Comments received >

September 14, 2006 - Mr. David Orr, Gananoque, Ontario and Lansdowne, Ontario

Dear Commissioners,

I am a fifth generation 1000 Islander, just completing my 66^th. summer on our family Island, Mudlunta. It was purchased by my great-grandfather in 1875. He hosted one of the first American Canoe Association meetings on his Island and subsequently became Commodore of the ACA in 1900. He purchased ACA's current home in Canada on Sugar Island, because he didn't want to hold it on his own turf again. Something about them not being too concerned about the environment! I still drink the water from the end of my dock, although we now must filter it.

In 1998, a low water year, I attended the IJC meetings held around the St. Lawrence basin and listened and watched what at times seemed more of a witch hunt than an information session. I was primarily concerned from a conservation position. I felt that the Board of Control was allowing a natural resource to be squandered. I didn't understand the complexities of the plan and the River itself.

When the Study Board was formed, I found I had been given an opportunity of a lifetime, I was appointed to the Recreation and Tourism TWG. I attended every meeting and hosted 2 in Gananoque, one on Mudlunta, followed by a tour of the Admiralty Islands on an antique boat, complements of the Antique Boat Museum, Clayton NY.

There is no need for me to explain to you the advantages of Plan A+ for the Boating and Island residents, you have lived the process as I have.

Two large groups in the Thousand Islands were formed strictly as lobby associations and they are very good at that function. The Boaters and Islanders have no such group speaking for them, or co-ordinating their efforts. The Thousand Islands Association is not a rate payers association and by its charter is not allowed to lobby government bodies on behalf of its membership. It can only act as an information clearing house. As you have seen at the PIAG meetings, it is almost impossible to get the Boating public involved, until the water drops, then we will have 1998 all over again.

Plan B+ will let the water level go down when the conditions tend to be dry, and keep it high in wet years. From a conservationist point of view, once the water has left the St. Lawrence, there are no guarantees we will follow dry years with wet ones. With 1958DD, water was conserved this spring. With B+, that would not have been the case. Had we not had 20 inches of rain since May, and if we have little or no run-off next winter, what might our summer levels be? We get what Lake Erie and nature, sends us, no more, no less.

I believe if plan B+ is adopted, it will be for all the wrong reasons! Boaters have been told about "average" conditions and the outliers are never mentioned. The 2 groups so militantly in favour of B+ constantly use "Pre-Project" as a baseline, and even that is not enough! We can not turn the clock back; we can not return farm land on the lower St. Lawrence to marsh. Those who complain that Lake St. Lawrence fluctuates from day-to-day too much, would do well to remember that pre-project, Lake St. Lawrence didn't exist!

In 1998, it seemed to the Island People, that the riparians on the south shore were our enemies. Now, looking at Plan B+ which causes them disproportionate harm, we should be banding together, and if not Plan A+, then at least Plan D+, which give all parties some benefit.

Last update: