Presentation to the Workshop

Climate Change and Great Lakes Water Levels

March 30, 2001Chicago, Illinois

Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D.International Joint Commission

United States and CanadaWashington, DC

Regulating Great Lakes Water Levels and Water Use

Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909

• Provided Principles and Mechanisms to Prevent and Resolve Disputes Concerning Water Quantity and Water Quality and Other Environmental Issues Along the U.S.-Canada Boundary

• Established the International Joint Commission (IJC)

• Required IJC Approval of Actions Causing Changes in Levels and Flows

The International Joint CommissionPrinciples of Operation

• Operation Without Instructions from Governments• Balanced Membership:

– Three Commissioners From Each Country– Equality on IJC Boards and Working Groups

• Service in Personal and Professional Capacity• Good Science - Joint Fact-Finding• Full Public Involvement

Lake Levels

• Human Control Over Great Lakes Levels is Minor in Comparison to Nature’s Ability to Change Levels

• Humans Impact Level by:

– Regulating Flows

– Modifying Channels

– Removing or Adding Waters

Lake Michigan-HuronRange of Levels

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

Jan-

60

Jan-

61

Jan-

62

Jan-

63

Jan-

64

Jan-

65

Jan-

66

Jan-

67

Jan-

68

Jan-

69

Jan-

70

Jan-

71

Jan-

72

Jan-

73

Jan-

74

Jan-

75

Jan-

76

Jan-

77

Jan-

78

Jan-

79

Jan-

80

Jan-

81

Jan-

82

Jan-

83

Jan-

84

Jan-

85

Jan-

86

Jan-

87

Jan-

88

Jan-

89

Jan-

90

Jan-

91

Jan-

92

Jan-

93

Jan-

94

Jan-

95

Jan-

96

Jan-

97

Jan-

98

Jan-

99

Year/Month

Ele

v.

IGL

D1

985

(F

ee

t)

RECORD LOWMar 1964

RECORD HIGHOct 1986

Order of Use Precedence

• Domestic and Sanitary • Navigation• Hydropower• Riparians

Lake SuperiorLake Superior

• Systemic Regulation (balancing)

• Upper & Lower Limits on Lake Superior

• Maximum and Minimum flow limits

• Winter Operations

• Rapids Requirements

Lake Ontario – St. LawrenceLake Ontario – St. Lawrence

UPSTREAM CONDITIONSLOCAL CONDITIONSDOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS

•CRITERIA•RULES OF PLAN

•CRITERIA•RULES OF PLAN

•DO NOT EMPTY LAKE•DO NOT OVERFILL LAKE•DO NOT EXCEED RIVER CAPACITY•MAINTAIN MINIMUM LEVELS•MAKE ROOM FOR SPRING RAINS

FLOW DOWNST. LAWRENCERIVER

OPTIONSOPTIONS

• Further Regulation– Three Lake– Limited Regulation of Lake Erie

• Diversions Management• Emergency Preparedness• Land Use / Shoreline Zoning• Education• Shoreline Protection• Dredging

IJC RecommendationsIJC Recommendations

• No Additional Regulation• No Diversion Management• Improve Emergency Preparedness• Initiate Comprehensive Shoreline Management• Review Current Regulation• Improve Education• Consider Climate Change• Address Technical Issues (Forecasting, Mapping,

Analytical Techniques)

Order of Use Precedence

• Domestic and Sanitary • Navigation• Hydropower• Riparians

• Environment • Recreational Boaters

Explicit

New

The Environment

• Environment Requires Extremes in Levels

• Changes in Mean Levels Modify Existing Habitat or Create New Habitat

• Lower Levels May Disturb Sediments

CLIMATE CHANGE!

Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River Regulation Review

• $20 Million (US), Five-Year Study of Criteria Governing Regulation

• Address Competing Needs of:– Navigation– Hydropower– Riparians– Domestic Users– Environment – Boaters

• Address Climate Change Impacts

Current Water Use

• Removals - – Bottled water - 0.01cfs– Ballast water - 0.7cfs– Chicago Diversion- 3250cfs – Other (net) - 0

• Consumptive Use - 4270cfs• Inflow

– Long Lac/Ogoki - 5632cfs– Bottled Water - 0.14 cfs

• Outflow (St. Lawrence) 244,000 cfs

“The Governments are concerned that current management principles and conservation measures may be inadequate to ensure the future sustainable use of our shared waters.”

Reference to the IJC on the Consumption, Diversion and Removal of Water. February 10, 1999.

The Concern

IJC Conclusions

• There is never a ‘surplus’ of water in the Great Lakes system.

• Because there is uncertainty about the availability of Great Lakes water in the future caution should be used in managing water to protect the resource for the future

Water Uses Reference

• Recommended – Principles to Govern Removals and

Consumptive Uses

– Development of Standards by States and Provinces

– Attention to Water Management Issues

• Climate Change

Current Actions

• Governors and Premiers Develop Standards for Removals and Consumptive Uses

• Congress- Parliament Affirm

• IJC Review

• Climate Change?

Lake Levels

• Human Control Over Great Lakes Levels is Minor in Comparison to Nature’s Ability to Change Levels

• Humans Impact Level by:

– Regulating Flows

– Modifying Channels

– Removing or Adding Waters

Climate Change and Levels

• Climate Change May Severely Stress Current Regulatory Regimes

• Uncertainty Demands Caution and Intense Study

• IJC is :– Studying St Lawrence

– Planning for Superior (Michigan and Huron)

•To protect the integrity of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes basin, permit no proposals for major new or increased CONSUMPTIVE USE to proceed unless: •Full consideration of cumulative impacts•Effective conservation in requesting area•Based on sound planning•All returns meet quality objectives of GLWQA

IJC Recommendations

•Permit no REMOVALS unless proponent can demonstrate that the removal would not endanger the integrity of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes Basin…and that:• No practical alternatives•Full consideration of cumulative impacts•Effective conservation in recipient area•Based on sound planning•No net loss in process but in no case greater than a 5% loss

IJC Recommendations

Conclusions - Future Demand

• There are no active proposals for major diversions• There remains little reason to believe such

proposals will be economically, socially or environmentally feasible in the foreseeable future

• Alternatives Exist to Great Lakes Water Use - Desalination; Water Rights Transfers; Conservation

• Potential exists for requests from Near-basin Communities