Synthesis of Public Comment >

Introduction

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States (the Governments) expresses the commitment of both countries to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The Agreement was first signed in 1972 and last amended in 1987.

Article X of the Agreement requires that the Governments conduct a comprehensive review of its operation and effectiveness following every third biennial report of the International Joint Commission (Commission or IJC). Under Article VII, the Commission is required to produce such reports concerning progress toward achieving the Agreement's general and specific purposes.

The Commission itself was established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Article IX of that Treaty authorizes the two Governments to refer matters to the Commission for examination, study or other action, and to report findings to the Governments and the public.

Request from Governments
Outreach efforts
About the participants
Main themes that emerged during the consultations

Request from Governments

The Commission's Twelfth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, issued in September 2004, triggered the Article X requirement for Governments to undertake a mandatory review of the Agreement. In June 2005, the Governments asked the Commission to assist them by carrying out a series of public meetings and gathering public comment before the Governments' review of the Agreement, which is scheduled to commence in the early part of 2006. This request was made by Letter of Reference under Article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty. It is also consistent with Article VII of the Agreement, which gives the Commission responsibilities to assist the Governments in the implementation of the Agreement.

The Governments asked the Commission to conduct five regional meetings across the basin beginning with the previously scheduled Biennial Meeting on Great Lakes Water Quality in Kingston, Ontario. The purpose of the meetings was to educate the public about the Agreement and provide an early opportunity for public input into the review (see Appendix A for the Letters of Reference).

In order to carry out its responsibilities with efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the Commission sought to establish partnerships with local governments across the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin, including through the auspices of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.

Mayors in both countries cooperated enthusiastically by making meeting spaces and equipment available for the Commission's public meetings and assisting with publicity for the events. This generous assistance reduced the Commission's operating costs, thereby enabling it to triple the number of public meetings and launch an innovative on-line Web dialogue in order to greatly increase the opportunities for people across the basin to express their views about the issues that should be considered during the review. The Commission, therefore, wishes to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the following mayors and their city staff:

Mayor Harvey Rosen of Kingston, Ontario was also instrumental in making the historic city council chamber and other facilities available to the Commission during its Biennial Meeting in June 2005.

To assist in the planning and implementation of its consultation process, the Commission established a 22-member Advisory Committee of key U.S. and Canadian leaders and experts from across the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. The Commission wishes to acknowledge the contribution and dedication of the Advisory Committee members:

Outreach Efforts

In addition to specifying regional meetings, the Governments encouraged the Commission to make use of information technology to expand the opportunity for residents throughout the basin to participate in the process. The Commission was also asked to develop background materials for use in the consultation, and the Governments undertook to provide basic funding to support the Commission's efforts in connection with the Reference.

The Commission utilized information technology by hosting a Web dialogue - an online discussion over four days on a variety of topics with a moderator and expert panelists. A toll-free telephone line and a dedicated email address were also established for submitting comment, along with the Commission's own web site, facsimile and regular mail services.

The Commission produced a number of publications to support these activities, including a brochure to announce the consultation process, a Guide to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and a workbook that served as a consultation document. Summaries of all public meetings and the Web dialogue were posted on the Commission's website within days of each event, and full transcripts of the sessions were posted as soon as available. All informational materials and meeting summaries were released simultaneously in English and French. For the Web dialogue, the Commission also developed a fully bilingual website and employed a team of translators to translate each comment in as near to real-time as possible.

Almost 20,000 copies of the guide were distributed, many by members of the Advisory Group and the offices of mayors. Display advertising and news coverage were helpful in publicizing the initiative, as were the hot links on the web sites of Advisory Group members' organizations and the Governments, and announcements by the Great Lakes Information Network.

About the Participants

The Commission collected data on participation by taking attendance at meetings and counting the submissions it received. Information about the participants themselves was derived from registration forms at the Kingston Biennial Meeting in June, voluntary and anonymous surveys of participants at the meetings and in the Web dialogue, as well as from the submissions it received by hand, email, fax, mail and telephone. While these surveys and other data-gathering methods are not scientific, they do provide a general picture of who participated and how.

Total Participation and Channels of Participation

Altogether, 4,133 people participated in the process. This is an excellent turnout considering the potential for "consultation fatigue" from other consultations underway in the basin at the same time (Annex 2001, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study, and other Great Lakes-related consultations by provincial and state governments).

As the table below shows, nearly three-quarters of participants used online channels (email, the website or the Web dialogue). It is important to note, though, that more than eight in 10 online participants – and more than six in 10 of all participants – sent form letters via submit forms on third-parties' websites.

1. None of these counts includes IJC commissioners and staff, translators or other contractors. Those who participated in a single channel more than once (e.g., they called several times or sent several emails) are counted only once in that channel. On the other hand, those who participated in more than one channel are included in the total for each of them.
2. Informal head count; of these, 453 registered.
3. The number of people who registered for the Dialogue, as opposed to the number who actually joined the online discussion.
4. Emails sent to gl@windsor.ijc.org via submit forms on third parties' websites, including PIRG Illinois, PIRG Wisconsin and PENNEnvironment.

For the 1,443 people who participated directly in the Commission's process (i.e., those who attended meetings or corresponded directly with the IJC, rather than through third-parties' websites), the 15 public meetings (including the Kingston Biennial Meeting) were the main draw, attracting more than 70 percent. Only seven percent used email and about 4 percent used the more traditional phone, fax or mail. The Web dialogue, an innovation and a first for the Commission, attracted nearly 250 people, fully 17 percent of all those who participated directly in the Commission's consultation. Ninety people participated in two or more channels.

See also Appendix B, tables 1, 2 and 3.

Location

Over 80 percent of participants, including those who sent emails through third parties' websites, came from the United States. The top states of origin were Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which together accounted for about 75 percent of the total.

If we exclude the third-party submits, however, and look at those who participated directly, involvement by Canadians and Americans was more evenly shared, with a slightly higher turnout by Canadians than Americans (53 percent compared with 45 percent). As might be expected, the bulk of the participants (93 percent) came from the Great Lakes states and provinces, with Ontario in front with nearly 49 percent, followed at a distance by Michigan (11 percent).

More than half of the participants in the public meetings and the Web dialogue came from lakes Michigan, Ontario and Huron, while nearly as many came from the St. Lawrence as from Lake Erie.

Nearly six out of every 10 people who came to a meeting or joined the Web dialogue¹ were from urban and suburban areas.

See also Appendix B, tables 4, 5 and 6.

Participants' Education and Age

The bulk of those who took part in the meetings and joined the Web dialogue had an undergraduate or post-graduate degree and were aged between 30 and 64. Very few—just over six percent—were under 30.

Of those at the public meetings and in the Web dialogue who identified themselves as Canadians and identified a first official language, just over 6 percent said they were francophone.

See also Appendix B, table 7.

Interest and Involvement in the Great Lakes

The environment was the meeting and dialogue participants' primary interest, followed by recreational interests. Commercial interests (agriculture, industry, fishing, shipping) were each cited by about 10 percent of participants.

Nearly a third of those who attended meetings or joined the Web dialogue said they were members of environmental groups. Individuals representing a total of 98 organizations made presentations at the meetings or sent in submissions.

See Appendix B, table 8, and Appendix C.

Main Themes that Emerged during the Consultations

Participants in the Commission's consultations were asked to respond to four questions related to expectations, effectiveness, scope and public engagement. These four questions are also used as the framework for organizing this synthesis report. The Commission systematically reviewed the issues raised in the unedited record of public comment, which totals more than 5,000 pages, and selected comments for the synthesis report that reflect the main points that were made by the participants, as well as minority views. As the participants' own words best capture the nuances of the comments, the Commission included many direct quotes. The views expressed in the synthesis report are from the individuals and organizations that participated in the public comment process. They are not the views of the Commission. No random sampling was performed, so the record of public comment represents the opinions of people who participated in the public consultations and not necessarily the opinions of the population in the Great Lakes basin as a whole. The high level of participation and depth of commentary, however, demonstrate once more that there is a strong constituency for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Several main themes emerged during the Commission's public comment process:

• Participants expressed strong support for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and wanted all levels of government to reinvigorate their efforts to implement it.
  
  
• Participants demanded good water quality and said it is essential to ensure a healthy future for the lakes and the socio-economic well being of the basin's residents and their communities.
  
  
• Many concerns related to releases of municipal sewage and animal wastes. Participants wanted initiatives to address these issues included in a revised Agreement.
  
  
• Many participants were concerned about water quantity and climate change and wanted these issues to be addressed in the review of the Agreement.
  
  
• Considerable concern was expressed about aquatic invasive species and many participants also wanted this issue to be included in a revised Agreement.
  
  
• Participants were concerned about a variety of land use and watershed management issues. Many thought that these should be addressed during the review, especially the protection of wetlands.
  
  
• There was a great deal of comment on the lack of progress toward delisting and restoring beneficial uses in Areas of Concern, as well as the need to reinvigorate Remedial Action Plans.
  
  
• Participants in different parts of the basin said the Agreement should include the St. Lawrence River, downstream of the international boundary at Cornwall, Ontario, and Massena, New York
  
  
• Many participants thought that more public education efforts were needed to build support for Great Lakes restoration.
  
  
• Many participants voiced support for a stronger Commission role to hold Governments accountable for achieving their Agreement commitments, to educate the public about the Agreement and to facilitate public input during the review of the Agreement.

¹ Those who participated in the public meetings (excluding the Kingston Biennial) and registered for the Web dialogue were asked to complete a voluntary, non-identifying survey; 69 percent of them did so. Since participants in the other channels (including the Kingston Biennial Meeting) did not have the opportunity to join the survey, certain information (notably nearest waterway, age, education, interest) is not available for them.

Last update: