Residents on edge over Lake Ontario shore damage
UPDATE (Wednesday, April 5): Subsequent to publication of this story, the U.S. Department of State provided comment on Plan 2014 — and judging from that statement, it doesn't appear as if the Trump administration is in any hurry to roll back the controversial lake-level plan.
The statement describes the lengthy process through which the International Joint Commission, a U.S.-Canada treaty organization, developed the new lake-level plan. The statement from Washington does not endorse the plan in so many words, but does indicate the State Department is not interested in entertaining criticism of it.
"We defer questions regarding the technical elements of the Plan and its implementation to the IJC. We also defer questions regarding the scientific and economic analysis and other steps taken in the Plan’s development to the IJC," the statement said.
The U.S. statement is not dissimilar to one received earlier from its Canadian counterpart, Global Affairs Canada.
The full text of both statements has been added at the bottom of this story.
Originally published online Friday, March 31, 2017
March's fierce storms devastated parts of the Lake Ontario shoreline, in the process freshening anger about high water and the new government plan to regulate the lake’s levels.
As one storm after another battered the shoreline, waves ate away large chunks of the shoreline in some places, residents say, and battered breakwalls and other shoreline structures. A pair of narrow lakeshore peninsulas in Wayne County were sliced in two when waves scoured away soil. Social media posts show at least one old cottage left teetering at the edge of a bluff eroded away by the storms.
Critics who live on the shoreline claim the new plan, in effect only two months, worsened storm-related erosion and other damage whose costs stretches into the millions of dollars.
Experts said that was absolutely not the case.
Still, angry, threatened shoreline property owners in the Rochester area have asked the most powerful politicians they can find, congressmen John Katko and Chris Collins — and Collins' close confederate, President Donald Trump — to step in and scotch the new regulatory plan.
“We’re not going to stop. Our homes, our livelihoods, are at stake,” said Jack Steinkamp, a leader of a shoreline property owners’ group that petitioned the White House.
Whether their petitions leads anywhere remains to be seen. The Canadian government, which would have to concur with any roll-back of the plan, told the Democrat and Chronicle that it has no interest in doing so.
The potential intervention of President Trump in a dispute over the water line in Lake Ontario may seem unusual. But in some ways it’s par for the course when it comes to the issue, which is the subject of what could be the longest-running government regulatory debate in upstate New York.
It's been a bone of contention for nearly 50 years.
More: The Great Lakes plan folks love to hate
More: If your land disappears, what then?
The new Plan 2014 itself was adopted only after 15 long years of study, argument, revision and closed-door deliberation. Meant to help the lake’s natural ecosystem, Plan 2014 will allow the water level to rise higher and fall lower at certain times than it would have under the old rules. Additional shoreline damage is likely to result from the higher waters, officials concede.
But this wasn’t one of those times.
The water in Lake Ontario was actually two inches lower than it would have been if the old regulations still had been in use, Frank Bevacqua, a spokesman for the International Joint Commission (IJC), said last week. The U.S.-Canada border commission is the body that developed and adopted Plan 2014.
And no plan, he and others said, could have protected the shoreline from the ravages of 80-mph wind gusts and a three-day northeaster.
“When it comes to events like we’ve had these last two or three weeks, you’re still going to see damage,” said Keith Koralewski, chief of hydrology in Buffalo for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which tracks lake levels and advises the IJC.
Proponents of Plan 2014 say, though, that erosion and shoreline damage is not the fault of regulations but an unavoidable consequence of bad weather. They say people should accept that fact and give the new plan a chance to work.
“There's been so much hysteria in recent years about Plan 2014 that I occasionally feel the need to offer a counterpoint,” said Ned Ludd, who has a summer place on Sodus Bay. “Yes, we're all concerned about potential damages from the weather and the lake, but let's not sacrifice facts in the hunt for a villain. Sometimes these things are simply beyond control, and there is nobody to blame.”
Great Lakes funding among targets in Trump budget
Some critics of Plan 2014 insist the shoreline would have fared better in March under the old regulatory plan. Others concede that the new rules may not have made things worse this time but say that next time, they might. The current forecast is for Lake Ontario to remain a foot above average through the summer if rainfall is in the normal range. What if there are more fierce storms then?
Shoreline critics say federal and state authorities have added insult to injury by seeming disinterested in hearing about the damage. Moreover, they say government has failed to provide much-talked-about funding to help them shore up breakwalls and riprap.
Said Dr. Dan Barletta, who lives on the lake in Greece and who served on the IJC study panel whose work led to Plan 2014:“There’s no place to send damage claims to, and we’ve heard nothing about money."
'Money? No'
“Money? No, not only is there no money, but there’s not even any effort,” said Frank Sciremammano, a Brighton resident who sat on the same IJC committee as Barletta.
The IJC estimated that the new regulatory plan will cost shoreline property owners an average of $2.8 million a year, most of that related to the cost of replacing and upgrading protective structures such as breakwalls. Most of that cost would be incurred along the south shore of the lake, centered on the Rochester area. A rule of thumb for costing these structures is $1000 per foot.
None of the other water-level interest groups — commercial shippers, recreational boaters, hydropower generators, St. Lawrence riverbank residents — would suffer an economic loss under the plan, according to IJC estimates.
For years the commissioners have said that government agencies should provide funding to help offset these shoreline costs. New York state and federal officials have agreed in principle.
Shoreline residents say protective structures are essential. "You can’t appreciate the power of the water until you live there," said Phil Miglioratti, who lives on the lake in Webster. His property, guarded by a relatively new array of boulders, survived the storms nicely.
He knows they won't protect his property forever. "There needs to be some maintenance of the walls, some reconstruction. You just can’t put a wall in 30 years ago and expect it to last," he said. "Would it (funding) be helpful? Would it be a great consideration? Yeah."
But while nearly everyone agrees, no one has provided the funding.
New York state officials told the Democrat and Chronicle that they are “exploring all reasonable funding opportunities to assist local communities.” But they added that since Plan 2014 was an international creation, Washington should supply the money.
And while various members of New York’s congressional delegation have mentioned the value of such a fund, none has been forthcoming. In a statement provided last week, U.S. Rep. Collins, R-Amherst, Erie County, said the IJC itself should arrange for the money. It's failure to do so, Collins said, is one reason why "this disastrous plan" should be abandoned.
Collins and at least one colleague are working to accomplish exactly that. In January, Collins and U.S. Rep. John Katko, R-Camillus, Onondaga County, said they'd asked the Trump administration to “review and reconsider” Plan 2014.
Asked last week if the White House had signaled an intent to act, Collins said in a statement that he and Katko "are working to examine any and all options available to ensure this disastrous plan doesn’t further harm our lake shore residents and communities.”
A White House spokeswoman deferred to the State Department, which didn't respond to a request for comment.
Steinkamp said his citizens group, the Lake Ontario Riparian Alliance, went Collins and Katko one better: They asked Trump in a recent letter to strip all funding from the IJC, as well as to kill Plan 2014.
"We haven’t heard back yet," Steinkamp said.
Under provisions of the bilateral treaty that created the IJC more than a century ago, the votes of at least four commissioners would be needed to amend or replace the regulatory plan. The executive of each nation appoints three commissioners, meaning, in essence, that the two countries' leaders would have to sign off on any change.
And from the sound of things in Ottawa, that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
"The decision to support the IJC’s recommendations comes after many years of work and consultations with stakeholders, provinces, Indigenous peoples, and other government departments," said John Babcock, a spokesman for Global Affairs Canada, the equivalent of the U.S. State Department. "Plan 2014 is a solution for both the environment and the economy, and is a major step towards more effective transboundary water governance."
Full statement from the U.S. Department of State, received Monday, April 3
Plan 2014 seeks to address impacts to the near shore of Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River environments under the now-revised regulation orders from the 1950s.
The International Joint Commission (IJC) developed 'Plan 2014' over more than 16 years of scientific study, public engagement and government review. During the five-year Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study (2000-2006), technical experts and stakeholders built evaluation models and tested hundreds of alternatives, with extensive public participation throughout the process. The IJC provided numerous opportunities for public comment before proposing the Plan.
A Board of Control was established effective January 2017 that will include state and provincial representation to oversee the Plan.
We defer questions regarding the technical elements of the Plan and its implementation to the IJC.
We also defer questions regarding the scientific and economic analysis and other steps taken in the Plan’s development to the IJC.
Full statement from Global Affairs Canada, received Monday, March 20
The decision to support the IJC’s recommendations comes after many years of work and consultations with stakeholders, provinces, Indigenous peoples, and other government departments.
After carefully reviewing the recommendations made by the International Joint Commission (IJC) in June 2014, Canada and the United States have provided the International Joint Commission with their concurrence to update the regulation plan for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
Plan 2014 is a solution for both the environment and the economy, and is a major step towards more effective transboundary water governance by Canada and the United States, in partnership with the IJC.
Shoreline protection? $1000 per foot
The Lake Ontario shoreline in the Rochester region consists in many places of easily eroded collections of sand, gravel and clay. Waves are a constant. Strong winds from the northern quadrant can greatly increase waves' size and power.
To combat loss of shoreline, many property owners turn to either vertical breakwalls or sloped revetments built of boulders and stones and known as riprap. A study by the International Joint Commission found nearly 6,200 properties on the Lake Ontario shoreline had such protection.
But riprap and breakwalls are very expensive to install, have finite lifespans and can be ineffective. High lake levels cause more structural stress on protective installations, increasing maintenance costs and hastening the day when a replacement is needed.
It costs an average of $1,000 per foot of shoreline to install protection, said Frank Sciremammano, an engineer who has worked on many such projects, and a former IJC committee member.
Property owners must hire an engineer and surveyor to create a design, which is submitted to the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the permitting process. Design can take two months. Three to six months more are needed to get permits, Sciremammano said.
Then comes construction, which can be time-consuming and difficult. The options:
- Vertical breakwalls, typically of concrete. These are considered less desirable, as they are more easily damaged by waves. Wave action also can undercut the wall, making it prone to fall over into the water. If waves crash over the top of the wall, water can build up behind it, increasing the odds of it tipping over. In locations where a home is close to the water, there is no room for anything but a breakwall, however.
- Sloped riprap, made of boulders and large stones. These are more desirable, as the rocks gradually break the action of waves and allow water to seep back into the lake. They can provide habitat for fish and invertebrates and are environmentally better, Sciremammano said. But more space is needed in create a gradual slope of rocks, and in some locations there is no room.
Many property owners install no protection because they can’t afford the cost or they choose to let nature take its course.
“If I’m set back 100 feet from the shoreline with my structure and the average erosion rate is a foot a year, and I’m 65 years old and have a house … well, somebody else can deal with it,” Sciremammano said.
More: The Great Lakes plan folks love to hate