The International Joint Commission

Flood Volunteer tries to get a word in edgewise. (YouTube)


The International Joint Commission

​... lacks therapeutic value.

This post is not exactly breaking news, but it's been on my mind ever since Trudeau announced, near the end of April, that :

• " ... cities across Canada will experience more frequent flooding because of climate change and governments need to adapt to this new reality."

• After her home was flooded in 2017, [resident Sonia Brown - Ile-Mercier] inquired about moving but said she was told she could get much more compensation if she rebuilt, which she said didn't make sense to her.

The thing is that, historically, severity of lakeland flooding has been measured in compensation dollars, according to a 1992 paper (PDF) written by several Canadian university researchers who questioned the common use of newspaper reports to assess overall damage!

So, there's a history of money paid out for flood damages, but no way of comparing the actual extent of the flooding itself, nor the comparable value of the dollar at any particular instance.

Records reportedly being broken, therefore, have great potential to mislead.

Could the current flooding be a human-caused condition?

NowToronto: 2019 -  Toronto Islands flood: why is this happening (again)?

• While a freak spring has pushed lake levels above what closed the park in 2017, stateside attention has turned to the International Joint Commission charged with regulating waterways between Canada and the US

The above article includes a short statement from the David Suzuki Foundation:

• ... that warmer air caused by global warming is causing freak weather patterns like the higher than average rain seen both this year and in 2017.

But I would say forget about the Suzuki types; they seem to have trouble keeping up. Back in the 1980's, their namesake went along with the spectre of a coming Ice Age, then switched to "global warming" as soon as it was government-approved; though, as frigid temperatures increased, our government felt more comfortable singing the more generic "climate change" tune.

Wow, here's a strangely contradictory statement at the Suzuki Foundation's Wikipedia site:

• It does not accept any government funding, except from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada ...

It's not only contradictory, but the title is incorrect: It's the "Natural" Sciences, not the "National Sciences". Now take a look at the Suzuki Foundation's major corporate donors and decide for yourself if he's bought and paid for.

Yes, climate is changing; in fact, it always does, and always has. But, as lucrative as it's turning out to be to blame Mother Nature, she may well not entirely be the culprit where the current flooding is concerned:

• While our elected city and provincial leaders have been silent on this point, [New York Governor Andrew Cuomo] has had harsh words for the International Joint Commission (IJC), the group charged with regulating the waterways between Canada and the United States. He's threatening the IJC with legal action over damages caused to homes and businesses by flooding saying the commission failed to take preventative measures after the 2017 deluge.

Did you know about the International Joint Commission's long-time interest in regulating the water levels in the Great Lakes region? I sure didn't. But I don't think it should be as left out of the flooding equation as Trudeau seems to want it to be.  He clearly likes us to focus on "climate change" so that the money-making "CO2 solutions" can proceed and he can "grow (somebody's) economy".

Apart from an embarrassingly obvious photo-op designed to make Trudeau appear to be just like one of the volunteers pitching in to help mitigate the flood damages, neither the Canadian provincial nor federal governments have had much to say about the flooding in general, although one man (a real, actual volunteer, whose work had been delayed by "30 minutes" by Trudeau's formidable entourage), had plenty to say (YouTube) to Trudeau about his holding up the works, though he really had to be persistent to get even a word in edgewise.

It wasn't one of Trudeau's finest moments, if he's had any at all. In fact, he was quite bossy and self-righteous, talking down to the man, who clearly was senior to Trudeau in years, as if he were a child.

Now here's some history of what Governor Cuomo (above) was angry about: It's called Plan 2014.

Headline June 2014:
International Joint Commission reaffirms Plan 2014 for Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River

• Continues protections from extreme water levels, restores wetlands and prepares for a changing future
• The IJC concludes that Plan 2014 should be implemented as soon as possible.

Headline July 2014:
Syracuse.com: Plan 2014, which would regulate Lake Ontario water levels, deserves U.S. support (Editorial)

• The current plan was put in place in the late 1950s to help stabilize the water levels that naturally varied as much as 8 feet during the course of a year - and at times more due to huge storms and ice jams.
• We endorse Plan 2014, a proposal developed and recently endorsed by the International Joint Commission, a panel of U.S. and Canadian representatives charged with preventing and resolving conflicts concerning shared use of waters on the countries' borders.

So, severe flooding not an uncommon occurrence, but dealt with OK for half a century until up pops a new, more advantageous (to whom?) plan with the excuse of helping to preserve wildlife and vegetation. How much do you want to bet that plan was more to mitigate squabbles over profit/power advantages than anything to do with nature.

Readers of the above editorial were not impressed; here's a comment from one of them:

Comment from "NoNeed4Facts":

• Land erosion prior to the current policies (Late 1950's) resulted in over 80 ft of land eroded to Lake Ontario. The current plan works and the water level is controlled in Montreal, Canada for the record. The constant studies are like those of Onondaga Lake, just another waste of money trying to present options that will only cause greater damage to satisfy a select environmental group for political gain.

Not only that, but according to the following report, Plan 2014 was actually designed to increase water levels.

Democrat&Chronicle: 2016 -  US, Canada adopt new Lake Ontario water-level plan

• Under the new plan, water levels will rise somewhat higher and drop somewhat lower than the old regulatory plan allowed. Plan 2014 is meant to more closely mimic the natural cycle of the lake's waters, helping to restore 64,000 acres of wetlands along the shoreline and improve fish and wildlife habitat there. Those wetlands have been damaged under the old plan, which seeks to keep water levels within a relatively narrow range, environmental experts have said.

BuffaloNews: 2017 [Rep. Chris] Collins blames International Joint Commission for Lake Ontario flooding threat

• [April 25, 2017] Residents say they cannot recall seeing the water so high, but figures from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers show the current level is 9 inches below the all-time record for April.
• "Plan 2014 has been an utter disaster for Lake Ontario taxpayers and communities since it was approved in the final minutes of the Obama administration," Collins said. "Both the property damage and overflow of debris into Lake Ontario that I inspected today could have been avoided. I came here today to assure local officials and Lake Ontario homeowners that I am working with the Trump administration to reform the IJC and repeal Plan 2014 as soon as possible."

The push against Plan 2014 may not succeed if the pro-media keep up with stuff like this:

NewYorkUpstate: 2017 - Is Plan 2014 really the culprit behind Lake Ontario's high water levels?

• Facts would indicate Mother Nature is to blame.

Syracuse.com: 2017 - Blame rainfall, not Plan 2014, for high Lake Ontario water levels

AuburnPub: 2017 - Is Plan 2014 to blame for high Lake Ontario levels?

• The commission [i.e.: the IJC} expects Lake Ontario will continue to rise in May and possibly June, depending on the weather conditions. They acknowledged that it's the highest levels reported on the lake since 1998, but that higher levels have occurred before and will occur again. 

Hmmmm... "higher levels have occurred before" -- . Is that an inadvertent admission that "climate change" is not a factor?

Finally, some US politicos are getting on the IJC's case:

• [US Rep, John] Katko, who visited Wayne County last week, said the high water levels have already caused property damage and shoreline erosion in Sodus Point. He said homeowners there are facing an "incredibly dire and costly situation." 
• The implementation of Plan 2014, he added, will continue to lead to drastic changes in water levels. 
• "Together with Rep. [Chris] Collins, I've fought against Plan 2014 from the start and this week we've urged the administration to permanently withdraw from Plan 2014 to avoid further damage," he said. 

But the ball bounces back:

​Syracuse.com: Lake Ontario hits record level after 'unbelievable' amounts of rain

"Unbelievable" does not a fact make; neither does it prove "climate change", but ...

• The lake level is now at 248.46 feet above sea level, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The previous record for this time of year was 248.20 feet, in 1973.
• Records date back to 1860.

Wouldn't you love to see those records?  I would. Were they obtained from newspapers, I wonder?

• The lake is likely to keep rising, too, and could set another record for the highest average level for the month of May.

NewYorkUpstate: 2019 - Is Plan 2014 getting a bad rap for Lake Ontario flooding?

• Rumors fly that the international board that lets water out of the lake is beholden to wealthy Canadians with waterfront property downstream, or that Lake Ontario is being kept high to please hydropower companies.

Ah hah!  So there IS a backlash that has nothing to do with "climate change" and maybe more to do with an infestation of large moola?  Some folks and industries not feeling the damp, while other residents are being deluged?

Syracuse.com: 2019 - Lake Ontario flooding isn’t ‘bad luck’: Plan 2014 is flawed (Commentary) Michael Riposo, of Syracuse, owns a seasonal home in Mexico, on the Lake Ontario shore.

• We have seen two years of flooding in the last three years. Was the flooding bad luck? ... Until 2017, the outflows of Lake Ontario were controlled by Plan 1958D. Some years saw lower lake levels, some years saw higher lake levels, but we never saw floods at our property.

Trudeau needs to sit that man down and 'splain to him about "climate change" the way he did to the irate flood volunteer about tough yewnowhuts. But as I said before, ever since that embarrassing video, he seems to have gone quiet on the subject.

However, from the Globe&Mail, May 2019:

• A main source of the problem, [Rehana Rajabali, senior manager of flood risk management for the TRCA [Toronto and Region Conservation Authority] said, is the record inflow of water Lake Ontario is receiving from Lake Erie.
• Before 2017, the previous time water levels reached such heights was 1973, Ms. Rajabali said.

An oblique reference to the effects of the ICJ's Plan 2014? (Correction: Should be IJC's Plan...)

Thanks to commenter Douglas for noticing and pointing out the error.