GBA 2021 - Spring Update

4 www.georgianbay.ca GBA UPDATE Spring 2021 5 Would it not be much more cost efficient to create a single organization to more effectively coordinate [data] research and management? In some respects, the International Joint Commission (IJC) and the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data fulfill this function, but it is certainly the case that avoiding any duplication of effort could reduce costs and/or allow for additional work to be done within the same budgets. 6 It appears that there is a need for a board that would make serious considerations about issues affecting Georgian Bay/ Michigan-Huron water levels and related issues. There is a separate focus on Lake Superior and there is one for Ontario-St. Lawrence: we need a GB/Michigan-Huron Board. Plan 2012 is currently under review and GBA plans to ensure that M-H interests are properly addressed within the new plan. We will also request that the plan includes coordination with the Long Lac/Ogoki and Chicago diversions, plus regular review of the flow rate down the St. Clair River. A board that only dealt with Lake M-H would have no power to make adjustments and is therefore unlikely to be a productive step forward to protect M-H interests. 7 If real action was called for, where are the funds/budget for it? Both federal governments in Canada and the US have annual budgets to address Great Lakes issues, including water levels. If major investments are agreed upon, such as a control structure at the mouth of the St. Clair River (and maybe the Niagara River), this would be a long-term process which would require specific increases in funding over many years. 8 Could structures be built in the St. Clair River to lower the extreme fluctuations on Michigan and Huron? Is there hope of having them built? There have been various suggestions on such structures over the years, including from the IJC. However, the decision to build rests with the Canadian and US federal governments and any agreement to do so is likely to be a long- term process requiring a strong consensus amongst all stakeholders to encourage action. 9 Could new water diversions be developed either before water reaches the Great Lakes or to take water from the Great Lakes? The Great Lakes Compact, an interstate compact amongst the states adjacent to the Great Lakes, precludes any diversions that would remove water from the Great Lakes basin. However, GBA will continue to explore the potential for diversions within the Lakes to mitigate extreme water levels. 10 Will more frequent bathymetric surveys of the St. Clair River be done (at least annually)? Previous analysis of the bathymetric data sets shows that the channel bottom has not been changing very rapidly, so the five to seven-year frequency of data collection has been sufficient. If future analyses show more rapid changes of the river bottom, the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) may increase the frequency of its data collection. However, collection of bathymetric data covering the entire river is very expensive, and agency budgets play a role in setting the frequency of surveys. Continued from page 2 Our Top 10 Key Takeaways on Water Levels Some of our key takeaways from the symposium are covered in the top 10 questions above. Here are our other top 10 takeaways: 1. There is no evidence that the current management of the Great Lakes system is deficient in any meaningful way, including regulation under Plan 2012. Given the limited tools available to manage water levels and the minor impact of adjustments at control structures, we should not expect the solution to extreme water levels to lie with improved management of the current system. 2. However, it would be worthwhile to revisit the formation of a Great Lakes Levels advisory body, previously proposed by the bi-national Great Lakes Adaptive Management (GLAM) Committee. 3. Although the IJC plays an important role generally in terms of research, coordination, and cooperation, it can only make recommendations to the US and Canada federal governments to take action. The IJC has no power itself to implement any action. 4. The release of a key research study by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has been delayed by over a year now. Since this study incorporates research by a range of knowledgeable and credible experts, it is expected to provide the most important guideline for what we can expect for water levels over the next 80 years or so. Delaying its release has probably already denied access to vital data for those making investment decisions to address water level issues, from marinas, to municipalities, to ports, and to you at your seasonal residences. 5. A number of specific improvements to the quality and content of water levels data and modelling that could and should be made were identified.