Retour au site - Lire vous transporte

Retour au site
Retour au site
SAVING
THE ST. LAWRENCE
The disastrous impact
of climate change
Retour au site
Retour au site
F. Pierre Gingras
SAVING
THE ST. LAWRENCE
The disastrous impact
of climate change
What Quebec can do for Canada
and for itself
Retour au site
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec and Library and Archives Canada cataloguing in publication
Gingras, F. Pierre, 1946 [Sauvons le Saint-Laurent!. English]
Saving the St. Laurence : the disastrous impact of climate change
Partial translation of : Sauvons le Saint-Laurent!.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN PAPIER 978-2-89726-154-2
ISBN PDF 978-2-89726-076-7
ISBN EPUB 978-2-89726-132-0
1. Climatic changes - Environmental aspects - Saint Lawrence River. 2. Nature - Effect of human beings on - Saint-Lawrence River.
3. Saint Lawrence River - Environmental conditions. 4. Saint Lawrence River - Effect of drought on.
I. Title. II. Title : Sauvons le Saint-Laurent!. English.
GE160.C3G5613 2014
363.7009714
C2014-941967-8
For assistance with its publishing program, the publisher wishes to thank the Société de
Développement des Entreprises Culturelles (SODEC), Tax Credit for Book Publishing program –
Gestion SODEC.
The publisher also wishes to thank the Government of Canada for its assistance under the Canada
Book Fund.
Marcel Broquet Éditeur
351 Chemin Lac Millette, St-Sauveur, Quebec, Canada J0R 1R6
Telephone: 450 744-1236
marcel@marcelbroquet.com
www.marcelbroquet.com
Couverture : Roger Belle-Isle
Mise en page : Alejandro Natan
Distribution :
Messageries ADP*
2315, rue de la Province
Longueuil (Québec) Canada J4G 1G4
Tel.: 450 640-1237
Fax: 450 674-6237
www.messageries-adp.com
* a subsidiary of Groupe Sogides inc.
a subsidiary of Quebecor Media Book Group inc.
Distribution in France and Benelux :
DNM Distribution du Nouveau Monde
30, rue Gay-Lussac, 75005, Paris
Tel.: 01 42 54 50 24 Fax: 01 43 54 39 15
Librairie du Québec
30, rue Gay-Lussac, 75005, Paris
Tel.: 01 43 54 49 02
www.librairieduquebec.fr
Distribution in Switzerland:
Diffusion Transat SA
Case postale 3625
CH-1211 Genève 3
Tel.: 41 22 342 77 40
Fax: 41 22 343 46 46
transat@transatdiffusion.ch
Distribution – Promotion:
r.pipar@phoenix3alliance.com
Legal Deposit: 3rd quarter 2014
Bibliothèque et Archives du Québec
Library and Archives Canada
Bibliothèque nationale de France
© Marcel Broquet Éditeur, 2014
Any reproduction, adaptation or translation is forbidden without
the authorization of the author and publisher.
In all other countries:
Marcel Broquet Éditeur
351 Chemin Lac Millette, Saint-Sauveur
(Quebec) Canada J0R 1R6
Telephone : 450 744-1236
marcel@marcelbroquet.com
www.marcelbroquet.com
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
Table of contents
Prologue...............................................................................................................................................................7
Foreword..............................................................................................................................................................9
Part 1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................11
1.1 The current alarming situation of the St. Lawrence River........................................................... 11
1.2 Climate change: anticipated effects ....................................................................................................13
1.3 Mitigating the impacts of climate change: current options .......................................................14
1.4 St. Lawrence River management agreements and organizations ...........................................15
1.5 International Joint Commission .............................................................................................................. 17
1.6 Freshwater: a global problem ................................................................................................................ 18
1.7 Rising ocean levels..................................................................................................................................... 19
Part 2
Managing St. Lawrence Basin flows and levels ............................................................21
2.1 Project background and objectives....................................................................................................... 21
2.2 Project design criteria ............................................................................................................................... 31
2.3 Technical descriptions of structures..................................................................................................... 31
2.4 Cost-benefit analyses – St. Lawrence management structures................................................ 48
2.5 The infamous NAWAPA project ............................................................................................................. 51
Part 3
Northern Waters .......................................................................................................................................55
3.1 Description of project.................................................................................................................................56
3.2 Environment: major issues........................................................................................................................86
3.3 Project design and estimate criteria.................................................................................................... 99
3.4 Complex: planning and estimates.......................................................................................................110
3.5 Cost-benefit analysis...............................................................................................................................119
3.6 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................123
3.7 Bibliography (for Part 3........................................................................................................................... 125
5
Retour au site
Retour au site
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec and Library and Archives Canada cataloguing in publication
Gingras, F. Pierre, 1946 [Sauvons le Saint-Laurent!. English]
Saving the St. Laurence : the disastrous impact of climate change
Partial translation of : Sauvons le Saint-Laurent!.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN PAPIER 978-2-89726-154-2
ISBN PDF 978-2-89726-076-7
ISBN EPUB 978-2-89726-132-0
1. Climatic changes - Environmental aspects - Saint Lawrence River. 2. Nature - Effect of human beings on - Saint-Lawrence River.
3. Saint Lawrence River - Environmental conditions. 4. Saint Lawrence River - Effect of drought on.
I. Title. II. Title : Sauvons le Saint-Laurent!. English.
GE160.C3G5613 2014
363.7009714
C2014-941967-8
For assistance with its publishing program, the publisher wishes to thank the Société de
Développement des Entreprises Culturelles (SODEC), Tax Credit for Book Publishing program –
Gestion SODEC.
The publisher also wishes to thank the Government of Canada for its assistance under the Canada
Book Fund.
Marcel Broquet Éditeur
351 Chemin Lac Millette, St-Sauveur, Quebec, Canada J0R 1R6
Telephone: 450 744-1236
marcel@marcelbroquet.com
www.marcelbroquet.com
Couverture : Roger Belle-Isle
Mise en page : Alejandro Natan
Distribution :
Messageries ADP*
2315, rue de la Province
Longueuil (Québec) Canada J4G 1G4
Tel.: 450 640-1237
Fax: 450 674-6237
www.messageries-adp.com
* a subsidiary of Groupe Sogides inc.
a subsidiary of Quebecor Media Book Group inc.
Distribution in France and Benelux :
DNM Distribution du Nouveau Monde
30, rue Gay-Lussac, 75005, Paris
Tel.: 01 42 54 50 24 Fax: 01 43 54 39 15
Librairie du Québec
30, rue Gay-Lussac, 75005, Paris
Tel.: 01 43 54 49 02
www.librairieduquebec.fr
Distribution in Switzerland:
Diffusion Transat SA
Case postale 3625
CH-1211 Genève 3
Tel.: 41 22 342 77 40
Fax: 41 22 343 46 46
transat@transatdiffusion.ch
Distribution – Promotion:
r.pipar@phoenix3alliance.com
Legal Deposit: 3rd quarter 2014
Bibliothèque et Archives du Québec
Library and Archives Canada
Bibliothèque nationale de France
© Marcel Broquet Éditeur, 2014
Any reproduction, adaptation or translation is forbidden without
the authorization of the author and publisher.
In all other countries:
Marcel Broquet Éditeur
351 Chemin Lac Millette, Saint-Sauveur
(Quebec) Canada J0R 1R6
Telephone : 450 744-1236
marcel@marcelbroquet.com
www.marcelbroquet.com
Retour au site
Prologue
For those of us who have an interest in Canadian history, and have not had the privilege of living on its shores,
the St. Lawrence River holds a place of mythical proportions. It was the principal artery for setting foot on
Canadian soil. It was the springboard from which explorers travelled both south and west, setting the stage for
the first Europeans to see the Mississippi and the Rockies. Along its shores, and the Great Lakes that feed it,
early settlements took hold and grew to become what is arguably the economic heartland of the continent. Its
massive geographic footprint harbors some of the loveliest natural settings in North America, and some of its
richest farmland. It contributes to the economy and the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people, and
through its tens of thousands of kilometers of wetlands, it is the natural habitat of thousands upon thousands
of species of unique flora and wildlife.
However, as well documented is this book, all is not well with the St. Lawrence River, not to mention significant
parts of its watershed. Climate change is now increasingly impacting the quantity and quality of its water,
and as a direct result, the wetlands on which so many other species depend. Along its shores, water levels are
diminishing, and riverbeds are increasingly exposed. Mr. Gingras is to be commended for quantifying these
symptoms, proposing bold solutions, courageously putting them into the public view, and setting the stage
for a timely conversation.
As pointed out in this book, the consequences of reduced water flow in the St. Lawrence River, and by association,
the Great Lakes, are huge, affecting hundreds of millions of people, and an impressive amount of wetlands and
wildlife. From a technical perspective, Mr. Gingras invites us to ramp up our thinking, and think big, even though
his proposals challenge our social, environmental and political values and priorities. As he so aptly points out,
nature knows no political boundaries, and a key issue will be to convince all shoreline stakeholders, including
the Canadian and U.S governments, provincial and state governments, local communities, environmental
groups, wildlife conservationists and aboriginal nations, that remediation intervention is essential.
Unfortunately, while we attend to building this essential consensus, the problems described by Mr. Gingras
will not go away. The consequences of either doing nothing or of following Mr. Gingras’ recommendations
will both be complex and controversial. Also, time is of the essence. While we debate, nature can overtake
our ability for timely intervention. The 1990s disappearance of the Newfoundland cod fishery for at least a
generation should be a warning to all …
Regardless of what will ultimately be done, it is time for such conversations take place. Mr. Gingras’ book is
an invaluable, evidence-based contribution to this important dialogue.
Richard J. Marceau, PEng, FCAE
Vice President (Research), Memorial University of Newfoundland
President, The Canadian Academy of Engineering (2012-2014)
December 15, 2013
7
Retour au site
HYDROELECTRICITY, DESIGN STUDIES
USEFUL UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
In order to make quick calculations for design studies, certain practical, albeit approximate, units of measurement
were used.
Units
sq m or m2: square metre
cu m or m3: cubic metre
CMS or m3/s: flow rate, in cubic metres per second
km: kilometre
cu km or km3: cubic kilometre, for water volumes of reservoirs
MW: megawatt, a unit of power. For the lay reader, this is approximately equivalent to the output of an
average-size locomotive. If a power plant is said to have a capacity of 100 MW, the reader will have some idea
of the challenges involved.
MWh: a unit of energy, expressed as a MW per hour
TWh: one million MWh
Quick estimate factors
Flow: measured in cubic metres of water per second (CMS or m3/s)
If a flow of 31.6 m3/s fills a reservoir with one cubic kilometre of water per year, we can quickly calculate how
much water is required or available in a reservoir.
Capacity: MW, or 1,000 kilowatts
The amount of power produced over a given period of time yields a unit of energy (MWh, TWy, etc.). If in one
year (8,766 hours), a 114-MW power plant produces 1 TWy (1,000,000 MWh), we can quickly calculate its
production in TWy. To calculate the capacity of a power plant, we must consider the output or efficiency of the
turbine, alternator, flow rate, drop height (head) and several other factors, including loss of hydraulic load. In
design studies, the head (m) × the flow (m3/s) × 0.009 provides a rough estimate of given capacity, accurate to
within 1%. However, long water conveyance structures impact this estimate due to large hydraulic load losses
Energy cost
As in the 1900s, the industry still calculates energy costs in cents per KWh. To prevent errors and to quickly
assess the financial challenges, at the design stage, of the alternatives presented, this study uses estimates in
dollars per MWh.
8
Retour au site
Foreword
How to protect the St. Lawrence Basin
from the effects of climate change
Climate change experts increasingly agree that the Great Lakes region will likely dry out at a rate of 20% to
30% over the course of the century. Environment Canada puts that figure at approximately 24%. Lake Huron
and Lake Michigan have already dropped by more than 60 cm. Between Montreal and Quebec City, where the
St. Lawrence River is shallow, with the exception of a narrow channel, the resulting decrease in flow of 1,500
to 2,200 m3/s could dry out 30% or more of the width of the river bed. In fact, over 18,000 km of shoreline
and 1,000 km2 of key wetlands, such as those of Lake St. Pierre and Georgian Bay, are endangered.
How can we prevent this phenomenon? And how can Quebec make the most of this situation when it alone
can turn it around or at least minimize the threat?
About the author
F. Pierre Gingras has participated in the analysis and construction of major hydropower stations in Quebec
for over 45 years. He served as the chief cost and planning engineer for Hydro-Québec dam construction for
32 years and was closely involved with the building of the Manicouagan-Outardes and James Bay complexes.
In addition, he worked on the reconstruction of existing complexes on the St. Maurice, Bersimis, Gatineau,
Beauharnois, and Ottawa Rivers, as well as on studies of various phases of some 200 other potential projects.
Currently retired, he now conducts project studies for the Montreal Economic Institute (IEDM), the Canadian
Academy of Engineering (CAE) and several engineering firms. His work has resulted in the Northern Waters
project, the Pan-Canadian Power Grid project, the MacKenzie River Project and a project for the comprehensive
management of the St. Lawrence River Basin, which stresses the need to mitigate the environmental effects
of climate change already underway.
9
Retour au site
Retour au site
Part 1
Introduction
1.1 The current alarming situation of the St. Lawrence River
1.2 Climate change: anticipated effects
1.3 Mitigating the impacts of climate change: current options
1.4 St. Lawrence River management agreements and organizations
1.5 International Joint Commission
1.6 Freshwater: a global problem
1.7 Rising ocean levels
1.1 The current alarming situation of the St. Lawrence River
The current situation for the entire St. Lawrence River Basin is increasingly worrisome. In recent years, water
flows in the St. Lawrence Basin and Great Lakes appear to have significantly decreased, which explains the
low water levels of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, as well as the operational difficulties for the Seaway
and municipal freshwater pumping stations.
Lake Superior is already critically low. In reality, the topography is such that this Great Lake only drains a very
small region, which is just a few dozen kilometres wide. The Sault Ste. Marie control structure plays a key role
in maintaining Lake Superior’s water levels, and masks the effects of flow reductions.
Further downstream, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are already some 60 cm below their natural historical
levels, which is catastrophic for the environment. Their levels continue to fall at a rate of 3 cm or more per year.
It is important to remember that Lake Huron and Georgian Bay are home to some of Canada’s most richly
diverse and visited wetlands, which are protected by numerous wildlife and biological reserves. One sign that
the situation may be worsening is that the flow of the St. Clair River has remained unchanged despite the
dropping levels of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Could the weir be eroding?
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario already have mechanisms to control water flows and levels. However, the increasingly
frequent need to draw water from these lakes to mitigate low flows in the downstream section of the basin
implies that the water levels of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are dropping despite the control mechanisms. Lake
St. Francis, which is controlled by the Beauharnois complex, is experiencing the same problem.
Water levels in Lake St. Louis and the Laprairie Basin are also lower, but it appears that the natural weirs
located downstream from the Lachine and Sault Normand Rapids are mitigating low flows to some extent.
11
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
The problem is spreading all along the St. Lawrence Basin, affecting both the Montreal region and the
operational capacity of the Seaway.
The worst consequences are already being felt farther downstream along the St. Lawrence River, between
Montreal and Quebec City. That section of the river is generally only 5 to 7 m deep, with the exception of a
narrow but deep channel. A reduction in flow of 20% to 30% could have a more serious impact by concentrating
water in the channel, which could dry out and significantly narrow the river.
Lower water levels greatly reduce the quality of drinking water. In recent years, the media has repeatedly
reported difficulties in supplying water to towns along the shore, where water intake structures are often
exposed, if not nearly dry, due to low water levels.
These low water levels are also limiting the capacity of cargo ships that use the Seaway and the Port of Montreal,
North America’s seventh-largest port, with growing strategic importance, particularly in container shipping.
12
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
The Northern Waters project aims to maintain the natural water levels of the St. Lawrence River by diverting
water supplies from the James Bay watershed.
Until now, water levels in the various sections of the St. Lawrence River Basin have been primarily managed
through flow regulation. Water is released by the existing control structures in Sault Ste. Marie for Lake
Superior, in Niagara for Lake Erie, and in Cornwall for Lake Ontario. Further downstream, agreements have
been required from time to time to facilitate navigation. However, as water becomes increasingly rare, these
measures are no longer sufficient.
As the population’s water needs grow, it is becoming clear that there is less and less water available to waste
for the sole purpose of maintaining water levels. This is also the case for water that is allowed to run off
during seasonal flooding. We must also keep in mind that only 1% of the water in the Great Lakes naturally
replenishes itself every year.
1.2 Climate change: anticipated effects
In studies on climate change, experts increasingly predict that over the course of a century, a drying effect
could reduce water flow by 20% to 30% in the Great Lakes region, where the situation is already worrisome.
Environment Canada estimates a 24% reduction in water inflows in the Great Lakes Basin. Several studies by
the Ouranos group also cite the drying effects of climate change on the St. Lawrence River Basin, including
13
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
a study by researchers Parent and Anctil of Laval University entitled, “Plan d’action sur les changements
climatiques, mesure 26, GCS 1201, 2012” (in French only).
It should be pointed out that the 20% to 30% reduction in water inflows due to climate change in the St.
Lawrence River Basin at the Great Lakes would result in a flow reduction of 1,500 to 2,200 cubic metres per
second (m3/s).
This situation could endanger the environments of over 18,000 km of shoreline and over 1,000 km2 of diverse
wetlands. These wetlands include those surrounding Georgian Bay as well as Lake St. Pierre, both of which
play a key environmental role.
These climate predictions also indicate that Quebec will experience 15% to 18% more precipitation, while
the Great Lakes will be increasingly dryer, making the Northern Waters project even more appealing in the
long term. It appears that increased evaporation in the Great Lakes Basin due to climate change will result
in more precipitation in Quebec.
The evaporated water from the Great Lakes region would fall on western Quebec, where 15% to 18% increases
could cause devastating floods. The rivers targeted by the Northern Waters project, primarily the Bell, Waswanipi
and Nottaway Rivers, flow from south to north, so flooding is already catastrophic as the upstream sections thaw
while the downstream sections are still covered in ice. This project would allow for flooding to be controlled,
which is increasingly critical in order to protect communities and land. The well-known devastating effects
of floods along rivers running south-north are evident every year along the Chaudière River. It also appears
that the older hydropower stations on the Ottawa River will need to be modified anyway in order to increase
their discharge capacity.
How can we prevent, or at least mitigate, the dreaded effects of climate change along the St. Lawrence River?
1.3 Mitigating the impacts of climate change: current options
In order to mitigate the growing impacts of the depletion of the St. Lawrence Basin, we appear to have three
options: passively witness the continent-wide environmental catastrophe of the depletion of the Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence River; build control structures along the river to maintain water levels despite reduced flow
rates; or import freshwater from an adjacent basin.
The first option is to passively watch the water supplies in the Great Lakes region dwindle by 20% to
30%. This would have an enormous impact on the entire St. Lawrence River Basin, including in Quebec,
where climate change has led to a significant drop in the river’s level for several years. The river’s flow area,
between Montreal and Quebec City, generally has a shallow riverbed, with the exception of a narrow channel.
So, a reduction in flow of 20% to 30% could easily lead to a narrowing of the river’s width by 40%. Hundreds
of square kilometres of shoreline could potentially dry out, radically altering the river’s sedimentation and
erosion processes. If we do nothing, some 18,000 km of shoreline along the entire Great Lakes Basin and the
St. Lawrence River upstream from Quebec City could be severely impacted.
14
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
The second option is to build four or five control structures along the St. Lawrence in order to maintain its
water level despite the river’s reduced flow. Structures would be required in the following locations: Sarnia, the
Lachine Rapids, the Montreal Harbour, Sorel and Deschambault. Although this option would help maintain
water levels as well as control seasonal flooding and low flow, it would undoubtedly have major consequences.
However, it would be much less harmful to fauna and water quality, so it should be considered as a first line
of defense.
In any case, we must urgently consider building a control structure at Sarnia, as was apparently planned when
the Seaway was created. While the need for freshwater did not justify doing so when the Seaway was built in
the early 1960s, the situation is completely different today. In addition to the structure’s ability to control
floodwaters, there is likely a need to stem erosion of the weir at Lake Huron’s outlet, given the fact that flow
rates appear to be stable or even increasing despite the depleting levels of Lake Huron.
We must manage water levels separately from water flows, an approach that does not seem to have been fully
considered until now. This option is presented in detail in Part 2 of this book.
The Northern Waters project explores the third option: diverting water from the James Bay towards the
St. Lawrence River Basin in an eco-friendly manner. The project calls for diverting a flow of 800 m3/s from
the Bell River and Waswanipi River.
Surface area of the Great Lakes, upstream to downstream
Lake Superior
82,100 km2
Controlled
Lake Michigan
57,800 km2
Uncontrolled
Lake Huron
59,600 km2
Uncontrolled, 5,150 m3/s on average
Lake Erie
25,700 km2
Uncontrolled
Lake Ontario
18,960 km2
Controlled
Total
244,160 km2, 143,100 km2 of which are uncontrolled, or 58.6%
1.4 St. Lawrence River management agreements and organizations
Agreements between Canada and the US: a historical overview
The possibility of diverting Canadian waters towards the US has been regularly brought up for over a century.
The issue has always incited protests on principle without any true, thorough technical study of a specific
project in order to assess actual implications. This is the case with the North American Water Power Alliance
(NAWAPA), which proposes to virtually deplete Canada’s waters to benefit the US. This project has been
promoted by a powerful organization since the early 1960s and we will come back to it later. The initial fear
was the depletion of certain rivers, which can be avoided by building the Northern Waters complex.
Another fear was that it would encourage our neighbors to the south to waste water, as if Canadians had
any room to talk. The current fear is that it would set a precedent and that the North American Free Trade
15
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
Agreement (NAFTA) would then be applied to water resources, despite the fact that the agreement specifies
that no project or measure affecting environmental quality may be imposed. Furthermore, a joint declaration
by the governments of Canada, the US and Mexico in 1993 reaffirmed the unique status of water and excluded
it from trade.
Over the years, laws have been passed by various legislatures banning any transboundary diversion projects,
going so far as to prohibit the governments concerned from financing any technical studies of such projects,
as if willful ignorance were a solution. In 1981, the Quebec government approved a ban on any bulk water
export. However, with climate change underway, these laws are clearly becoming increasingly unrealistic.
Since the early 20th century, negotiations have been held on sharing the St. Lawrence River’s hydroelectric
potential, and the St. Lawrence Seaway was completed in the 1950s. Since then, a number of technical and/
or political committees have continually looked after the interests of the dozen governments involved in
managing the waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, primarily through the International Joint
Commission (IJC), which spearheads them. The governments concerned include the US, Canadian, Ontario,
and Quebec governments, as well as those of the eight US states bordering these bodies of water. A partial list
of the major agreements is attached to the technical report.
In the 1960s, most politicians appeared favourable to a North American vision of water management. Lester
B. Pearson, then Prime Minister of Canada, remarked in 1965 that the United States was discovering that
water, one of its most precious resources, was becoming increasingly rare. “The issue of water resources is a
continental and international problem,” he said. In 1969, Jean Chrétien said, “Within 25 years, we will be
exporting water.”
In 1981, the Quebec government passed the first ban on any bulk water export. Canada’s continued stance
against bulk water export was reaffirmed on December 14, 2005 by a new international agreement.
Despite his pro-environment record, in June 2004, Quebec’s Minister of the Environment, Thomas Mulcair,
reopened the debate by supporting the idea of exporting bulk water, much to the dismay of the public, the
opposition and his own party, the Quebec Liberal Party. At the same time, an agreement on a study to expand
the Seaway was cancelled due to pressure from environmental groups.
The day after Canada’s refusal to export water via its signature of a new international agreement dated December
14, 2005, all the major newspapers reported that Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, along with several other key
figures, had stressed the importance and preciousness of freshwater, deeming it “more valuable than crude oil.”
However, as recently as 1985, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made it clear that the time had
come to draw water from the Great Lakes, should there be no other choice. Also in 1985, in his essay, “Energy in
the North,” Robert Bourassa actively supported the Grand Canal project put forth by Kierans, and personally
engaged several key stakeholders in the project, including engineers and politicians.
However, a new $20 billion clean-up agreement was approved in December 2005 and renewed in the spring
of 2007, and again on June 16, 2009.
16
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
Meanwhile, in the spring of 2008, Ohio Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher revived the debate by stating, “I think
it’s fair to say that we’re going to see in the next decade states and other countries looking for ways to get access
to our fresh water supply and we’re going to have to make some tough decisions about whether we want that to
happen and, if so, how.” In the long term, with the growing need for water among US states and Ontario, the
pressure will intensify. How can we prevent the US and Ontario from draining water from the Great Lakes?
On February 22, 2010, Lisa Jackson, head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), reported to
the media that the Obama administration had committed to invest $2.2 billion in a new 5-year program to
restore the Great Lakes. The program aims to prevent invasions of foreign species, including the Asian carp,
and to restore wetlands and shallow areas.
As the issue never appears definitively settled, in early 2013, the Canadian government passed Bill C-267,
which bans any future water exports.
In addition to witnessing the drying effects of climate change, we can now expect to one day face the painful
situation of a rapid depletion of the St. Lawrence River. We will then have to make sure we can meet the needs
of the populations and environments of the Great Lakes and Quebec.
Since the 1960s, the environmental aspect of the issue has become increasingly important. The primary
management organization of the St. Lawrence Basin is the International Joint Commission (IJC), which has
unsuccessfully tried since 2008 to gain approval for its updated water regulation plan. This is increasingly
difficult given the depletion of the Basin currently underway.
Quebecers must immediately take the necessary steps to turn this looming catastrophe into a profitable
opportunity. The work will take at least 15 years to complete, so we must start now. As more and more conflicts
break out around the world over water access, Quebec’s Premier may be the only head of government in the world
with a river at his or her disposal. Will the government task Hydro-Québec with a new continental mission?
The issue is even more critical as experts predict that climate change could dry out 20% to 30% of water inflows
to the Great Lakes. The agreements and laws of the past are becoming increasingly unrealistic in the face of the
climate changes underway. They were clearly passed without the awareness of the possibilities offered by other
alternatives, such as controlling the St. Lawrence sub-basins and implementing the Northern Waters project.
The United States: a highly respectful neighbour
We should give the US the credit it deserves for not yet draining water from the St. Lawrence River Basin to
meet its increasingly critical needs. Other powerful nations would have done so a long time ago. Elsewhere,
wars are increasingly breaking out, or soon will be, over water access. For example, Ethiopia cannot save a drop
of water from the Nile River even though it is that river’s key source.
Agreements in force and government jurisdictions
The scope of the Northern Waters project is unprecedented. As previously mentioned, it involves the governments
of Canada, the US, two provinces and eight states along the Great Lakes. It also involves several commissions,
17
Retour au site
Saving The St. Lawrence
committees and other organizations, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation and the
International Joint Commission.
A very partial list of agreements in force
1. James Bay and Northern Quebec
– James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
– Laws governing the creation of the SEBL and SEBJ
– Paix des Braves [Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Québec
and the Crees of Québec]
– Ministry of the Environment
– Ministry of Natural Resources
2. Ottawa River
– Interprovincial Agreement between Ontario and Quebec on the sharing of power sites (1943)
– Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board between Quebec, Ontario and Canada (1970)
3. Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, between Canada and the US
– International Joint Commission
– St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
1.5 International Joint Commission
This important commission manages the entire St. Lawrence River Basin. It brings together the Canadian
and US governments, organizations from the eight US states concerned, and organizations from Ontario
and Quebec. It also includes various governments, interest groups, hydroelectricity and Seaway users, and
countless others.
In the spring of 2013, after years of study and consultation, the Commission appeared to finally agree on the
implementation of Plan Bv7. However, despite the scope of the studies it required, the plan boils down to a
few weak measures that are insufficient to confront long-term challenges. In the end, the Commission agreed
to raise Lake Ontario by a few centimetres in order to create an additional reserve of water to mitigate the
lowest periods for the downstream section of the river, between Cornwall and Quebec City.
Is there any doubt that an eventual reduction of 20% to 30% in levels, along with the population’s water needs,
will require more effective measures?
1.6 Freshwater: a global problem
The issues facing the St. Lawrence are far from unique in the global context.
18
Retour au site
This document was typeset in Neo Sans, Myriad Pro
and Garamond Premier Pro
and printed at the Marquis Imprimeur press,
Cap St-Ignace, Quebec – Canada
in August two thousand fourteen
for Editor Marcel Broquet
Retour au site