Comments received on the proposed new Order of Approval and Plan 2007 >

June 26, 2008 – Mr. Van Jahnes-Smith, Wellesley Island, New York

To:  International Joint Commission (IJC)

Subject:  Support for Plan B+

I have the privilege of being old enough to remember the St. Lawrence River before the advent of the Seaway. This includes the years of both high and low water. It was understood that this was part of the natural cycle. We complained about too high or too low water but again, we understood. The IJC has the thankless and difficult duty of messing with Mother Nature. I would hope that the IJC in fulfilling its duties would minimize the mess it has and potentially will continue to create. This is written to request rejection of the "proposed new Order of Approval and Plan 2007" and implementation of Plan B+, which would aid in regaining what has been lost.

Plan 2007 supports the claims of Lake Ontario's South Shore property owners while negating the significance of many well founded and legitimate interests. I fear that Plan 2007 establishes a bad precedent, which will be very difficult for future generations to overcome.

Having read the well presented Guide, related documents, and having read and heard a significant number of well stated comments regarding "Plan 2007" it remains very difficult to understand the logic of this plan. The Plan's primary concern is to avoid "unduly reducing the benefits and protections currently accorded to other interests.

All indications are that "Plan 2007" was developed to protect homes on Lake Ontario's South Shore, primarily in the Rochester. It is difficult to comprehend, after the significant commitment of funding and effort, that a limited set of property owners would be given preference to the detriment of the environment and of many, many other business and property owners. This is a very disappointing result.

As a property owner on the St. Lawrence River, the message of Plan 2007 is that lower water levels and a shortened boating season will remain the rule. This does have a significant NEGATIVE monetary impact on the areas' economy, property values, pleasure boating and shipping. The River's designation as number 4 on the top 10 of US endangered rivers highlights the continuing environmental damage of the IJC stated intent.

Please reconsider!

Anyone having the privilege of owning waterfront property legally assumes a risk of damage caused by natural events such as high water and a storm surge. During the winter of 2006 a violent storm raised water levels on the St. Lawrence in excess of 4 feet. The resulting damage was significant. I do not remember anyone laying blame on the IJC for this.

So, is the St. Lawrence to suffer the environmental and economic damage of consistently low water to insure that certain property owners are not at risk for storm damage to their property? "(Plan 2007) reduces the risks of shoreline flooding and erosion on Lake Ontario by limiting higher water levels on Lake Ontario during storm seasons."

Please take the time to look at a few "Google" satellite views of the Rochester area shoreline (Edgemere Drive, Greece, NY). These homes, due to their very close proximity to a broad expanse of open water, are clearly "at risk" of damage from a storm with strong northerly winds. The property owners either knew or should have known of this risk at the time they built or purchased the homes. Why do they get a pass while others, who are innocent, are forced to bear the consequences of their irresponsible actions?

Please reconsider! Plan B+ is a far better alternative.

Van Jahnes-Smith
Wellesley Island, NY

Last update: