o m p le te ly w re c k e d f o r 40 f t . a t e a c h end by h ig h 

w a te r w hic h h a s e ro d e d th e h a rd p a n b e n e a th th e 5) f t* 

b a se o f th e w a l l . ( I n c i d e n t a l l y , th e w a ll c o n ta in e d 

25 00 to n s o f g r a v e l f i l l . ) We a r e now f a c e d w it h 

r e p a i r s an d f o o t i n g f o r a 4 - f t . im p a c t w a ll w h ic h w i l l 

c o s t u s a n o th e r $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . We a r e n o t r i c h p e o p le .

We a r e r e t i r e d s c h o o l t e a c h e r s . The f o r e g o in g sums 

r e p r e s e n t a l l o f o u r l i f e s a v i n g s .

B u t we, a t l e a s t , had th e w h e r e w ith a ll t o f i g h t 

a g a i n s t th e e v e r - a d v a n c in g d e s t r u c t i o n o f h ig h w a te r , 

w in d an d e r o s i o n . H ow ever, w ith i n 8 m ile s o f o u r 

l o c a t i o n to th e w e s t ( v i l l a g e o f F a ir h a v e n ) and 10 

m ile s to th e e a s t ( c i t y o f O sw eg o) t h e r e a r e t e n s o f 

f a m i l i e s w ho se su m mer o r p e rm a n e n t ho m es a r e now 

l i t e r a l l y on th e b r i n k o f th e l a k e . I n my im m e d ia te n e ig h b o rh o o d , h o u s e s h av e b e e n c o m p le te ly u n d e rm in e d an d 

h av e f a l l e n i n t o L ak e O n ta r i o .

T h e re i s no a n sw e r to be fo u n d in c o s t l y and tim e - 

co n su m in g s t u d i e s t o co m pare w it h s im p le o b s e r v a tio n 

o f th e d e s t r u c t i o n c a u se d by n e e d l e s s l y h ig h la k e 

l e v e l s .

As yo u kn ow , m o rtg a g e s on l a k e s i d e p r o p e r t i e s a r e 

e x tr e m e ly d i f f i c u l t to s e c u r e , and o u r n e ig h b o r s have 

no h o p e o f s a l v a g i n g any p a r t o f t h e i r l o s s e s u n le s s 

y o u , S e n a to r B u c k le y , an d y o u , S e n a t o r G r a v e l, c a n 

g e t y o u r b i l l p a s s e d to h e lp u s .

Tha nk yo u f o r y o u r k in d a t t e n t i o n .

(M rs .) J e a n M. Woods 

O n ta r io S h o re s 

R . D . 2

S t e r l i n g , N . Y. 

13156

75-4 21 0 - 76 - 10
142

PIICTCS SUBMITTED BY HEROLD BARNS
143

145
146

PHCTCS SUBMITTED BY TxiL TC’.JU CM GR LE CE , N .Y . 

PHCTCS 3HC/< DAMAGE CAUSED BY STCRI-I CD A PRIL 1 9 7 6
147
148

H

'•V4 I,

150

152
153
154

Sandy Fond E a ste rn Sho re s A sso c ia ti o n 

P u la s k i, New York 13142 

Au gu st 2, 1976

S en ato r James L. Euc kl cy

S enate O ffi c e B u n d in ':

W as hi ng to n, O.C . 20510

Dea r S e n a to r E uc kl oy :

We th e u n d ers ig n ed , who a re y e a r-ro u n d an d summer r e s id e n ts 

wo uld lik e to en co ura ge yo ur i n t e r e s t an d s o l i c i t your h e lp in 

lo w eri n g th e w a te r le v e l o f Lak e O n ta rio .

I t i s im p e ra ti v e th a t s te p s be ta k e n in th e f a l l an d w in te r 

o f 197o an d 1977» to f o r e s t a l l more ex te n 3 iv o and co m ol et e damage 

to our p r o p e r tie s .

We s tro n g ly f e e l t h a t th e in d iv id u a l la n d owner sh o u ld be 

re p re s e n te d a t t h i s tim e sin c e wo havo ha d no v o ic e in t h i s m a tt e r 

in th e p a s t.

I t v.ottld be b e n e f ic ia l i f a " f a i r an d s e n s ib le " ag re em en t 

co uld be wo rke d out f o r th e good o f a l l . No on e pow er gr ou p sh ould 

b e n e f it a t th e ex pa ns e o f th a in d iv id u a l.

V/e u rg e n tly ask th a t p la n s be fo rm u la te d now to a l l e v i a t e an ­

o th e r c p rin g o f su ch u t t e r la n d d e s tru c tio n a lo n g th e sh o re l i n e s .

Thank yo u f o r your e f f o r t s in o u r b e h a lf .

S in c e re ly y o u rs .

R e sid e n ts o f Sandy Pond and 

E a ste rn Sho re s o f Lake O n ta ri o

___2 o f __ L

— j i■ 1 S im

_ .74 /x? y.