|
Lake Michigan Water Level Fluctuations Floodplain Development Great Lakes Diversions Long Lac and Ogoki Diversions Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago Welland Canal Diversion New York State Barge Canal CONFLICTS BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND WATER Lake Michigan Water Level Fluctuations Fluctuations in the water levels of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes have occurred continually since the Great Lakes formed at the end of the Ice Age. The level of Lake Michigan depends on the balance between the quantities of water received and the quantities of water removed. Lake level records have been kept for Lake Michigan since 1860 at Harbor Beach, Michigan. The lowest monthly average lake level recorded since that date was 576.05, IGLD 1985, in March 1964 and the highest was 582.64, IGLD 1985, in June 1886. Lake levels affect the extent of flooding, shoreline erosion and shoreline property damage, wetland acreage, depth of navigation channels, and hydroelectric power output. Water level studies requested by Congress and the International Joint Commission are discussed in Coastal Dynamics. Floodplain Development The Midwest Flood of 1993 plagued citizens along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. A study22 completed the following year to analyze the causes of the flood, and to propose strategies for future action, repeated an observation which had been stated three decades earlier. "Floods are an act of God; flood damages result from acts of men."23 The study acknowledged that development had occurred in the floodways of these two great Midwest rivers, and would continue to occur, but it sought to development an understanding of the kinds of development most likely to aggravate flooding conditions. The 1994 study reflected upon a multitude of activities within and adjacent to floodplains which the severity and cost of flooding. "Flooding can be increased significantly by the runoff from land that has been stripped of vegetation or covered with buildings, pavements, and other impervious materials. Historically, the approach to such runoff has been to confine and transport that water as quickly as possible. As urbanization spread, this approach contributed significantly to increased magnitude and frequency of downstream flooding and the construction of flood damage reduction structures."24 The loss of wetlands and upland cover significantly increase runoff (although the impact of these losses on major floods such as occurred in 1993 was seen as "inconclusive").25 Other factors cited by the study as potentially contributing to increased flooding, though not necessarily during the Midwest Flood of 1993, were the unauthorized placement or enhancement of levees, facilities associated with navigation structures, and other buildings in the floodway. Great Lakes Diversions The commerce clause of the United States Constitution empowers Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States."26 In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the commerce clause applies to the export of water from one state to another in Sporhase v. Nebraska.27 At issue was the use of well water in Nebraska to irrigate a contiguous tract located in Colorado. The Court stated that "ground water is an article of commerce and therefore subject to congressional regulation."28 Congress can authorize the states to impose burdens on the inter-state or inter-basin transfer of surface or ground water which would otherwise violate the commerce clause. For example, a provision in the Yellow River Compact requiring unanimous consent of the signatory states to export water outside the river basin was upheld on the basis that consent by Congress to the compact converted it to federal law.29 Congress has authorized a state export barrier on water which resulted from the Great Lakes Charter, a document signed in 1985 by the governors of the eight Great Lakes states and the premiers of Ontario and Quebec.30 The parties agreed in the charter that their states and provinces should cooperate in managing water resources of the Great Lakes basin as a single hydrologic system. The chapter specifies that no state or province should allow major new diversions or consumptive uses without seeking the consent of all affected states and provinces. Although the Great Lakes Charter lacks binding authority, federal and state legislation was enacted to assist in its implementation. At the federal level, Congress has found that the Great Lakes are an important resource to the eight Great Lakes states and that any additional diversions would have significant economic and environmental impacts. No additional diversions from the Great Lakes or their tributaries may be approved outside the Great Lakes basin without the approval of each Governor of the Great Lakes states. export water outside the river basin was upheld on the basis that consent by Congress to the compact converted it to federal law.31 In order to help implement the Great Lakes Charter, states individually enacted legislation to prohibit unauthorized diversions outside the basin. The Indiana General Assembly made a legislative declaration that "a diversion of water out of the Great Lakes will impair or destroy the Great Lakes." As a result, a statutory pronouncement specifies that "Water may not be diverted from that part of the Great Lakes drainage basin within Indiana for use in a state outside the basin, unless the diversion is approved by the governors of each Great Lakes state."32 Diversions are man-made mechanisms which transfer water into or out of a drainage basin. In the Great Lakes system there are five major operating diversions: Ogoki, Long Lac, Chicago, Welland Canal, and New York State Barge Canal.33
 In 1981, the International Great Lakes Diversion and Consumptive Use Study Board, established by the IJC, reviewed the impacts of diversion and consumptive use on water levels and flows of the Great Lakes Basin.34 The Board determined that alteration of diversions would not serve to minimize extreme high lake levels on the Great Lakes and avoid an overall long-term net economic loss. By the same token, diversion rates cannot be altered to minimize extreme low levels on the Great Lakes during periods of low supplies. The International Joint Commission recommended to the governments that monitoring be conducted and policies be formulated to address potential impacts of new or increased diversions. Long Lac and Ogoki Diversions The Long Lac and Ogoki diversions are often considered together since they both divert water from James Bay into Lake Superior. However, the diversions are separate. The Long Lac diversion connects the headwaters of the Kenogami River with Aguasabon River, which naturally outlets into Lake Superior. The Ogoki diversion connects the upper portion of the Ogoki River to Lake Nipigon and from there flows into Lake Superior. Combined, both diversions average an annual flow of 5,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) with a range of 2,500 to 8,000 cfs over the years. One cfs equals 646,316 gallons per day. These diversions were developed to generate hydro-electric power and to transport pulpwood logs.35 Long Lac and Ogoki can be altered to cause less water to flow into the Great Lakes. In 1985, Ontario took action to store Ogoki waters in Lake Nipigon. Once the water levels on Lake Nipigon reached critically high levels, Ogoki water was redirected to the Albany River and Hudson Bay. This practice ended in December 1985 having a net effect of lowering Lake Superior by approximately 0.4 inches.36
A study board established by the International Joint Commission found that eliminating these diversions would be expensive. The losses estimated by the board were $53 million less than the benefits received by coastal interests when diversions are functioning.
New York State Barge Canal 
|