Comments received >

July 9, 2008 – Mr. Reid Foertsch, Hilton, New York

There is so much I've got to say on the current proposals that it is hard to know how to start. But most of it has been said already, and is well known. It's just that the concerns of us south shore riparians is not of much concern to anyone else. Never-the-less, I would like to comment on at least a few things.

1. Note the players in this controversy. On the one side we have the power industry, the shipping industry, the recreational boating industry, and the environmental interests; all looking for a free government handout, in the form of higher than average water levels, to benefit themselves. On the other side we have the riparians, who aren't asking for anything, ... except to not have to bear an inequitable burden of the free benefit being conferred on those others.
2. The IJC's report makes clear, from the introduction, and thoughout, that the impact on the riparians is held in little regard. The focus is clearly on economic impact and dollars. Yet the economic cost to the riparians is notably not rigorously supported. And loss of use and emotional impacts are hardly considered at all. This year, for example, the lake level was intentionally allowed to rise in order to benefit Montreal. I don't want to see Montreal flooded. But, I'm not responsible for building the city on a flood plain, or for failing to build sufficient levies, or for failing to build flood control dams on the Quebec River. Yet, I have had to weather high water pounding on my break wall all Spring. I can stand that, but now, even though the water levels are back to near normal, the beach is not. When water levels are high in the Spring, and in the summer, my beach disappears. Where it goes, I don't know. But, every time water levels are high, it goes away. It's not just that the water is covering it up. Several feet of sand and gravel go away. So, I still have water up to the rip-rap breakwall, and loss of use of the beach for the rest of this year. Where I would have 20 feet of beach with waters at normal levels, I now have virtually none. There is no beach protection against erosion, nowhere for those marshmellow roasting beach fires, nowhere to lay a beach towel, and access to the water is by climbing over rip-rap rocks directly into the water. And no sand bars off my property. They go away too, when water levels are high.
3. Virtually all the efforts of the IJC are to increase the lake levels. The only benefit to riparians is to try to do something to keep the lake from exceeding the extreme high water levels. But, even this is only to keep the levels at above normal levels, just not allowing record setting levels. The intensions of the IJC (as stated at a recent meeting in Greece, NY) are to keep the water levels above normal all through the Summer and into the early Fall to benefit recreational boating. I lose my beach. The intention of the IJC is to allow more high and low water occurances to satisfy the (unsubstantiated) environmental benefits. Is there really any chance that periodic unusually low water periods will really be permited to occur. This increased water level variation is going to all occur on the high side.
4. The plans under consideration all amount to confication of my property, and other riparians, in order to benefit other interests. I recognize this process. It is called eminent domain. And I recognize the need for such a process. But, under it, you have the responsibility to "make me whole." Giving me a few more rocks for my breakwall may help some, but what about the beach. Access to the water and the beach is why I'm here. How are you going to "make me whole" for that? And when? Before Plan B+? Before Plan 2007? If the economic benefits to other interests is so great that I need to bear the cost, then surely there is plenty of "economic benefit" to be shared to "make me whole," including "loss of use."

I don't want any plan that doesn't strive to maintain average water levels. I don't want more rocks. I don't want reimbursement. I don't want Plan B+, or Plan 2007. I want the beach, and waves not hammering my breakwall all year long. You've spent a lot of energy working on how to bring freebie benefits to the high water interests. You've got a whole lot more work to do thinking about what the real cost to us riparians is and how you're going to reduce the impact to us.

Sincerely,

Reid Foertsch
Hilton, NY

Last update: