Water Uses Reference, Public Hearing, Montreal, March 17, 1999

• People in Montreal were not well informed of the hearing. There were no ads in French newspapers.
• Water cannot become merchandise. It is a public good, a common good, and part of our heritage. It should never be sold.
• The American Commissioners seem to be opposed to bulk exports. We hope this will be part of the recommendations.
• We have a deep, genuine concern about water. We don't want any substantial amount of water to be removed.
• Consider the experience of the Aral Sea.

• The quantity of Great Lakes water is varied and unreliable.
• There were problems on Lake Ontario in 1998. There was fear of flooding early in the year. In late summer levels were low and the flow had to be reduced. There were very low levels in the river late in the year.
• There are climate cycles with a great deal of variability. It is difficult to foresee what will come.
• There is a potential for climate change. There could be an increase in temperature and less water in the middle of the continent. There could be greater demands for water.
• Water is a collective asset. It supports the economy and maintains the ecosystem.
• Drinking water is an issue. 3 million people rely on the St. Lawrence River. Water quality is a problem, especially late in the year with low water. It loses it's ability to dilute toxics.
• Commercial navigation and recreational boating will seek new criteria for regulation.
• The margin to maneuver will become more narrow.
• Reduced water levels will affect the ecosystem, especially biodiversity and wetlands. A small drop in water levels can have a significant effect on wetlands.

• Water is part of our natural heritage. It is your duty to preserve it's natural condition, and set an example for others.
• If there is a commercial aspect to water that is important, perhaps one could transport large chunks of ice from the north to areas that are in need.
• Water could be taken from rivers at the point where they begin to become saline.
• Will you be adding new regulation criteria to Plan 1958D? In particular, will you be adding environmental criteria for Quebec to the Plan?

• groundwater is part of the system. Irrigators and others are using groundwater. Who manages these waters in Quebec.
• Quebec has granted permits for taking groundwater for bottled water.
• Water is withdrawn in the U.S. and sent to Quebec for bottling.
• With all that has been taken, we are starting to have water quality problems.
• Who manages the underground water along the border?
• Could you have a buffer area on either side along the border?
• This is becoming a big issue because now people have found a way to make money.

• The effects of individual groundwater withdrawals are not assessed in Quebec.
• More pumping in Quebec can affect the direction of the flow of pollutants.
• Withdrawals can affect the well being of communities.

• If we want to be protected, we can't rely on local legislators. They can be influenced by local interests. We need the national interests considered. Perhaps we need a ban along the border to serve as a buffer zone. This needs to be established by the federal government.
• When water is in a bottle, it is considered a luxury even though it often the same as tap water. The bottled water is marketed by convincing people that the tap water is not safe.

• Are there studies that show water availability, especially in the U. S.?
• Has water been looked at as a part of national security?
• Where are the groups most likely to want to remove water?

• Water is our heritage.
• Very concerned about how water might be treated under NAFTA.

• Water is vital, nonrenewable and finite.
• Water needs to be viewed as part of our heritage.
• Responsible management is required but not yet assured.

• Cited the experience of the Aral Sea.
• There are potential conflicts over water, e.g., Haiti and Palestine.
• Population increases could create more pressures. There could be wars over water.

• The export issue is not one of science. It is one of policy.
• Water is a collective good.
• No government has a mandate to commercialize water and send it somewhere else.
• We are just starting the debate in Quebec. We are not ready for an agreement with the U.S.

• Look at the big picture and take a long term view.
• The IJC has been the leading light in developing the ecosystem approach
• Don't assume that we have so much water that we don't have to worry.
• What are the long term implications of large scale removals?
• It is not clear whether water is a commodity. It is an economic good.
• Think in terms of decades and centuries rather than years.
• We don't want to deprive people who are in real need, but there is wisdom in trying to live within our ecological means.

• We need to be sue there is a sufficient long term supply.
• If there are proposed projects to remove water, what are the details?
• The implications of the reference go well beyond the boundary basins. Because of NAFTA, the outcome could affect all waters of Canada.
• We are generally opposed to the commercialization of water.

• Once you start exporting water, what obligation is incurred to continue the export?
• We need to be more careful in how we use water. Water use is not metered in Montreal.

• It's important to involve the public in decisions on the St. Lawrence.
• Include the notion of resource conservation in your work.
• Removals of water should be considered for humanitarian purposes only.
• Study the whole ecosystem and not just the border water regions.
• The IJC should be in touch with the Quebec Government group that is studying the water diversion issue.

Water Uses Reference, Public Hearing, Cleveland, March 17, 1999

• Must protect Great Lakes; any diversion outside the basin will have severe impacts
• WRDA prevents diversion without governor’s approval
• Once sale tap is turned on, will be hard to turn off
• Depend on Lake Erie for much of economy
• Congressman Brown has spoken directly to President and Vice President

• Great Lakes waters are not limitless; only top 3% is renewed
• Must respect rights of future generations and all species
• Limit settlement to where water exists, e.g. not Southwest
• Assume scarcity; water is not commodity; water is in the place where it naturally belongs.
• Great Lakes should set a standard for the world.

• Need to better manage water we have; WRDA and Great Lakes COMPACT limits diversion without Great Lakes  governors approval; availability varies considerably over the years, seasonal and long term
• Loss of water affects levels and impacts economy - shipping, manufacturing - and has adverse environmental consequences on spawning locations
• We don’t have answers to many economic and environmental questions; If we started exports, how will we shut off tap; protect lakes and make other countries and states live within their means
• Great Lakes deserve our total protection from any and all major water diversions and bulk water exports

• Credit Commission for its fine work
• Conservation is an ethics question which must be embraced; concerned about precedents of sales of water.
• What are the impacts of possible reduced levels on recreational boating?; fisheries?; wetlands?; American Geophysical Union has formally recognized impacts of climate change.
• Hope Commission recommends a ban on export; what should be exported is knowledge.
• Diversions to areas on basin boundaries (e.g. Akron and some prospective ones in PA, are difficult issues and need to be addressed; pressure will increase for these diversions; decision process by governors needs to come out of the closet.

• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement goals - integrity- best represent interests of Great Lakes
• If we share water outside the basin, would hope it would be a little as possible and returned in good condition
• Limit exports to bottled waters with profits to governments
• Toxics - not on course to virtual elimination -problem in Diamond Shamrock site; want problem addressed
• Been told that n-pb is going to be used in Mentor OH; It is a carcinogen; oppose its introduction

• Water is not just a commodity; it is critical to life; Lake Erie is part of each of us - we drink the water and it goes in our system
• Proposing to sell this precious water is atrocious
• Rest of world must learn how to live within its natural budget
• Support statements of other conservation groups.

• Member of Cuyahoga RAP committee
• Thank you for seeking public input
• Concerned about levels-GLU published Fate of Great Lakes
• Urges banning of lake, tributary and groundwater export
• IJC needs to put together a plan to deal with challenges and strategies to deal with lake levels
• Protecting Great Lakes waters requires thinking about a long term; need to act today
• Great Lakes are a system in balance; any reduction in inflow will start the lakes on a path to major changes; diversions, innocuous one at a time, have major impacts in numbers
• Emerging global market for water will grow and price for water will rise; could imagine 1000 tankers exporting water
• Need conservation plans for all elements of basin.
• Let’s not follow precedent we had of letting pollution get started and then try to fix it.
• Near-basin diversions (those on boundary or to communities that straddle basin boundary) set a precedent for diversions to distant locations.
• There are problems with Akron diversion; causing problem for some communities; issue is in court; criteria for approval of diversion not clear

• Thanks to IJC for hearings
• OHIO EPA has no control over exports but works with quality issues.
• There are possible occasions when water may need to be shared with those in the state near the basin boundary
• Cuyahoga is fine river; must balance its uses; some out-of-basin consumptive uses may be appropriate; basin boundary communities may need access to water supplies of quality water
• Don’t want to see a watershed wall that might limit use in close in communities in region

• Have seen degradation of resources and recognize our responsibility and know it must be protected;
• There is a natural law that must exist that argues against diversion;

Water Uses Reference, Public Hearing, Toronto, March 18, 1999

• member environmental council, involved with Toronto RAP
• water is priceless resource; governments oppose bulk water exports
• how much water can we remove without damaging ecology?
• bulk export not a good idea; no concept of surplus water
• NAFTA - once precedent set, what then?
• how to curtail exports if need arises; ethical issue of cutting off supply

2. Chief Ralph Akiwenzie (Chippewas of Nawash, Owen Sound)

• importance of water to the environment
• transfers or exports will adversely affect ecosystems and our ability to enjoy treaty rights
• oppose any plan to remove water in quantity, including groundwater and surface water.
• ban all water takings from any ecosystem

• will address NAFTA, trade and WTO; will submit larger paper on water later
• concerned once water is traded it becomes a good and subject to NAFTA and bilateral investment treaties; WTO incorporates same definitions as GATT
• can' t address providing water to those who are really in need of it if we are considering selling water; those in need will never afford it
• water should not be a tradable commodity
• make water exempt from free trade agreement

• represents 460,000 members
• economic forces marshalling with respect to water
• large multinational corporations ready to take over water and wastewater operations
• export issue connected to privatization of water
• will submit further documentation

• critical task for IJC
• IJC set principles for dealing with toxics, hope can do the same for quantity
• governments didn’t do anything with previous IJC reports; must act now
• GLU and CELA report "Fate of the Great Lakes" with recommendations - please read (left copy)
• stresses will come from climate change, population growth, move from groundwater to surface water, privatization, free trade
• there will be calls for diversions and exports like Akron diversion; thought Great Lakes Charter took care of this - but it has failed because data is incomplete, trigger points too high, not binding and a basin-wide water resources management plan was never completed

6. Sarah Miller (Canadian Environmental Law Association - CELA)

• 1997 report with GLU; recommendations
• need sustainable water strategy (50% per capita reduction in water use by 2005); protect ecological integrity; include tributaries and groundwater; need conservation targets; study private sector involvement in water issues
• devolution major issue
• disparity of rights of First Nations; they need place at table
• troubling aspect of reference is different circumstances as IJC moves west. Great Lakes unique; need special treatment
• consider political climate in rapidly changing world

7. Shelley Petrie (Toronto Environmental Alliance)

• works 10 years on urban environment
• pressure to allow export; water used to dump hazardous waste
• public is removed from control of water
• Canada and U.S. biggest users of water; take steps to preserve/conserve water
• recommend against privatization and for 50% reduction, controlling peak demands, low flow toilets, pricing based on use
• similar targets for industry (see statement)

• local sustainability is the only kind there is
• bulk export and diversions cannot be permitted
• corporate interests will work in favour of exports
• enact clear legal limits, based on sound environmental principles
• water is public; it belongs to everyone

9. John Birnbaum (Georgian Bay Association)

• our mission is to ensure stewardship of Georgian Bay environment (5000 families)
• no provincial framework to deal with North York diversion project
• need mechanism for long term sustainability
• need data on all diversions, cumulative effects must be considered
• no diversions outside basin
• all governments should protect groundwater resources
• water is a public resource and public trust

• will send statement later
• born in Hamilton, couldn't swim there, daughter lives in Milton - planning to use Lake Ontario
• water (current water cleaner)
• think of ourselves as a bioregion; Al Gore's book describes problems with Aral Sea - don't want Great Lakes to be like that
• commercial forces intense and will get worse

• need fresh, clean, free water for every child
• appalled at proposals
• budget of MOE slashed, morale low, no monitoring, etc
• groundwater becoming polluted
• need education about water conservation
• water is not to be sold or exported; would never reach thirsty masses; will be used for wealthy

12. Jim Welby

• most water is in groundwater
• no private or public company should be given right to exploit Great Lakes water

13. Bill Sommerville

• works on Great Lakes, lives on boat
• followed Niagara Toxics Management Plan
• cleanup goals have not yet been met - how can we manage quantity?
• would we send Alaskan air to California? - no sense to send water
• once we start we can't stop
• not willing to divert water to parts of the U.S.
• please say no to sale or diversion

14. Anna Tilman (STORM - Save The Oak Ridges Moraine)

• opportunity for IJC (Great Lakes WQA and Can/Ont agreement renewals)
• most people don't know where water supply coming from
• need sustainable development

• water export issue is opportunity to make better decisions
• Canada has incredible natural wealth
• make responsible decision about how we allocate water; think of consequences
• environmental assessment will be important; how will it be done?
• use the argument of lack of scientific certainty of impacts to make decision against exports

• problem is water taking is not viewed as a land use
• include municipalities in local sustainability

• strong public consensus against exports - why doesn't government hear us?
• agree with statements before me
• exporting water is wrong solution to water shortages
• why should someone profit from cleaning up the Lakes?
• gross mismanagement of water resources
• don't ship to another country - it won't get to the right people
• don't mix surface water from one country with that of another
• look at Aral Sea experience
• define status of groundwater resources; need to preserve our groundwater; need standards for water conservation

• nobody to protect Oak Ridges Moraine
• protect headwaters of Toronto's rivers
• consider stewardship seriously
• will submit more detailed statement

• need a principle like zero discharge and virtual elimination for quantity issue; suggest zero removal and full stewardship respectively
• downstream should be to the Gulf of St. Lawrence (ecological considerations)

• 6/12 months too short for IJC to do good job on this study
• history of 1980's attempt to increase Chicago diversion - Great Lakes  Charter doesn't have any teeth
• make sure you present your reports to two Ministers
• infrastructure to deal with water issues at the federal level in Canada seriously weakened

• not making any more water; importance of conservation
• don't send water - people will misuse it
• who will profit from sale? - not the public or the environment
• human arrogance assumes we can move water around where we want

Water Uses Reference Hearing, Chicago, March 18, 1999

 Congressman Bart Stupak, Michigan

• Study is timely and important; global water demand is increasing; growing problem world-wide
• Several companies contending to ship water overseas; demand is real; method is real
• If we allow export, will Great Lakes water be put on world market for sale?
• Must consider health of Great Lakes in holistic approach; exports are not independent of other actions affecting the Great Lakes

• Grateful for IJC activity and hearings
• Concerned about impacts of withdrawals on climate; destruction of shoreline; fish and wildlife; bird habitat; transportation; recreation; fluctuating water levels
• Chicago water system
• Water is not a possession
• Offer services to help interact with communities

• Adherence to Kyoto accords and adjunct water accords
• Ban all withdrawals
• Ban all exports
• Develop comprehensive water conservation plans for Great Lakes communities
• Be comprehensive and bold in report

• Clean water is undervalued; markets will grow; water sales could be runaway freight train
• Cheaper to import than to deal with local problems
• Bulk water export in any guise poses hazard to fisheries and increases perilous situation
• Diversion will compromise future; values (environment, aesthetics) outweigh benefits

• Water helps everyone; drought costs lives world-wide
• Have seen Great Lakes water levels fluctuate 5 feet; at times we have a surplus; should not dump this surplus into the ocean when others need water
• Alternative to sharing is nuclear desalinization with atomic and salt disposal considerations

• Chicago water winds up in a diversion; without it region would not be what it is today
• Region has had active water conservation program; very beneficial effect; conservation provides water for additional 250,000 people
• Illinois has supported initiatives regarding its ability to speak on other states’ plans for approving any diversions
• Illinois supports and contributes to Great Lakes regional water database; sadly, many states can not provide information need to assess cumulative withdrawals and consumptive use; need to analyze future demands
• Electric deregulation will increase consumption. Can’t do study without good information.
• Pledge support of Illinois.
• Need to preserve resources in the region before considering exports; need data to understand

• Represented Sierra Club in dispute with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over groundwater diversions. Corps interprets that Water Resources Development Act does not apply to groundwater. This is an error.
• Groundwater diversions should have same status as surface water diversions; groundwater and surface water supplies are linked
• IJC should clarify that groundwater diversions should be subject to same safeguards as for surface water diversions (can’t divert without consent of Great Lakes Governors)

• Federation is opposed to any diversion of Great Lakes water for use outside the watershed
• Water diversion threatens economies of both countries
• Growing changes to water quality (climate change, pollution, etc.)
• Many examples exist of failed attempts to tamper with hydrologic systems
• Allowing bulk water sales would set precedent that would limit resistance to future diversions impossible; can only prevent, not reverse
• Selling Great Lakes water subjects a resource to commodity legalities; board should examine closely the public trust doctrine
• Great Lakes waters belong in the Great Lakes; fish don’t think we have "surplus" water
• Chicago Diversion may have been a great mistake, might not take place today

• Diversions is a critical issue; we think what has been done with Chicago diversion has
• been prudent and indicative of good water management
• We provide good quality water and ensure good water quality in Chicagoland and in downstate Illinois
• Need to consider how justification ranks among other potential uses of water

• Appreciate values of Lake Michigan
• Work as wetlands biologist; have seen problems with abuse of water
• Great Lakes are a commons and should be treated as same; decisions should be taken by the commons in the Great Lakes

• Approach with intelligence: totally integrated, wholly inclusive
• Water is not a commodity; look beyond the paper and ledgers to see the real riches of the Great Lakes; look at nature

• Lots of flooding in areas west of Chicago; firm is considering plans to divert flood waters into Lake Michigan

• Wrong to use the 600 million liter withdrawal proposed by NOVA as reason to deal with diversions; NOVA diversions are insignificant
• Focus should be on protecting waters of Great Lakes for use by the public at large
• High value uses (clean drinking water, public health) should be given high credence than navigation, providing a heat sink for industry, etc; use water for the highest purposes

• Treat water as a renewable resource
• Many ways in which we can benefit groundwater resources; suggest IJC focus on moving programs that help to protect and replenish groundwaters

• Commend IJC holding hearings; urge more hearings
• Presence of lakes makes life livable
• Can’t let private profit overcome needs of those who use waters

• Oppose any idea of letting water go; pollution in Lake Michigan is increasing
• Preserve what we have here; keep it pristine; lakes are not an inexhaustible resource

• Lakes are economic resource; have sailed in all
• Unregulated commerce in water can only lead to dangerous and unknown consequences for future generations; note water quality problems and zebra mussels
• Don’t spoil it for future generations

• Many recent advances in climate modeling, especially regional climate models; have better capabilities
• Earlier studies of climate changes on Great Lakes water resources need to be examined in light of new information
• Urge committee to recommend more research on climate change

• Didn’t find out about this meeting except by chance
• Profiteers are in shadows behind proposals to use our resources; who is behind these proposals; don’t want to see more abuse of the public trust
• Brokering water is same thing as attacking the Bill of Rights; water is here for people; no one should make a profit

• Issue is larger than political, economic and environmental; it is a moral issue. Need to make it moral issue.
• We need to think about giving water to those who need it, if it does not unduly affect the Great Lakes; we may have a moral obligation

• Here to fight giving away and polluting water; watch ships coming in and dumping ballast that is polluted and killing fish
• Too many exotics: zebra mussel; syrcaphogus; goby; fleas; Chicago water tastes terrible because of need to clean up water so much
• Look at ships anchoring and dumping; big money pollutes lakes
• All ships carry away as ballast water more water than we realize
• Demand ballast water and dumps from waste product tanks be controlled

• Once new floodgates are open, the amounts will ratchet up
• Natural pressures that should exist on wasteful use will be alleviated and waste of water will increase
• IJC should have bias for protection of the of Great Lakes

Water Uses Reference, Public Hearing, Sault Ste. Marie, March 22, 1999

• Presented House Resolution 31 to the Commission which expresses the opposition of the Michigan House of Representatives to any diversion or bulk removal or Great Lakes water.
• Michigan residents in the Sault Ste. Marie area use the water of the Great Lakes to improve the quality of their lives. They are responsible for returning the water in good quality for others to use. We pay a lot to do this at the Soo. Government policy helps in this effort. But government policy could also hurt the effort if diversions of water are allowed.

• NOVA Group did not intend to damage the Great Lakes with their proposal to withdraw water. It is a small company rather than a large corporation. They felt that their enterprise would result in a very small (one or two) job increase for the Sault Ste. Marie area.
• NOVA appealed the withdrawal of the permit to ensure that there would be a level playing field if withdrawals were ever considered. They abandoned their appeal when they were satisfied on this point.
• NOVA understands that much of the public wants a ban on all exports, and will go along with whatever the final decision is.

• Noted CELA's presentation in Toronto which highlighted their concern that with all of the many uncertainties, such as climate change, the Great Lakes could be in jeopardy.
• The controversy over water exports started because NOVA applied for and received a permit from the Province. The Section 34 permit was withdrawn by the Province; Nova appealed and then withdrew the appeal.
• The controversy was about 600 million liters of water. Some say it isn't much, but how do we know? How well do we understand consumptive uses, etc?
• This was the first permit for the withdrawal of surface water.
• NAFTA concerns. If the permit had gone through, it would have made control of resources by Ontario more difficult.
• The process showed how loose the legal regime regarding taking Great Lakes water is.
• Does the Great Lakes Charter apply?
• Ontario had passed a law on diversions of Great Lakes water, but it was not proclaimed.
• What legal tools does the federal government have?
• Now Ontario has proposed a regulation to deal with diversions, but it may have gaps.
• CELA recommends: 1) a basin wide sustainable water use strategy for both surface and ground water, with a ban on exports as a start, 2) the development of a comprehensive data base, and 3) a review of laws in the jurisdictions around to see if there are any significant gaps.

• Consultation with First Nations on issues affecting them is a requirement.
• There was no consultation by the Province in approving the permit for NOVA to withdraw water from Lake Superior even though the Ojibway's fishing rights could have been affected.
• Information regarding the permit request was posted on the internet, but the Ojibway have no internet capability. No one knew about the NOVA permit until it was issued.

• Six months is an extremely short period of time for the governments to give the Commission to respond to the reference, particularly since the governments have been cutting back on the research that will be needed to answer the questions. "If you don't measure it, you won't manage it."
• Previous IJC reports provide a good deal of information that will help answer the reference.
• Companies that want to export water to Asia should be required to access the water supply close to the area where it drains into the oceans. They would have to invest in a purification plant. That would create jobs.
• Canada and the U.S. should take a more aggressive role in helping other countries to manage their own resources better so that the need to export water would not be so high. Let's make sure Canada and the U.S. set high standards for water resource management.

• Diversions could hurt the U.S. and Canada's ability to meet the goals of the Lake Superior Binational Program.
• We don't know what the effects of diversions will be. Both the sending and receiving areas can be adversely affected. "Mutual degradation."
• Sustainability - moving from a consumer to a conservation society.
• Bottled water can send the wrong message. For a small fee pure water will be available to the rich. The way we do it in the U.S. and Canada is to invest in infrastructure to benefit both rich and poor.
• The Lake Superior Binational Forum will be meeting in April and will be submitting a formal position to the Commission on the reference at that time.

• The Authority and it's constituent tribes were shocked and appalled to hear that a permit had been issued by the Province of Ontario for the wholesale export of water from Lake Superior.
• This called attention to the lack of legislation that would prohibit such exports and the vulnerability of our sacred waters to commercial exploitation.
• Diversions of water to areas outside the basin should be prohibited.
• Great Lakes water should not be considered as a commodity unless strict guidelines regarding quantity and degree of refinement are met. Such guidelines should consider whether the water sold is packaged for individual consumption such as raw bottled water in which case the quantity should be limited or whether the water has been refined into a product for personal consumption such as a beverage or other consumer product but again restricted by agreed upon quantities. Under no conditions should large quantities of raw water be allowed to be exported outside the Great Lakes Basin.

• Before being concerned about diversions, one should look to see whether there is a surplus of water.
• The hydrogeologic cycle, rather than just the hydrologic cycle, should be examined.

• Governments have not done a good job of protecting water quality and water resources.
• Desalination plants should be considered. Governments should provide funding. The oceans are closer to where the water is needed.
• Lower water could affect navigation, lessen the ability of the Lakes to clean themselves and could also expose contaminated sediments.
• Look at the history of the Aral Sea. Could this ever happen to Lake Superior?
• We must protect this irreplaceable resource for generations to come.

• Have seen many changes in the rapids over 76 years.
• Concerned about what the removal of water might mean for the watershed. Water over the rapids has already been significantly reduced. The tourist industry could be at risk.
• Before any big changes are made affecting the rapids, a thorough environmental assessment should be carried out.

• Lake Superior should be an inspiration to the world.
• Diversions in Northern Manitoba have resulted in significant adverse effects.
• We have seen that seemingly inexhaustible resources can be used up. The East Coast cod fishery is an example.
• Don't think there is so much water that you can't hurt the Lake.

• To divert water from one basin to another is not natural.
• Why is it we want to change the system that has sustained the earth for so long?
• We should deal with the world the way it was provided.

• We have objected to the Chicago Diversion. How can some people think they can take water from Lake Superior and send it to China?
• Don't we want to have water available for development in the north?
• What about the First Nations?
• If climate change is significant, we may need the water in the north.

• We must resist the temptation to sell water. It will neither quench the world's thirst nor foster economic stability.
• The bulk export of Great Lakes water will ultimately compromise the ecological integrity of the region. Moreover, it will stunt any real development of sustainable and ecologically enlightened solutions for addressing global water needs.
• We must get our own house in order.

• Endorsed the views that had been expressed by other speakers.
• Expressed concern about air pollution in the area.

• It is important that the federal and provincial governments place the social, cultural, and environmental needs of their peoples ahead of economic opportunity for the few.
• Recommends that there be a moratorium on the removal of Great Lakes water from the Great Lakes Basin and that there be agreement on a treaty that will ensure that these shared water resources are protected for all time.

• It's a mistake to have water as a commodity to be traded. There will not be efficient use if it is controlled by private parties.
• We need a comprehensive strategy for managing water resources. We are extremely wasteful.
• The export of water will only help the rich and widen the gulf between rich and poor. It will allow countries to neglect the needs of the many.
• Changing water levels will adversely affect many groups.

Water Uses Reference, Public Hearing, Windsor, March 23, 1999 

• Rick Coronado (CEA) --- there is no surplus water in the Great Lakes; to export water is "nuts"; climate change poses huge threats to the lakes ecosystem; opposes the privatization of water ; tanker traffic will not drain the Great Lakes but will put water into the (problematic) domain of trade; referred to the huge subsidies in the USA for water in farming production which pose an unfair advantage to local farmers; each nation must learn to live within its natural capacity with respect to its water resources. Windsor City Council is of like mind with the CEA and has passed a resolution opposing the bulk export and sale of water.

• Tim Eder (NWF) --- opposes any diversions and bulk exports of water despite global population figures which are expected to reach 6 billion this year with attendant pressures on water resources; out-of-basin diversions at the edge of the Great Lakes watershed from tributaries are of concern and must be resisted in that these may weaken the legal defense against other forms of diversions and export --- for the same reason, diversions to communities that straddle the border must be resisted; concerned about the cumulative effects of such transfers and other factors such as climate change on the Great Lakes ecosystem; Great Lakes jurisdictions need to develop a sustainable water use strategy with enforceable mechanisms which NWF sees as important in any future legal defense against diversions; NWF is doing legal research on diversions and exports but believes that there is a good defense against exports through the Boundary Waters Treaty and the Water Resources Development Act, although NAFTA and GATT do cloud the issue; nevertheless, NWF believes that legal mechanisms can be strengthened and wants IJC to recommend how this can be done; a number of principles were articulated to guide a sustainable use strategy.

• Douglas Hayes (Windsor chapter of the Council of Canadians) --- private sector is looking for huge profits from water exports, so we must close the door legally to such exports in order to get that sector off our backs; GATT/NAFTA and water exports pose threats to our ability to control trade in water once it starts and he referred to various chapters in NAFTA such as 3 and 11 to make his point; opposed to export and sale of water.

• Mark Bartlett (CAW/Windsor) --- Great Lakes are under assault from pollution; current consumption is affecting supplies; the lakes are not there for companies to package and sell the bulk export of water will open Pandora's box; opposed to export and sale of water.

• Rick LaLiberte, MP, Churchill River, (NDP and First Nations) --- opposes bulk export and sale of water; disagreed with the commodity implication in a quote allegedly made by the current trade minister that "today's water is tomorrow's oil"; water is life, we must err on the side of precaution, and a 7-generation consideration must be practiced ; aboriginal water rights must be recognized; questioned whether Canada has an adequate national water policy and believes that the country needs national legislation; quality and quantity is linked, pollution is rampant, and he wondered whether we can promise clean water for future generations.

• Robert Gouda (Sierra Club) --- claimed to speak for 600,000 members who are dedicated to protecting the wild places/spaces of the earth; the precedent for exporting water is very dangerous; Lake Superior is a large but extremely fragile ecosystem and argued that construction and operation of infrastructure to export water from the lake will cause pollution and wetland destruction; wants to see sustainability through conservation ; and believes that we should export the concept of population control.

• Ken Coulter (Windsor JayCees) --- stated that his organization is closely tied to the business community, but it does not see water (in its natural state) as a commodity; there is no such thing as an inexhaustible supply; small fluctuations in lake levels can have impacts; other nations should look to other options for their water supplies, including such methods as desalinization; he asked that we do not take the easy way out on the issue of export and sale.

• Robert Spring (CAW/Local 444) --- stands 100% against the sale of bulk water, and diversion of water from any basin; ecosystems are delicate and water is life's blood; we must work to find sustainable options for those in need of water, but we cannot prejudice our future.

• Mike Freemont (President of Rivers Unlimited, Ohio) --- concurs with all the concerns of Great Lakes United and the Canadian Environmental Law Association that have been expressed at other hearings around the basin; stated that 8 hearings are not enough to hear the views of the people in the Great Lakes basin and argued that this serious issue should be placed on a public ballot.

• Marilyn Wall (Conservation chair of the Ohio Chapter/Sierra Club) --- there are no benefits from the export of water; people are losing their rights in natural resources through trade agreements.

• Gord Taylor (Citizen) --- opposed to bulk export and diversions, and concerned about the introduction of exotic species in ballast water into the Great Lakes basin and their damaging effects.

• Will Patowski (Citizen, Amhertsburg) --- noted that water levels are down substantially this year, and is concerned that climate change could drop levels in the lakes another 2-3 feet in the future; concerned about contamination of water quality; and wondered whether there is any protection against those who "modify" weather, such as those who seed clouds to produce rain over dry areas.

• Nick Carling (Coalition against MAI/Council of Canadians) --- the sale of water poses a threat ( through NAFTA) to the sovereignty of Canada.

• Mark Richardson (Citizen/Michigan attorney for Macombe County) --- is the water quality prosecutor for the County, and does not want to see their efforts (at cleaning up pollution and preserving wetlands from destruction ) defeated by the actions of others ie. through such schemes as export of water; stated there is a need for cross-border co-operation on watershed planning and management at the local level.

• Daryl Wylie (Citizen) --- brought to the attention of the meeting that diversions have caused incredibly adverse impacts in other parts of the world, and showed pictures of the 1990 National Geographic's pictures on the Aral Sea; we must learn from the mistakes of others and he urged the Commission to "just say NO" to water exports and diversions.

Water Uses Reference, Public Hearing, Duluth, 24 March 1999

• Not enough notice of meetings to State agencies
• Minnesota has been involved in existing processes to control diversion
• Have concerns over bulk removal – should be managing demand not supply
• Bulk removal sets precedent, allowing one standard for internal, another for external sets a double standards
• MN Laws requires a special permit for internal diversions and deals with external diversions; MN also participates in Great Lakes charter activities concerning out-of-basin diversions
• Recommendations:
• Develop one standard – but not zero diversion
• Establish criteria
• Is public health crisis different situation?
• Is diversion most cost effective means of dealing with water need?
• Require a water use plan from entity requesting a diversion
• Need to also examine consumptive uses within the basin

• Concerned over press for out of basin water use
• Recommendations:
• Water should not be treated as a NAFTA commodity
• Article XX of GATT allows exemptions of natural resources; seek legal advice on possible exemption
• Exports may be dwarfed by climate change; sign Kyoto Protocol to slow change

• Anything that effects Lake Superior effects us; advocate preservation of Lake Superior ecosystem; must consider 7 generations
• Lake is not for sale; it is sacred
• We have retained rights in Treaties with US; we have not ceded rights to Lake Superior
• Opposed to any anthropogenic diversions on any Great Lake
• Need to consider waters of Lake Superior as waters under drinking water quality criteria
• If you steal our waters, we will sue

• Represent tribes in MN, WI and MI
• In 1988 adopted resolution against any diversions
• Concerned about effects on fish and wildlife and wild rice beds
• Concerned about narrow interpretation of Boundary Waters Treaty to address only surface water. IJC must confirm that groundwater and surface water are linked; prohibitions on surface water only would be useless

• See daily effects of lower water table, loss of fish and wildlife and the economic impacts
• Oppose sending waters to other places in world; upsets the balance of nature
• Questions: Diversion is prompted by economics; has anyone looked at possible importers to see how the water would be used? Why has progress under Great Lakes Charter been so slow?

• Puzzled that Canadian government could not come up with reason to stop exports; problem is gutless governments
• Water is basic to all life. It can not be a commodity; the issue is moral
• Expects IJC to tell governments to get the job done

• Have served on RAP for St Louis River
• Water level changes would hurt fragile spawning areas
• Would like to see permits to produce no net loss of water from watersheds
• Resent lack of federal support for local farming and small farmers; need to help people be self-sustaining
• If you need water for hydrogen production – a fuel alternate to fossil - will you take it from the Lakes?

• Protest removal or sale of lake water; must consider:
• Effects of removal on shipping;
• Effect on ecosystems; spawning; bird and insect populations, etc.
• Effects on citizens and businesses; impacts on homes
• Have other alternatives been considered? Should we provide technology to those in need to improve desalinization

• Issue is political sovereignty; guts to act
• Our rights have been usurped stolen or ransomed by transnational businesses through trade agreements;
• Those who want diversions have elite privilege and power and work in back rooms; transnational companies are bigger than many nations; have pillaged our resources
• I say no-never- to giving up right to waters

• NWF has long standing concern for quantity of Great Lakes   water and impacts on water quality
• Cumulative impacts could have significant impact on Great Lakes  ecosystems; trust IJC to gather the data
• Policies must protect against diversions now; once allowed, it will be difficult to turn back and provide long term protection to lakes
• Need long term strategy for promoting conservation ad protection of water around the world
• NWF is preparing and will submit a legal brief on diversions
• A treaty on diversions will have more force than domestic laws
• The Crandon Mine case is a challenge to diversion from groundwaters; issue of inclusion of groundwater in agreements is not clear and needs to be

• Have done extensive research on lakes around the world
• Key issue is global warming and the tremendous change that will occur in hydrological budget of Great Lakes; 4 climate models indicate 20% reduction of runoff into Lake Superior and summer temperatures will increase; level of Lake Superior will drop from 1 to 11 meters; models are in infancy and predictions need to be more accurate
• If we set precedent now, it will be more difficult to turn off spigot when change does occur

• Did not have sufficient notice
• Very concerned about any withdrawals; lakes don’t operate independent of watershed or aquifer; look at any transfer from basin
• Need to differentiate between transfer out of basin and consumption within

• We truly do not have water to spare
• Those pushing exports will try and try again, wearing down opponents
• Climate change forecasts argue against any exports
• Effects of lower levels would have deleterious effects on forage base for fish, impact shipping
• Precedent of any exports is dangerous

• LWV of US believes natural resource should be preserved and protected
• MN LWV supports decisions made to export water when all impacts are properly considered and conservation practices of the receiving parties are examined
• Need clear policies and legislation on this issue
• On personal note, oppose any export or diversion; fresh water will as valuable a resource in future as gold; must recognize that water is a finite resource; have real concern with current consumption; we are overusing water we have; need to look at our current consumption practices

• Exporting water is step one of "paving the lake"
• Water is not ours to sell; it belongs to future generations; need to be put on a path to better decisions.

• Exports are a bad idea
• We need to share the gift of water we have, but from allocations of waters of those who are now taking water and misusing it
• Young people need to be part of the decisions that effect future generations; if consensus means we are going to degrade the lake, consensus doesn’t work
• IJC has an opportunity to provide a legacy

• Opposed to diversion of water from Lake Superior
• It sets bad precedent; where will it lead in view of climate change
• If Lake is going to lose its level, it will expose the toxics that exist and will increase concentrations of chemicals in fish; ships will also stir up more sediments
• Sustainability of ecosystems will be at risk with diversions
• Once people become dependent on diversions, it will be hard to stop their use

• Strongly opposed to any diversions; concerned about dangers of piecemeal diversions that can grow into significant diversions with their economic, environmental and cultural impacts
• Diversions would effect wild rice activities of tribe
• Concerned about failure of some to consider that groundwater diversions the same as surface diversions

• Wants to know what citizens can do to work against diversions
• Came to network

• Have personal responsibility to render back to the Lake Superior protection of its resources
• Ask IJC to protect Lake against diversions; we rely on those in power; develop a permanent solution

• Capitalism has inherent dangers; once the slippery slope of exports begins, we jeopardize future generations

• Remediation of the St Louis River is not possible without attention to the quantity and quality of the Lakes
• Consider survey of citizens about this issue; citizens may be asleep at the switch

• Talked to my friends and could not find anyone who favored diversions
• We need to work on quality of waters we drink
• If we are to sell for humanitarian purposes then we need to know who is going to use the water and for what

• Very opposed
• Exports would probably not benefit the poorer people; people with money are scheming behind closed doors

Water Uses Reference Public Hearing, Rochester, New York, March 25 1999

• Oppose concept of exporting because we don’t know enough about potential problems
• Once we start we will encounter many unknown problems with environment and might not be able to slow down what we started
• Until issue has been thoroughly studied we must have a moratorium on exports

• Lake Ontario is greatest resource we enjoy; can not support bulk diversion without complete analysis by IJC
• Impacts must be assessed effectively
• Protect the resource with audacity
• How can we control diversions when we can’t control lake levels?

• Allowing diversions will set a dangerous precedent
• Can not support diversions

• Concerned about public health; links exist between Great Lakes  persistent toxic pollutants and human development; many birth and child development problems
• Many unknowingly consume dangerously contaminated fish; health is threatened by water supply problems
• Need schedule of plans to make fish and wildlife safe to eat
• Native Americans should have representation on IJC
• Need tough regulations

• Obliged to protect citizens of Erie County; disappointed IJC is not meeting in Buffalo
• Impacts of diversions on total environment are issues that must be addressed by IJC and provide a basis for rejection of diversions
• Sustainable development must be based on a region’s current carrying capacity; while technically possible to make major diversions, they should not be made; need more effective conservation in proposed receiving regions
• We should not support unsustainable growth

• This is not a new issue to IJC or LWV
• LWV believes any study must consider:
• Public participation
• Evaluation of impacts in giving and receiving area
• Examination of all costs associated with diversion and alternative approaches
• Participation by all affected governments
• Funding by user, not governments
• Must study long term impacts of diversions considering climate change; public health consequences, economics
• Must have adequate regulations and procedures with full public input

• Express concern over water crisis world faces
• Export of water will harm our ecosystem and may impact our country; potential users must solve their own problems
• Giving water away would be a big mistake

• Concern is for ecosystem and hydrology of Great Lakes system; if water is withdrawn from Lake Superior it will change entire ecosystem
• Compliment IJC on its work

• Exporting water is just a moneymaking opportunity for someone; water is not a commodity
• We live in an area where water makes us great; the Lakes do it; leave then alone; don’t export; don’t set a precedent

• Live adjacent to Lake Ontario and see value of wetlands along shore; important to see environment preserved
• Jury is still out on exports; want to see what the environmental impacts are going to be here and in places where water may be going
• Once you put in pipes and have a faucet, it is easy to open the faucet more; need policies, if we ever do this, that will set limits
• If change is made, do it slowly so nature can adjust

• Prepared a formal report on diversions, "The Fate of the Great Lakes"
• IJC must think about the lakes as a whole; after hundreds of years of misusing our waters, the pressure on our lakes will grow; water will be available for those with money
• Make policy to prevent export of water
• Construct a binational strategy to deal with impacts of climate change
• Ban diversion of lake, tributary and groundwater waters
• Develop comprehensive plan for use of our waters; conservation of water must be encouraged
• Must think about the long-term scenario; tempting to think about small diversions as short term problems
• Challenges are climate change; diversions and consumption that threaten Great Lakes
• Dangers can be quantified; 1% of Lakes is renewed each year; diversions, climate change and consumption threatens balance
• Urge commitment to Kyoto Treaty; agreement by governments to conservation of waters
• Near basin diversions will set precedent for diversions to other areas of US
• If bulk water export is allowed to gain a foothold, it will be difficult to restrain; will mirror other extractive industries with their political and economic power

• My generation recognized the ravages of previous generations on the Great Lakes and has tried to rectify the situation
• We paid for cleanup; want to enjoy clean waters; don’t want to see water go abroad

• Represent children and grandchildren; saw article about big lake in Russia that disappeared; you can’t fool with Mother Nature
• Don’t let it happen here

• Have taught graduate courses in value engineering; have students looking at problem of diversions now
• Contend that issue is complex engineering ecological, environmental problems and all views must be taken into account and balanced
• Tankers have been ‘exporting’ water as ballast for years; surreptitiously and openly
• Desirability of fresh water to oil producing nations creates a demand for fresh water as ballast
• Some recommend that any ballast be exchanged in mid-ocean to prevent export of exotics
• Students have previously studied use of Erie Canal as aqueduct; found many sound uses throughout state, including control of lake levels
• Need scientific studies; St Lawrence River area is rising at rate of 6" per 50 years higher than other areas nearby; reduces efficiency of dams on St Lawrence
• Don’t preemptively preclude possibility of diversions

• Moved from California to leave arid region and its problems; at hearing for her children
• Development of infrastructure indicates that some development leads to more infrastructure development that is in turn overwhelmed by more development
• We should profit from observing over-development of West; more is not better
• Giving water to West would cause them problems and then in turn harm us
• Beg IJC to make a law to prevent diversions

James Robfogel, Citizen, Rochester NY

• Live on Lake Ontario; enjoy the lake
• Need planning on a regional state and national basis; should not support areas that don’t have resources and steal our industries
• Ban any diversions or sales to Southwest

• Lived here my entire life; appreciate IJC coming to Rochester
• Seems that economic pressures always win out; export of water is a scary thing
• Why would we allow our water to support an economy in another area when business should come here?
• Few people conserve; must encourage people to conserve
• More you give, more people want; opposed to diversions

• Real deal is money; exploiting a natural resource that should be in the public domain;
• The system is in balance now; anything that goes out is going to lower our lake levels
• Lake's value is best when waters are in lake, not being exported

• Old western movies dealt with water availability in the west; will continue to be an issue
• Didn’t hear tonight from big business and lawyers; they will be in the middle of any water issues
• Have nightmare of a funnel under Niagara Falls
• We don’t want our water to disappear

• We have developed too fast in last 100 years; have pollution; ozone hole; these are forecasts of what could happen with water diversions
• Children have indicated "how can we go to space, if we can’t take care of our own earth?" We are asking for trouble when we play God by trying to remove waters