What others have said >

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, October 27, 2005

Key points presented at the public meeting

• An international governing board for the Lake Huron-Michigan basin must be formed, similar in nature to the boards governing the Lake Superior and Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence basins.
  
  
• A group or coalition of groups should appeal the U.S. Supreme Court decision to exempt the State of Illinois from the Agreement.
  
  
• A commitment must be made whereby no new diversions or withdrawals from the Arctic watershed, such as the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions, will be allowed.
  
  
• Non-indigenous invasive aquatic species are extremely problematic in the Great Lakes, but closing the Welland Canal, though favoured by some scientists and pundits, may do nothing to help.
  
  
• The establishment of the St. Lawrence Seaway, in retrospect, may not have been environmentally sound.
  
  
• Until we have effective means to target and exterminate individual invasive aquatic species that are already established in the Great Lakes, closing the St. Lawrence Seaway will accomplish nothing.
  
  
• 50 per cent of the drinking water intake for the City of Sault Ste. Marie comes from Lake Superior, so the integrity of the quality of the drinking water must be ensured.
  
  
• Problems with water quality in Sault Ste. Marie, be it problems with sewage or problems linked to Algoma Steel or St. Mary's Paper have been ongoing for years and years, and things are not getting better.
  
  
• Larger fines should be imposed upon companies, such as paper companies, who dump chemicals into our water, and their water should be checked more often.
  
  
• When will government-to-government talks be held with First Nations?
  
  
• The scope of the Agreement should include terrestrial invasive species and shoreline development.
  
  
• Individual private land owners need to be brought up to speed as to best practices to ensure water quality on the shoreline.
  
  
• Concerns over the quantity of water taken out of the Great Lakes every day by the City of Chicago; when was this started, and under what agreement?
  
  
• The Arctic watershed should not be used as a balancing tool against the Chicago diversion.
  
  
• Concerns over the Chicago diversion being exempt from the Agreement because it pre-dates the Agreement.
  
  
• Lake Huron's levels were unaffected this year through one of the driest summers in years. However, Lake Huron has lost 10 inches since the beginning of October, and there are concerns that this may be linked to the Chicago diversion and/or Hurricane Katrina.
  
  
• The impact of the Chicago diversion and the damage caused should warrant a challenge to Chicago being exempt from the Agreement.
  
  
• Concerns about the Agreement working effectively when the biggest extractor of water, the State of Illinois, need not abide by it nor make their data available.

Last update: