Proposal for Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Regulation

Comments Received Online

The public comment period is closed as of August 31, 2013.

*Terms and Conditions

Submit a Comment
Dennis Ethier 9th July 2013 00:43:30
NY, Rochester,
I strongly support the implementation of Plan 2014. Plan 2014 is a modern plan that benefits all interests and will help to restore the ecosystem of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
anna roblin 8th July 2013 12:35:13
md, mt. ranier,
support plan 2014!
Scarlett Rebman 8th July 2013 12:25:15
New York, Syracuse,
Dear International Joint Commission: I strongly support the implementation of Plan 2014. This is a vital opportunity to update the water level management of the St. Lawrence River. By bringing this process into the 21st century, the unique opportunity exists to restore damage that has been done to the ecosystem. This will restore habitats, bring back fish populations vital to the tourist industry, and reverse the erosion damage that has occurred. As a resident of New York, I am requesting that you adopt this plan immediately. Best regards, Scarlett Rebman
Margaret Diamond 8th July 2013 11:45:39
NY, Williamsville,
I strongly support the implementation of Plan 2014. It provides a balanced approach, protecting everyone's interest, and supports restoration of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River ecosystems.
John Keevert 3rd July 2013 14:30:11
New York, Rochester,
I participated in the forum on lake regulation last year in Rochester, and think the committee has achieved a reasonable balance between protecting property owners and allowing a variation in water level that will revitalize the wetlands and associated wildlife. By intelligent shifting of when minima and maxima occur, and duration, the effect on property owners is minimized. Erosion is a natural occurrence and will take place regardless. Plan 2014 should be implemented, no further discussion needed.
Jim Jerome 2nd July 2013 04:35:08
NY, Syracuse,
We continue to be told by the IJC that lake levels and erosion would be much worse without regulation. My question is why are 150 yr. old trees washing into the lake annually? How did these majestic old oak trees survive for all of those years without the IJC's helpful regulation? This Plan 2014 is all about shipping and hydro. Please don't try and con the folks. Muskrats don't fund our towns and schools. We do.
Thomas R. Sawran 1st July 2013 08:34:45
New York, Lyndonville,
At a public meeting last year I learned that this proposal would positively impact electrical utilities, shipping companies and those located in the lower St. Lawrence valley while eroding the south shore of Lake Ontario. As a south shore property owner, I object to this project, but I do offer a proposal that would make it acceptable to me. The Commission should be required to contract to have the entire south shore of Lake Ontario bulkheaded to prevent this erosion. This bulkhead should stretch from the Niagara River to the St. Lawrence, excluding areas that are intended to be restored. The bulkhead and its maintenance should be paid for by assessing a tax on every kilowatt of electricity generated, every commercial ship that traverses Lake Ontario in either direction and all property owners in the lower St. Lawrence River valley benefitting from the project. This is a serious proposal. The technology is available and a fair funding stream has been identified. Washing away the property belonging to certain people without compensation while enriching and protecting others is unacceptable. While it was entertaining to see flood projections for the next 50,000 years, I sure the presenters knew that if they were wrong, they could not be held accountable by anyone in the audience. Thank you for permitting this comment
Jim 29th June 2013 04:49:58
NY, Syracuse,
This is simple. The 248 level will NOT work for Lake Ontario property owners. This level coupled with storm surges will devastate properties. There is no shore protection available at any price that will save our structures. For the IJC to even offer this up proves just how totally out of touch they are with the folks. Has the IJC learned nothing from history? It appears so.
Michael Fleszar 26th June 2013 18:59:24
New York, Sandy Creek,
The main propose of regulation in 1958 was to protect land owners from high water. Read the first paragraph of the 1958DD regulation treaty. Yet from 1960 to 2012 the lake averages 2 inches higher year round. Between 1918 and 2012 per the Army Corp measurements, we have had 32 of the 50 highest Spring levels after 1958DD regulation. And yet you want to take the Lake even higher. The beaches on the Eastern are disappearing and plan 2014 will take more sand away and deposit it the bays during high water. I do not have the $200K to save my house with large stone break walls. You want my house, give me market value and I'll move on.......I sick of fighting special interest groups buying government.
Laurey Costich Ritchie 25th June 2013 09:29:41
NY, Wolcott,
Please explain to me who will be "invited" to the technical meetings? Why are there only two meetings in NY and three in Canada when the south shore of the lake in NY will be suffer greater negative impact? How long does it take for a trigger to lower water levels? I will be flooded and my property lost at elevation 247, without major winds and waves. How can environmental groups propose protecting barrier islands and support their destruction through this plan? Without Crescent Beech-Sodus Bay will become the south shore of Lake Ontario. This plan cannot be supported by New Yorkers.
Dr. Daniel Barletta 21st June 2013 01:18:45
NY, Rochester,
LOSL Minority Report that is still pertinent and has never has been answered to
Donna 20th June 2013 08:35:48
FL, Crystal River,
I understand the improvement for wildlife...however, at what price, to current communities & property owners? It's not right to wipe out the lives of people who have worked long and hard to have a piece of the "American Dream". Are you looking to work on a balance or are you looking to impose a biased objective?
Dr. Daniel Barletta 19th June 2013 11:35:25
NY, Rochester,
This comment was forwarded to me by Mr. Jim Jerome of Mexico Bay: Awful ! The canals are closed due to high water here and most interesting that the beaches are too due to high bacteria more than likely coming from septic tanks. Do they expect something different on Lake Ontario with high waters? My septic tank ,which used to be behind my cottage before the 1972 move, is now in front and will be the first thing to go. I am too old,too tired and will no longer throw good monies after bad trying to keep save my places. I will documenet the erosion and send photos to newspapers when my septic tank becomes exposed. Jail me,fine me,arrest me...I do not care as this is theft by government. I will seek an attorney to put the government on notice that if Plan 2014 is enacted and my place is lost to a knowingly pre-planned IJC scheme I will expect compensation. This is eminent domain theft under the guise of an environmental improvement plan. Flat out pissed if you couldn't tell..JJ
Dr. Daniel Barletta 18th June 2013 16:27:18
NY, Rochester,
In reviewing the proposed Plan 2014 Orders of approval and the exceedence table you sent me, I find it impossible to see how the IJC could propose a plan that would allow water levels above 246.3 ft during the months of March- May. It is unconceivable that they would allow levels above 247 ft during these months. Even if you disregard the underestimated damages that will occur to state in the face of data on water levels that the LOSL study has shown will happen and suggest that it is okay to have levels above this borders on the criminal. Even with today current plan and it upper limit of 247.3 ft, on occasion this level gets surpassed. If the level is set as listed in the proposed orders is used there will be times when it will be surpassed also.
Ken Lendeck 14th June 2013 03:25:30
New York, hilton,
I have lived on the South Shore of Lake Ontario for 16 years . I have invested $37,000 for a substancial break wall as have my neighbors, so we really have been attempting to protect our investments . I have followed and participated in most of the discussions over the last 15 years the efforts to control the lake level to meet all " stake holders" , so I do understand the situation well. I am very concerned about the proposed regulation Bv 7 allowing the maximum level to move to 248.13 for this level with wave hights of more than 2 feet will destroy the South shore . I am also a member of Brockport Yacht Club and since joining in 1982 the 100 member club has maintained our club , its jetties and basin with our own money without any assistance form anyone or any government funds . Our club will also suffer from high water damage where our basin and seawall will be battered , causing us more money then we can afford. We have spent over $200,000 trying to protect our beautiful club and to Protect Sandy Creek for the enjoyment of all who use it ( State Boat Launch, Charter Marinas etc) . Allowing the level to move to 248.13 will destroy our efforts as well as the lake front home owners property. Please revise Bv7