Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The International Joint Commission, with special emphasis on the Great Lakes water quality agreement… Boettcher, Jens 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A64 B64.pdf [ 11.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077641.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077641-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077641-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077641-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077641-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077641-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077641-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077641-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077641.ris

Full Text

THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION -WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT. A VIEW FROM THE CANADIAN SIDE. by JENS BOETTCHER Rechts referendar i n Bonn A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE FACULTY OF LAW We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the requ i red standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1977 c ) Jens Boettcher 1977 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l icat ion of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. Jens Boettcher Bgpa:pfcmen=fc==o£ Facu l t y o f Law The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 207S Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date A u 9 u s t 2> 1 9 7 ? - i -ABSTRACT The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission was i n s t i t u t e d under the Boundary Waters Treaty o f 1909; i t held i t s c o n s t i t u t i v e meeting i n 1912. The prime purpose of t h i s o r gan i z a t i on i s to prevent or s e t t l e Canadian -U.S. boundary waters - and c e r t a i n other - d i spu te s . The func t i on s and powers the Commission was given under the 1909 Treaty are d i v i ded i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s : a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , q u a s i - j u d i c i a l , a r b i t r a l , and i n v e s t i g a t i v e and adv i s o r y . The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f unc t i on s were r e -s t r i c t e d to a then c o n t r o v e r s i a l group of boundary waters i n the p r a i r i e s . In i t s q u a s i - j u d i c i a l c a p a c i t y , which accounted f o r the ma jo r i t y of i t s work i n the f i r s t h a l f of i t s e x i s t e n c e , the Commission i s empowered to grant or w i thho ld permiss ion f o r c e r t a i n planned en-deavours - p u b l i c or p r i v a t e - t ha t would a f f e c t boundary waters . Thus f a r , the se r v i ce s of the Commission i n i t s a r b i t r a l c apac i t y have not been c a l l e d upon. In recent years most of the Commission's work has r e s u l t e d from matters r e f e r r e d to i t by the two fede ra l Govern-ments f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and adv i so ry opinion:.' In i t s most comprehensive endeavour ye t the Commission, a t the request o f the two Governments i n 1964, i n v e s t i g a t e d and reported upon p o l l u -t i o n i n the lower Great Lakes and the i n t e r n a t i o n a l s e c t i on of the St . Lawrence R i ve r . The Commission's f i n a l f i nd i n g s and recommendations, pub l i shed i n December, 1970, prov ided the bas i s f o r the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, entered i n t o by Canada and the United States s i x t een months l a t e r . The Agreement i s a comprehensive and d e t a i l e d p o l l u t i o n abatement programme, based upon l a i d down water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . I t g ives the Commission c e r t a i n , p r i m a r i l y s u r v e i l l a n c e powers wiith regard to Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n w i t hou t , however, changing the fundamental s t r u c t u r e of i t s f unc t i on s and powers. Though the c lean-up of the Great Lakes i s t a k i n g cons ide rab l y longer than expected the two s i gna to r y coun t r i e s can , accord ing to the wording of the Agreement, hard ly be he ld l i a b l e f o r breach of t r e a t y . A comparison w i th severa l i n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions concerned w i th water resources revea l s t ha t the performance record of the I n t e r -na t i ona l J o i n t Commission i s dec ided l y s upe r i o r to that of the o the r s . Th i s can be a t t r i b u t e d to c e r t a i n e x t r i n s i c advantages which i t has over i t s c oun te rpa r t s , such as the number of coun t r i e s i n v o l v e d , t h e i r p o l i t i c a l , c u l t u r a l and economic p r o x i m i t y , and the geog raph i ca l l y balanced l o c a t i o n o f the boundary wate r s , as we l l as to the way. i n which i t has conducted i t s bus iness , thus b u i l d i n g up a re spectab le r epu ta t i on over the yea r s . Neve r the le s s , the Commission can i l l a f f o r d to r e s t on i t s l a u r e l s . There remains cons ide rab le room f o r improvement i n i t s ope ra t i on s . Moreover, major dec i s i on s concerning i t s f u tu re s t r u c t u r e as we l l as a reassessment o f i t s f u tu re r o l e w i l l have to be made in the near f u t u r e . The f i n a l pa r t of t h i s t he s i s examines 1. whether the s i z e of the Commission i t s e l f should be increased or whether the present s i x Commissioners shou ld , i n s t e a d , a l l serve on a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s ; t h e ! l a t t e r i s p r e f e r r e d ; 2. whether the Commission shou ld , or should not move towards becoming an i n t e r n a t i o n a l Great Lakes environmental a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y ; b a s i c a l l y , i t should no t ; 3. the extent to which the p u b l i c can p a r t i c i p a t e i n the work of the Commission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indepted to the people o f Canada who, through t h e i r Canada C o u n c i l , have prov ided me most generously w i th the support t ha t has enabled me to pursue my s tud ie s a t Vancouver. My thanks go f u r t h e r to the Facu l t y of Law at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l -umbia, where I have b e n e f i t t e d g r e a t l y from the c o r d i a l atmos-phere and the count le s s in s tances o f i n d i v i d u a l a s s i s t ance and encouragement I was accorded. Spec ia l thanks are owed to C.B. Bourne f o r h i s constant guidance (and pat ience ! ) . A.R. Thomp-son ' s benevolent support i s , l i k e w i s e , g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged, as are the.cSessions w i th l . K . Fox of the Westwater Research I n s t i t u t e , and h i s a s s i s t a n t , D.M. LeMarquand, from which v a l -uable i n s i g h t s were ga ined. My work was f a c i l i t a t e d by the cooperat ion o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission; t h i s I g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge. Ruth Smith (and her a s s oc i a te s ) passed up many hours of summer sunshine i n order to have the manuscr ipt ready on t ime, i F i n a l l y , I must thank J . F . Tanguay, but f o r whose t r u s t and support a t the very outset t h i s p r o j e c t would not have been undertaken. J .B . - V -THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION -WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT. A VIEW FROM THE CANADIAN SIDE. PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i v TABLE OF CONTENTS v ABBREVIATIONS , x INTRODUCTION 1 PART ONE: O r i g i n s and Funct ions 3 I HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS 3 1. U.S. - Canadian boundary waters r e l a t i o n s 3 2. The Boundary Waters T r ea t y , 1909 5 II FUNCTIONS AND POWERS 9 A. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 11 1. A r t i c l e VI BWT 11 2. Rainy Lake Convention 13 B. Q u a s i - j u d i c i a l 13 1. A r t i c l e s I I I , IV, V I I I 13 a) Rainy R i ve r Improvement Company 14 a p p l i c a t i o n , 1912; docket no. 1 b) Greater Winnipeg Water D i s t r i c t 15 a p p l i c a t i o n , 1913; docket no. 7 c) C i t y of S e a t t l e (Ross Dam) 15 a p p l i c a t i o n , 1941;.docket no. 46 - v i -d) S t . Lawrence Power a p p l i c a t i o n 16 (by both f ede ra l governments), 1952; docket no. 68. e) Jean L a r i v i e r e a p p l i c a t i o n , 1935; 18 docket no. 33 2. Lake o f the Woods Convention 18 3. a) compliance enforcement 19 b) permanency o f orders 20 C. A r b i t r a l 21 1. A r t i c l e X BWT 21 2. A r t i c l e XVI Columbia R i ve r Basin 22 Treaty D. I n v e s t i g a t i v e (arid a d v i s o r y ) , 22 A r t i c l e IX BWT a) Lake o f the Woods Reference, 1912; 23 docket no. 3 b) P o l l u t i o n o f Lower Great Lakes 24 r e f e r e n c e , 1964; docket no. 83. PART TWO: Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement 25 I POLLUTION AND GREAT LAKES - BEFORE 1964 25 1. A r t i c l e IV BWT 25 2. P o l l u t i o n r e f e r e n c e , 1912; docket no. 4 26 3. Connecting Channels r e f e r e n c e , 1946; 29 docket no. 54 II DOCKET NO. 83 (1964) 31 1. The re ference and the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 31 2. F ind ings and recommendations 33 - v i i -I I I THE AGREEMENT 36 1. a) p r e - nego t i a t i on s contact s 36 b) nego t i a t i on s 38 2. The f i n a l document 43 a) p r ov i s i on s 43 b) Role of the IJC 47 c) Conc lus ion 51 IV IMPACT OF THE AGREEMENT 52 a) On i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l l u t i o n law 52 b) On the Commission 53 c) On p o l l u t i o n abatement. 55 PART THREE: The R e l a t i v e Success of the Commission; A Comparison 60 I LEGAL BASES 62 1. a) I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary and Water Commission 62 b) I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission 63 c) Chad Basin Commission 65 2. Eva lua t i on 67 II PERFORMANCE 80 a) Chad Bas in Commission 80 b) I n t e r na t i ona l Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission 84 c) I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary and Water Commission 95 I I I CONCLUSIONS 109 -' v i i i -PART FOUR: The Commission and the Future 112 1. The S t ruc tu re o f the Commission 112 a) The problem 112 b) Option 1 - Inc reas ing the s i z e of 113 the IJC c) Option 2 - F u l l t ime appointments 114 d) Proposal 119 2. The I JC , an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Great Lakes 120 Water Q u a l i t y Management Agency? a) the problem 120 b) advantages 122 c) disadvantages 122 ( i ) i n t e r n a l ( to Commission) 123 ( i i ) ex te rna l ( r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the 127 Governments) d) Conc lus ion 130 3. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 131 a) i n general 131 b) r e l a t e d to the IJC 133 c) Pe rm i s s i b l e ex tent 135 ( i ) a c t i v e 135 ( i i ) pass ive 138 d) past record and f u tu re p o s s i b i l i t i e s 139 e) Summary 142 CONCLUDING REMARKS 144 - i x -Appendix I - Boundary Waters T r ea t y , 1909. 147 Appendix II - I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, Rules o f Procedure, 157 1964. Appendix I I I - Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, 1972. 169 Appendix IV - I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, o r g an i z a t i ona l 204 s t r u c t u r e and boards Appendix V - I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, l i s t of I n t e rna t i ona l 205 p r o j e c t s , 1912-1975. FOOTNOTES 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY 248 ABBREVIATIONS Agreement a r t . Bevans BWT Can. B. Rev. Can. H i s t . Rev. Can. Pub. Adm. ch. c l . C o l . J . o f Transn. L. Commission C.T.S. C. Y .B. I .L . Dept. of S ta te Bui 1. D. L.R. f . f f . f n . GLWQA Governments Harv. I. L. J . IJC . I n t ' l and Comp. L. Qu. Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, 1972 a r t i c l e T r ea t i e s and other I n t e r na t i ona l Agree-ments of the United S tates of America 1776 - 1949 (see B i b l i o g r a p h y ) . Boundary Waters T rea ty , 1909. Canadian Bar Review Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Review Canadian..Public Adm in i s t r a t i on . chapter c l ause Columbia Journa l o f T ransnat iona l Law I n te rna t i ona l J o i n t Commission Canada Treaty Se r i e s Canadian Year Book o f In ternat iona l . Law Department of S ta te B u l l e t i n (U.S.) Dominion Law Reports and the f o l l o w i n g page and the f o l l o w i n g pages footnote Great Lakes Water Qua l i t y Agreement, 1972 Federal Governments o f Canada and the Un i ted States Harvard I n t e r na t i ona l Law Journal I n t e rna t i ona l J o i n t Commission I n t e r na t i ona l and Comparative Law Qua r te r l y - x i -I.R.A.Sc. I n t e r na t i ona l Review of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sciences J.W.T.L. Journa l o f World Trade Law L.N.T.S. : League o f Nations Treaty Se r ie s Ma l loy T r e a t i e s , Convent ions, I n t e r na t i ona l A c t s , P r o t o c o l s , and Agreements Between the United States o f America and Other Powers, 1776 - 1909 (see B i b l i o g r a p h y ) . McG i l l L. J . . McG i l l Law Journa l Mich. L. R. Michigan Law Review Nat. Res. J . Natural Resources Journa l N.Y.I.L. Netherlands Yearbook of I n t e rna t i ona l Law N.Y.U.J. I .L .P. New York U n i v e r s i t y Journal of I n t e rna t i ona l Law and P o l i t i c s op. c i t . c i t e d work p. page pp. pages para. paragraph P.C. P r i v y Counci l PL Pub l i c Law (U.S.) p t . par t RAB (Great Lakes) Research Adv i so ry Board R.E.D.'I. Revue Egyptienne de D ro i t I n t e rna t i ona l R.S.C. Revised S ta tu te s o f Canada s. s e c t i on ss . s ec t i on s SOR S t a tu t o r y Orders and Regu lat ions (Federa l ) S t a t . Un i ted S tates S ta tutes a t Large - x i i -supp. Treaty T r e a t i e s T.S. UBC L. R. U.N.T.S. U. of T. L. J . U.S.C. U.S.C.S. U.S.T. V i r g . J . o f I n t ' l Law v o l . W.W.R. ZAORV supplement Boundary Waters T rea ty , 1909. T r e a t i e s and Agreements A f f e c t i n g Canada, 1814 - 1925 (see B i b l i o g r a p h y ) . Treaty Se r i e s (U.S.Dept o f S ta te ) U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Law Review United Nations Treaty Se r ie s U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Law Journa l Un i ted States Code United S tates Code Se rv i ce United States T r ea t i e s and other Agreements V i r g i n i a Journal of I n t e r na t i ona l Law volume Western Weekly Reports Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r Aus lSndisches O f f e n t -l i c h e s Recht und Vt iTkerrecht ' \ o p t i m i s p a r e n t i b u s - 1 -INTRODUCTION For more than 160 years the northern boundary of the Un i ted States has been a peaceful one. In f a c t , Americans and Canadians c u r r e n t l y b e n e f i t from a harmonious r e l a t i o n s h i p which i s equa l l ed by few other neighbour ing peoples i n the wor ld today. Of the va r ious f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h i s comity o f nat ions a s i g n i f i c a n t one i s s u r e l y the ex i s t ence o f the var ious i n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions set up by the two coun t r i e s to deal w i th c e r t a i n matters o f b i l a t e r a l concern^, among them being the I n t e r na t i ona l P a c i f i c Ha l i bu t Commission, the I n t e r na t i ona l Great Lakes F i s h e r i e s Commission , and the I n t e r -2 na t i ona l Boundary Commission . The most noted one o f these bod ies , however, i s undoutedly the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. Though general p u b l i c awareness of i t s a c t i v i t i e s i s but recent i t has been 3 p l a y i n g a r o l e i n U.S. - Canadian r e l a t i o n s f o r some s i x t y - f i v e y e a r s , remaining somewhat en igmat ic u n t i l the pe r i od a f t e r World War I I . I t s r e l a t i v e o b s c u r i t y t i l l then can be a t t r i b u t e d p r i m a r i l y to the 4 f a c t t ha t i t was given most o f i t s major, f a r - r e a c h i n g tasks a f t e r 1945. I t s r e l a t i v e o b s c u r i t y from the p u b l i c view notwi ths tand ing the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission has r e g u l a r l y occupied the minds o f 5 s cho la r s and p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t s , though here , t o o , a marked increase i n recent years i s obv ious. At var ious times i n i t s h i s t o r y i t has been presented as a model o r g an i z a t i on f o r i t s counterpar t s - 2 -around the wo r l d . Despite the cons ide rab le s c h o l a s t i c i n t e r e s t i n i t there do not appear to have been any attempts o f l a t e to assess the u t i l i t y o f t h i s Commission i n l i g h t o f i t s changing ope ra t i ona l 7 8 p r i o r i t i e s . The Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement o f 1972 i s parad igmat ic of the s h i f t i n emphasis w i th regard to the Commission's a c t i v i t i e s . Th i s t h e s i s c o n s t i t u t e s an attempt to f i l l t ha t gap. I t w i l l f i r s t de s c r i be the fou r main f unc t i on s o f the Commission and b r i e f l y t r a c e t h e i r development by means o f a few s e l e c ted cases , or dockets . Then the Commission 's involvement w i th the q u a l i t y of the waters i n the Great Lakes, which f a l l s e n t i r e l y under i t s adv i so ry r o l e , w i l l be examined. Emphasis w i l l be p laced on how the Commission i n f l u enced the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement and how the Agreement has s i nce a f f e c t e d the Commission. In o rder to b e t t e r eva lua te the Commission 's r e c o r d , e s p e c i a l l y i t s a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to Great Lakes water q u a l i t y , i t w i l l be compared w i th three other i n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions i n vo l ved w i th water resources . As w i l l be shown these other commissions have been chosen f o r t h e i r s i m i -l a r i t i e s as we l l as f o r c e r t a i n d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s , which a d d i t i o n a l l y enable an assessment of ex te rna l f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the Commission's performance. F i n a l l y , an attempt w i l l be made to r e l a t e the know-ledge gained from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n to c e r t a i n cu r ren t quest ions the answers to which cou ld app rec i ab l y a f f e c t the f u t u r e a c t i v i t i e s o f the Commission. PART ONE : ORIGINS AND FUNCTIONS PART ONE: - 3 -The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission ( I . J .C . ) owes i t s 9 ex i s t ence to the Boundary Waters Treaty (B.W.T.), entered i n t o by Great B r i t a i n on beha l f o f Canada and the Un i ted S tates o f America i n 1909. I t was not the f i r s t such body e s t a b l i s h e d by two c o u n t r i e s , nor was the B.W.T. the f i r s t agreement between the High Con t r ac t i ng P a r t i e s concern ing t h e i r boundary waters . I 1. F i r s t mention o f water i n connect ion w i th the Canada - U.S. bounda r y^ was made as e a r l y as 1783, i n the Treaty o f P a r i s 1 1 , where - under the erroneous assumption t ha t i t s source was near the border - i t was prov ided that the nav i ga t i on on the M i s s i s s i p p i R i ve r was to remain open to B r i t i s h sub jec t s as w e l l as U.S. c i t i z e n s , an e r r o r l a t e r remedied by means of a subsequent p r o v i s i o n f o r a 12 survey of t ha t a rea . The Jay Treaty of 1794 dec la red the boundary waters open to nav i ga t i on and commerce by B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s , American c i t i z e n s , as we l l as Ind ians. A p r o v i s i o n c l a r i f y i n g the boundary l i n e a long the middle o f the S t . Lawrence R i ve r was conta ined i n the 1874 Treaty o f G h e n t . 1 3 P rov i s i on s o f a d i f f e r e n t nature w i th respect to boundary waters 14 were conta ined i n the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817 - namely naval armaments l i m i t a t i o n s on the Great Lakes and Lake Champ!ain. 15 The Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 conta ins p r o v i s i o n s - 4 -f o r f r ee nav i ga t i on and commerce by c i t i z e n s of both coun t r i e s on the boundary waters i n the Lake Super ior -Lake of the Woods area as we l l as i n par t s o f the S t . Lawrence, D e t r o i t and St . C l a i r R i v e r s , and i n Lake S t . C l a i r , B r i t i s h sub jec t s were g iven the r i g h t to nav igate the whole o f the Columbia R i v e r i n the Oregon T r e a t y 1 6 of 1846. The 1854 R e c i p r o c i t y T r e a t y 1 ^ marked the beginning o f a new development i n U.S. Canadian border r e l a t i o n s : U.S. c i t i z e n s were a l lowed to nav igate tha t par t of the St . Lawrence R i ve r who l l y w i t h i n Canadian t e r r i t o r y i n r e tu rn f o r equal r i g h t s f o r B r i t i s h subject s regard ing Lake M ich igan. Th i s t r e a t y was terminated by the Un i ted States i n 1866 over d i f f e r e n c e s a r i s i n g from i n c i d e n t s 18 i n v o l v i n g Great B r i t a i n dur ing the American C i v i l War , but s i m i l a r arrangements were again agreed upon by the two part ies i n the 1871 19 Treaty o f Washington. Th i s t r e a t y a l s o proc la imed freedom o f nav i ga t i on on the Yukon, Porcupine and S t i k i n e R iver s f o r Americans and B r i t on s a l i k e . By t h i s t ime problems i n v o l v i n g the use of boundary waters f o r o ther than nav i g a t i ona l and commercial purposes were becoming more 20 prominent i n U.S.-Canadian water r e l a t i o n s . Proposed water d i -ve r s ions f o r the purpose of i r r i g a t i o n ( S t . Mary and M i l k R iver s c o n t r o v e r s y ) , f o r the generat ion o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c i t y (Great Lakes and Niagara R i ve r d i v e r s i o n p l a n s ) , and f o r sewage d i spo sa l (Lake 21 M i c h i g a n - M i s s i s s i p p i R i ve r sewage canal f o r Chicago) , as we l l - 5 -as water l e v e l s (Lake o f the Woods) were very c o n t r o v e r s i a l i n the l a t t e r pa r t of the l a s t century . A l l t h i s shows t h a t , f a r from becoming s e t t l e d w i t h time i n l i g h t of the improving r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two neighbour ing coun t r i e s o f such s i m i l a r h e r i t a g e , i n c r ea s i n g popu la t ions as we l l as advancing techno log ie s and the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r economic endeavours were c on s t an t l y c r e a t i n g more and d i f f e r e n t problems i n urgent need o f s o l u t i o n s . Thus i t seems to have been but a matter of time before the obvious next step i n t h i s path o f developments would be openly advocated - a more permanent regime to deal w i th boundary waters c o n t r o v e r s i e s . 2. The Boundary Waters T reaty can be s a i d to have been seeded around the middle o f the 1890 ' s . At an American I r r i g a t i o n Congress i n Denver, Colorado i n 1894, at which Mexican and Canadian r ep -r e sen ta t i v e s were a l s o p re sent , a Canadian r e s o l u t i o n c a l l i n g upon the Un i ted States to appoint an " i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o i n t commission to act i n con junc t i on w i th the a u t h o r i t i e s of Mexico and Canada i n a d j u d i c a t i n g the c o n f l i c t i n g r i g h t s which have a r i s e n , o r may 22 he rea f t e r a r i s e , on streams o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l c ha r a c t e r " was adopted unanimously. An I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary Commission between the Un i ted States and Mexico had a l ready been e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1889, mainly to deal w i th Rio Grande d i v e r s i o n s , but the Mexicans were 23 s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s than s a t i s f i e d w i t h i t s performance. The f o l l o w i n g year a s i m i l a r r e s o l u t i o n was adopted - again - 6 -unanimously - a t the Fourth Annual Sess ion o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l I r r i g a t i o n Congress, he ld a t Albuquerque, New Mexico. A d i p l o m a t i c i n i t i a t i v e to t h i s e f f e c t by the B r i t i s h Ambassador a t Washington on beha l f o f the Canadian Government i n 1896, however, met w i th l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n Washington, so the matter r e s ted u n t i l 1902. In t ha t year i t was the American s ide that took i t up again w i th a congress iona l request to the P re s i den t to i n v i t e the B r i t i s h Government to " . . . j o i n i n the format ion of an i n t e r n a t i o n a l com-m i s s i on . . .whose duty i t s h a l l be to i n v e s t i g a t e and repo r t upon the cond i t i on s and uses of the waters adjacent to the boundary l i n e 24 between the Un i ted States and Canada. . . " But i t was not u n t i l 1905 t ha t the Canadian Government passed concur r i ng l e g i s l a t i o n and i n t ha t same year the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Waterways Commission was c r ea ted . I t c on s i s t ed of th ree American and th ree Canadian Commis-s i o n e r s ; i t s du t i e s were to " i n v e s t i g a t e and r epo r t upon the con-d i t i o n s and uses o f the waters adjacent to the boundary between the United S tates and Canada, i n c l u d i n g a l l the waters of the lakes and r i v e r s whose na tu ra l o u t l e t s i s by the r i v e r St . Lawrence to tha A t l a n t i c Ocean; a l s o upon the e f f e c t upon the shores o f these waters and the s t r u c t u r e s thereon and upon the i n t e r e s t s o f n a v i -gat ion by reason of the d i v e r s i o n of these waters f rom, or change i n , t h e i r na tu ra l f l o w ; and f u r t h e r to r epo r t upon the necessary measures to regu la te such d i v e r s i o n , and to make such recommendations f o r improvements and r egu l a t i on s as s h a l l best subserve the i n t e r e s t s 25 o f nav i ga t i on i n these wate r s . " - 7 -The Waterways Commission was pure ly an i n v e s t i g a t i v e body wi thout f i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , l e t alone any enforcement a u t h o r i t y . I t submitted severa l repor t s to the two governments and a l s o recommended, i n t e r a l i a , t ha t c e r t a i n governing p r i n c i p l e s i n the use o f boundary waters be e s t a b l i s h e d , t ha t a permanent j o i n t commission be c reated " t o superv i se the enforcement o f i t s recom-mendations, or t ha t i t be given t h i s power i t s e l f , and t h a t a t r e a t y be entered i n t o to s e t t l e the r u l e s and p r i n c i p l e s upon which a l l such quest ions may be p e a c e f u l l y and s a t i s f a c t o r i l y 2fi determined as they a r i s e . " A s p e c i a l commission f o r the d e f i n i t i o n and demarcation of the Canadian-U.S. border was e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant 27 to a t r e a t y r a t i f i e d i n 1908. George Gibbons, (as he then was), a Canadian member o f the Waterways Commission, had f i r s t suggested the conc lu s i on of a 28 boundary r i v e r s t r e a t y i n 1906, and he was subsequently en t ru s ted w i th r ep re sen t i ng Canadian i n t e r e s t s i n the t r e a t y n e g o t i a t i o n s , held i n Washington, under the l eade r sh i p of the B r i t i s h Ambassador to the Un i ted States ( l a t e r Lord) B ryce, on one s i de and the American Secreta ry of S t a t e , E l i h u Root, on the o the r . These nego t i a t i on s were very d i f f i c u l t . One o f the prime content ious i s sues was the very quest ion of whether to have a permanent commission, as was p r e f e r r ed by the Canadian s i de (with i n i t i a l support o f the U.S. Sec reta ry o f War T a f t ) , or merely p r o v i s i o n s f o r the e s t a b l i s h -ment o f ad hoc commissions whenever content ious i s sues should a r i s e , 29 as Mr. Root very s t r ong l y advocated. Another major i s sue (and - 8 -one t ha t has not even today been e n t i r e l y s e t t l e d between the two c o u n t r i e s ) , was the i n c l u s i o n i n any proposed t r e a t y of the Harmon 30 d o c t r i n e , which s t a ted that a sovere ign s t a t e has complete and uncond i t i ona l j u r i s d i c t i o n over the waters w i t h i n i t s t e r r i t o r y . The Americans i n s i s t e d upon t h i s wh i l e the Canadians advocated the p r o h i b i t i o n o f these d i ve r s i on s t h a t cou ld cause p u b l i c or p r i v a t e i n j u r y i n the o ther s t a t e . Although the Waterways Commission had recommended a p r o v i s i o n s i m i l a r to the Canadian p o s i t i o n and the Harmon d o c t r i n e cou ld not even at t h a t time be s a i d to have been gene ra l l y accepted as a p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, i t was 31 32 e v e n t u a l l y accepted by Canada i n a s l i g h t l y mod i f i ed form , i n 33 34 r e tu rn f o r American consent to a permanent commission. The t r e a t y drawn up i n these nego t i a t i on s was s igned at Washington on January 35 11, 1909. Despite some remaining r e se r va t i on s i t came i n t o f o r c e , a f t e r having been r a t i f i e d by Great B r i t a i n and the Un i ted States on March 31, 1910 and A p r i l 1, 1910 r e s p e c t i v e l y , on May 5, 1910, the day on which r a t i f i c a t i o n s were exchanged at Washington. The 36 Treaty was conf i rmed by the Canadian Par l iament i n 1911. The Boundary Waters Treaty, as w i l l be shown, does not p e r t a i n s o l e l y to boundary wate r s , nor i s i t s scope r e s t r i c t e d to i s sues concern ing the boundary. I t has the inherent p o t e n t i a l to prov ide f o r the se t t lement o f any controversy a r i s i n g between the two neighbour ing coun t r i e s by means o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. - 9 -The aim o f the Treaty was " t o prevent d i sputes regard ing the use o f boundary waters and to s e t t l e a l l quest ions which are now pending between the Un i ted S tates and the Dominion o f Canada i n v o l v i n g the r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s or i n t e r e s t s of e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to the other or to the i nhab i t an t s o f the o t he r , a long t h e i r common f r o n t i e r , and to make p r o v i s i o n f o r the a d j u s t -37 ment and se t t lement o f a l l such quest ions as may he r ea f t e r a r i s e . " Boundary waters are de f i ned as " t he waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and r i v e r s and connect ing waterways, or the po r t i on t h e r e o f , a long which the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary between the Un i ted S tates and the Dominion of Canada passes, i n c l u d i n g a l l bays, arms and i n l e t s t h e r e o f , but not i n c l u d i n g t r i b u t a r y waters which i n t h e i r na tu ra l channels would f l ow i n t o such l a k e s , r i v e r s and waterways, or waters f l ow ing from such l a k e s , r i v e r s , and 38 waterways, o r the waters f l ow ing across the boundary." T r i b u t a r i e s o f boundary waters are complete ly excluded from the p r o v i s i on s o f the t r e a t y , as are cross-boundary waters and waters f l o w i n g from boundary waters unless p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g the l a t t e r two a f f e c t the l e v e l or f l ow o f boundary waters . Such p r o j e c t s and boundary waters works are not permi t ted wi thout the p r i o r approval 39 o f the Commission. II A r t i c l e VII o f the Treaty sets f o r t h the es tab l i shment and maintenance o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, c o n s i s t i n g o f - 10 -s i x commiss ioners, th ree - i n c l u d i n g a chairman - from each s ide of the boundary. The c o n s t i t u t i v e meeting was he ld i n Washington on January 10, 1912. Pursuant to A r t i c l e X I I , which conta ins f u r t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s , the Commission s e t up two head o f f i c e s , one i n Washington, the o ther i n Ottawa, f o r the na t i ona l s e c t i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , and each s ec t i on appointed a permanent s e c r e t a r y . Rules o f Procedure were soon adopted by 40 the Commission and have on ly been reviewed once, i n 1964. The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission can be c a l l e d upon to pe r -form any one of f ou r d i f f e r e n t f unc t i on s - one being a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , another q u a s i - j u d i c i a l , the t h i r d a r b i t r a l , and the l a s t i n v e s t i -ga t i ve and, u s u a l l y , adv i so r y . On the f o l l o w i n g pages these separate f unc t i on s w i l l be e l u c i d a t e d by means o f a few s e l e c t cases handled by the Commission. The examples are intended to i n t roduce the reader i n t o the workings of the o r g a n i z a t i o n and to prov ide him w i th some bas i c i n fo rmat ion on who may deal w i th the Commission and i n what way, what steps the Commission takes i n o rder to reach a d e c i s i o n , and - b r i e f l y - some o f the i s sues i n vo l v ed . The main po r t i on o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l , however, cent re around the Commission and the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, so tha t an inquest i n depth i n t o the Commission 's f unc t i on s and problems r e l a t e d t h e r e t o , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h regard to the q u a s i - j u d i c i a l powers, though i n t e r e s t i n g , would exceed the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . o B O U N D A R Y W A T E R S T R E A T Y I PRELIMINARY ARTICLE Boundary Waters X Cross-Boundary Waters ART. II ART. I l l ] |ART. IV | X T r i bu t a r y Waters ART. II Waters from Boundary Waters ART. IV 1 INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION (ART. V I I , X I I ) Quasi -J u d i c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e ART. V I I l H ART VI Lake of the Woods Convention Rainy Lake Convention I n v e s t i g a t i v e and Adv i sory ART. IX A r b i t r a r y ART. X Columbia R iver Basin Treaty 1. The prime a d m i n i s t r a t i v e du t i e s o f the Commission are o u t l i n e d i n A r t i c l e VI o f the T r e a t y ; they p e r t a i n on ly to the S t . Mary and M i l k R ivers and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s i n Montana, A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan. These two r i v e r s are a t one po i n t i n t h e i r r e spec t i ve beds a l l but adjacent to one another , w i th the S t . Mary R i ve r then f l ow ing i n t o the Saskatchewan R i v e r , which e v e n t u a l l y empties i n t o Hudson Bay, and the M i l k R i ve r waters f l ow ing down to the Gu l f o f Mexico v i a the M i s sou r i and M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r s . The use o f t h e i r waters had been a content ious i s sue between Canada and the Un i ted S ta tes f o r some time p r i o r 41 to the conc lu s ion o f the Boundary Waters T rea t y : Both coun t r i e s were p lann ing to u t i l i z e them f o r i r r i g a t i o n i n the s em i - a r i d area through which they f lowed but t h e i r l i m i t e d q u a n t i t i e s of 42 water would i n no way have s u f f i c e d f o r the combined p r o j e c t s . I t was t he r e f o r e agreed upon i n 1909 ( A r t i c l e V I , i n t e r a l i a ) : a) to cons ide r the St . Mary and M i l k R iver s and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s i n Montana, A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan as being one stream f o r i r r i g a t i o n and power purposes; b) to appor t ion t h e i r waters e q u a l l y among both P a r t i e s , s ub jec t to a l t e r a t i o n s , i n order to ob ta in a more b e n e f i c i a l use to each; c) t h a t the Un i ted S tates cou ld d i v e r t waters from the S t . Mary R i ve r through the channel o f the M i l k R i v e r on Canadian t e r r i t o r y ; and - 12 -d) t ha t the measurement and apportionment o f the waters should be c a r r i e d out by rec lamat ion o f f i c i a l s from both coun t r i e s "under the d i r e c t i o n of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l 43 J o i n t Commission." (emphasis added). Only a few months a f t e r i t s i n i t i a l c o n s t i t u t i v e meeting the Commission took up t h i s problem. Yet i t was many years before the i s sue was se t t l ed , though a complete ly s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n was never f o rma l l y produced. A very c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s sue was whether the t r i b u t a r i e s o f the S t . Mary and M i l k R i ve r s t h a t d i d not cross the boundary were i nc l uded i n A r t i c l e V I , as the Canadian s ide ma in ta ined , or excluded from i t , as the Un i ted S tates c l a i m e d , i n accordance w i t h i t s Harmon d o c t r i n e . The i s sue was e v e n t u a l l y dec ided i n favour o f the Un i ted S t a t e s , which had, i n c i d e n t a l l y , before then a l ready proc la imed tha t they would not cons ide r the Conmiss ion ' s pronouncement upon t h i s ques t ion b i n d i n g , main ly because they d i d not want to en t r u s t the Commission i n i t s admin i -s t r a t i v e c apac i t y w i th the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a t r e a t y p r o v i s i o n . However, t ha t may be, the s i t u a t i o n now i s such t h a t , desp i te t h e i r o r i g i n a l r e s e r v a t i o n s , and a l a t e r b i d to reopen the n e g o t i -44 a t i o n s , which r e s u l t e d i n the Commission 's f i r s t s p l i t on na t i ona l l i n e s , the Un i ted S tates have, i n f a c t , accepted the Commission's i n i t i a l o rder o f 1921. Despite sovere ign j u r i s d i c t i o n i n g e n e r a l , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to envisage a change i n U.S. p r a c t i c e , w i t h respect to t h i s s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n , a f t e r decades of acquiescence. - 13 -2. A s pec i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n was ass igned to the 45 Commission through the Rainy Lake.Convention i n 1938. Accord ing to A r t i c l e I o f t h i s Convention the Commission has the power to determine when an emergency s i t u a t i o n w i th regard to the water of the lake e x i s t s , and to adopt app rop r i a te c on t r o l measures. B. 1. Of the f i f t y odd p r o j e c t s handled by the Commission i n the f i r s t h a l f o f i t s e x i s t e n c e , approx imately three quar te r s i n vo l ved 46 47 i t i n i t s q u a s i - j u d i c i a l c a p a c i t y . I t s powers and o b l i g a t i o n s w i t h respect t he re to are de f ined i n A r t i c l e V I I I , o f the B.W.T. i n con junc t ion wi th A r t i c l e s I I I and IV. Any proposed new use, o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n of boundary waters on e i t h e r s i de of the l i n e t ha t would a f f e c t the na tu ra l l e v e l or f l ow of boundary waters ( A r t . I l l ) - or o f waters f l ow ing across or from the boundary t ha t would r a i s e the l e v e l o f boundary waters (A r t . I V ) , r equ i r e the approval o f both the r e spec t i v e government having j u r i s d i c t i o n and 49 the Commission. Waters f l ow ing i n t o boundary waters are not 50 i n c l uded i n the T rea ty . Exempt from the requirements are cases 51 s p e c i a l l y agreed upon by the two P a r t i e s , works b e n e f i t t i n g 52 nav i ga t i on and commerce, and uses f o r domestic and s a n i t a r y purposes. I t becomes apparent here, and should be s t r e s s e d , t ha t i t i s , i ndeed, a unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, t ha t not on ly does i t r egu la te r e l a t i o n s between - 14 -governments, but i t a l s o has f i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a p p l i c a t i o n s by l e ga l as we l l as p r i v a t e persons concern ing works tha t would a f f e c t the boundary waters of the two c o u n t r i e s . A b r i e f look a t a,few of the cases the Commission has d e a l t w i th should e l u c i d a t e t h i s one of the Commission's severa l f u n c t i o n s . a) The very f i r s t case to be submitted to the Commission was an a p p l i c a t i o n by the p r i v a t e l y owned Rainy R i ve r Improvement Company of Minnesota, f o r a permit to con s t r uc t a dam across the American s e c t i o n o f the Rainy R i ve r a t K e t t l e F a l l s , a po i n t a t 53 which the r i v e r forms part of the boundary. Th.is had been approved by the Congress and the War Department. At the same t ime , the Ontar io and Minnesota Power Company, c o n t r o l l e d by the same i n t e r e s t s as the Rainy R i ve r Improvement Company had r ece i ved Par l i amentary a u t h o r i t y to con s t r uc t a dam on the Canadian s ide of the r i v e r , the r e s u l t o f which would be one dam across the whole of the Rainy R i ve r at K e t t l e F a l l s . The Commission, i n d i sm i s s i n g t h i s a p p l i -c a t i o n f o r l ack of j u r i s d i c t i o n , cons idered i t s e l f bound by the d e f i n i t i o n o f " s p e c i a l agreement" i n A r t i c l e X I I I o f the T rea t y , which exp re s s l y i nc ludes "any mutual arrangement between the Un i ted States and the Dominion of Canada expressed by concurrent o r r e c i p r o c a l l e g i s l a t i o n on the par t of the Congress and the Par l iament o f the Dominion." Accord ing to i t s own Rules o f Procedure the Commission i s o b l i g e d to conduct a formal, hea r i n g , should i t r e ce i ve an o b j e c t i o n to an a p p l i c a t i o n f i l e d pursuant to A r t i c l e s I I I , IV and V I I I . At the hear ing f o r the Rainy R i ve r Improvement Company a p p l i c a t i o n , the quest ion arose whether the Commission was not a l ready prevented - 15 -from e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s case by the f r e e n a v i -gat ion c lause o f A r t i c l e VII of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty 54 o f 1842. By the dec i s i o n i t u l t i m a t e l y rendered i n the case the Commission was ab le to s i de s tep t h i s i s s ue . I t has not been r a i s e d s i n c e . b) In the f a l l o f 1913 the Greater Winnipeg Water D i s t r i c t , a f t e r having procured a r e l e van t f ede ra l O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l , 55 app l i ed f o r permiss ion to use the waters of Shoal Lake f o r 56 domestic and s a n i t a r y purposes. Doubts arose at the hear ings as to the cha rac te r of Shoal Lake, which i s c l o s e l y connected 57 w i t h the Lake o f the Woods, as a boundary wate r , thus again ques t i on ing the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Commission. A f t e r the Commission had e s t a b l i s h e d that the waters o f Shoal Lake might not always be adequate to supply the es t imated needs i n t h i s case and tha t the wate r s , and subsequently the l e v e l , o f the Lake o f the Woods, undoubtedly a boundary water , might t he r e f o r e be a f f e c t e d , the Greater Winnipeg Water D i s t r i c t - upon the adv ice o f a Commissioner - amended i t s a p p l i c a t i o n and asked f o r the use o f the waters of Shoal Lake and the Lake of the Woods. The order of approval pe rmi t ted a maximum withdrawal of 100,000,000 ga l l on s o f water d a i l y . c) An a p p l i c a t i o n 5 8 was f i l e d i n 1941 by the C i t y of S e a t t l e to p r o g r e s s i v e l y r a i s e the l e v e l of the Ross Dam on the Skag i t R i v e r , a cross-boundary water. An i n i t i a l l y prepared d r a f t - 16 -o rder o f app rova l , sub jec t - i n accordance w i th A r t i c l e VII -to compensation being made to a l l i n t e r e s t s concerned, was amended upon the suggest ion o f the C i t y o f S e a t t l e , p r o v i d i n g then that the dam would not be r a i s e d above a height t ha t would back up the water beyond the boundary u n t i l a compensation agreement between B r i t i s h Columbia and S e a t t l e had been concluded. As i t had done i n severa l i n s tances s i nce the S t . Mary ' s 59 R i ve r Dam case o f 1914, the Commission, i n i t s order o f con-d i t i o n a l a pp r o va l , c a l l e d f o r the appointment o f a board, the I n t e r na t i ona l Skag i t R i ve r Board o f Control . , to make t e c h n i c a l 60 repor t s to the Commission whenever necessary. I t was not u n t i l 1967 t ha t the C i t y of S e a t t l e and B r i t i s h .61 Columbia f i n a l l y concluded t h e i r agreement and the Board cou ld 62 be e s t a b l i s h e d . S t i l l , c on s t r u c t i o n to modify the dam has not ye t b e g u n . ^ d) The S t . Lawrence R i ve r has, on severa l occa s i on s , been the ob jec t o f the Commission's a t t e n t i o n . The most out s tand ing one o f these was generated by the two f ede ra l Governments. 64 In 1952 the; Governments a p p l i e d f o r approval to c on s t r u c t and operate power development works i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l s e c t i on 65 of the St . Lawrence R i ve r . In i t s order o f approval the Commission c a l l e d f o r the c r e a t i o n o f two boards: The S t . Lawrence R i ve r J o i n t Board of Eng ineers , to be e s t a b l i s h e d by the two governments, p r i m a r i l y to superv i se the proper c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the works; - 17 -The I n t e r na t i ona l S t . Lawrence R i ve r Board o f C o n t r o l , to be e s t a b l i s h e d by the Commission, to g ive e f f e c t to the var ious i n s t r u c t i o n s of the Commission, i s sued pursuant to the order o f app rova l , and to take over whatever o b l i g a -t i o n s s t i l T remained w i th the Board o f Engineers a f t e r complet ion o f the works. The Board of Contro l i s s t i l l very a c t i v e today. In t h i s o rder the Commission a l s o r e f e r r e d to the order o f preferences f o r water uses as l a i d down i n A r t i c l e V I I I -" ( 1 ) Uses f o r domestic and s a n i t a r y purposes; (2) Uses f o r n a v i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the s e r v i c e o f cana l s f o r the purpose o f n a v i g a t i o n ; (3) Uses f o r power and f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes " -g ran t ing i t s approval upon the c o n d i t i o n t h a t no i n j u r y be done by the c on s t r u c t i o n and opera t ion of the works to those e x i s t i n g uses w i th a h igher p r i o r i t y . I t may be added here tha t although t h i s o rder o f precedence i s conta ined w i t h i n the context of r e gu l a t i on s p e r t a i n i n g to a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r boundary waters uses, the Commission appears to be us ing i t as a guide i n o the r w a t e r - r e l a t e d endeavours as fifi fi7 w e l l . In i t s l a s t Sour i s R i ve r re fe rence r epo r t i n 1958, f o r example, i n v o l v i n g the r e g u l a t i o n of the use and f l ow o f the Sour i s R i v e r 6 8 , the Commission recommended a waters apportionment based on the order of p r i o r i t i e s i n A r t i c l e V I I I . - 18 -e) But the Commission a l s o rece i ve s a p p l i c a t i o n s o f con-s i d e r a b l y more modest impact: On September 20, 1935,.a Quebec fa rmer , Jean L a r i v i £ r e , f i l e d 69 an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r approval o f a dam on the upper S t . John R i ve r between Quebec and Maine which he had a l ready b u i l t two years be f o r e , then i n ignorance o f the law. Because the dam was b u i l t on ly to prov ide power f o r a smal l m i l l used f o r domestic purposes, the Commission cons idered the a p p l i c a t i o n w i thout r e q u i r i n g the usual a d v e r t i s i n g , p u b l i c hearings and document p r i n t i n g procedures. The c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the dam was pe rmi t ted ex po s t , under the c o n d i t i o n t ha t r i p a r i a n s i n c u r r i n g damage due to r i v e r f l o o d i n g caused by the dam.be indemni f ied by the a p p l i c a n t . 2. Spec i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n was g iven to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission under the Lake o f the Woods Convention of 1 9 2 5 . ^ The t r e a t y was d r a f t e d by the Commission, a t the request of the two governments, subsequent to i t s r epo r t on the Lake o f the Woods l e v e l s r e f e r e n c e . ^ 1 A r t i c l e XI o f t h i s t r e a t y - l e x s p e c i a l i s to A r t i c l e II of the Boundary Waters Treaty - p r o h i b i t s any d i v e r s i o n o f waters from the Lake of the Woods watershed to any other watershed, except by a u t h o r i t y o f the r e spec t i ve governments and w i t h the ap-prova l o f the Commission. Moreover, t h i s t r e a t y prov ides f o r the es tab l i shment o f two boards: - 19 -(1) the Canadian Lake o f the Woods Contro l Board, to " r e g u l a t e and con t r o l the out f l ow o f the waters o f Lake o f the Woods " 7 2 (2) The I n t e r na t i ona l Lake o f the Woods Contro l Board, p r i m a r i l y to regu la te the f low of water i n cases where the l e v e l i s above o r below the maximum o r minimum l e v e l s p r e s c r i bed i n t h i s t r e a t y . » The Commission' has no j u r i s d i c t i o n over the Canadian c o n t r o l board, but a two fo ld one over the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Board: (1) Any a l t e r a t i o n of i t s own j u r i s d i c t i o n t ha t the board deems necessary i s s ub jec t to p r i o r approval by the Commission. ^ (2) The Board must immediately r e f e r any i n t e r n a l d i s a g ree -ment as to the exe r c i s e of i t s f unc t i on s to the Commission f o r a f i n a l d e c i s i o n . 3. a) To date the Commission has not been faced w i t h the quest ion o f how to proceed upon the r e f u s a l o f an a p p l i c a n t to comply w i t h a p e r t i n e n t o rder . Should the problem, however, m a t e r i a l i z e , the f o l l o w i n g would appear to app ly : The U.S. Congress approved the Treaty on March 3, 1909; r a t i f i c a t i o n documents were exchanged on May 5, 1910; i n Canada the " Ac t r e l a t i n g to the Establ i shment and Expenses o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission under the Waterways Treaty o f - 20 -73 January the E l e v e n t h , Nineteen Hundred and N i n e , " con f i rm ing the Boundary Waters Treaty and con ta i n i n g p r o v i s i on s f o r the necessary amendments and a l t e r a t i o n of the re l evan t f ede ra l and p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , was assented to on May 19, 1911. Thus, the Treaty i s law i n both c o u n t r i e s . The Commission has not been empowered to en fo rce adherence to i t s orders i s sued pursuant to A r t i c l e s I I I , IV and VI I I of the T reaty . Should the Commission wish to enforce an order not v o l u n t a r i l y complied wi th i t would, not having a l e ga l p e r s o n a l i t y 74 o f i t s own, be ob l i ged to make rep re sen ta t i on s to the government o f the country i n which the v i o l a t i o n o c cu r r ed , l e a v i n g i t up to t ha t government to decide on whether to take - r egu l a r - l e ga l a c t i o n or not . On the other hand, p r o v i s i on s have been made to enable i n j u r e d p a r t i e s to apply f o r j u d i c i a l a s s i s t an ce . Sec t ion 4 o f the above mentioned implementation act g ives the Exchequer cour t (now the Federal Court) j u r i s d i c t i o n over these matter s . For l ack o f a s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n on the pa r t o f the Un i ted S t a t e s , A r t i c T e II of the Treaty would be d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e ; i t would e n t i t l e the i n j u r e d par ty to apply to the cour t w i t h i n the Un i ted S tates having r e g u l a r j u r i s d i c t i o n . b) Regarding the permanency of i t s orders the Commission i s o f the o p i n i o n , so f a r not repud iated by the two Governments, t h a t i t always has the r i g h t to recons ide r i t s o r d e r , whether the o rder i n ques t ion conta ins a c lause to t h i s e f f e c t o r not. Furthermore, - 21 -tha t the approval o f a new a p p l i c a t i o n c o u l d , i n e f f e c t , a l t e r a prev ious order of app rova l , i s apprec ia ted and deemed l e g i -75 t i t r a te by the Commission. I t i s c l e a r t ha t the Commission must be ab le to make i t s dec i s i on s i n l i g h t of the f a c t s and s i t u a t i o n s as they present themselves at the time such dec i s i on s 'are made. To be e x t e r n a l l y bound by i t s prev ious d e c i s i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e i r premises have changed over t ime , cou ld g r adua l l y undercut the Commission's e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Th i s reasoning cou ld a l s o be extended to j u s t i f y i t s r e con s i de r i n g o f orders once i s s ued . However, i f these d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t m o d i f i c a t i o n s of v a l i d orders i s sued pursuant to A r t i c l e VI I I r e s u l t i n i n j u r y or l o s s to someone j u s t l y r e l y i n g 76 on t h e i r v a l i d i t y because the Commission, con t ra r y to s a i d a r t i c l e , f a i l e d to prov ide adequately t h e r e f o r , the i n j u r e d par ty would be compelled to appeal to the r e spon s i b l e na t i ona l Government f o r r e l i e f . C. 1. The t h i r d category of f unc t i on s i s ass igned to the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission under A r t i c l e X of the Boundary Waters T rea ty . I t c a l l s f o r r e f e r r a l to the Commission, upon agreement by the l e g i s l a t u r e s of both neighbour ing coun t r i e s to do so, o f any "ques t ions or matters of d i f f e r e n c e a r i s i n g between the High Con-t r a c t i n g P a r t i e s i n v o l v i n g the r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s or i n t e r e s t s - 22 -of the Un i ted S tates or of the Dominion of Canada e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to each other or to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e i n h a b i t a n t s . 1 , 7 7 The Commission i s empowered to make recommendations or to render a m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n , which would be b ind ing and f i n a l . Thus f a r the two governments have not made use o f these 78 p r o v i s i o n s o f the T rea ty . S u f f i c e i t , t h e r e f o r e , to have men-79 t i oned t h i s p o s s i b l e f unc t i on o f the Commission. 2. Another p o t e n t i a l a r b i t r a t i o n r o l e f o r the Commission i s 80 prov ided f o r i n the Columbia R i ve r Basin Treaty , accord ing to which d i f f e r e n c e s " a r i s i n g under the Treaty which the Un i ted States o f America and Canada cannot r e s o l ve may be r e f e r r e d by 81 e i t h e r to the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission f o r d e c i s i o n . " Th i s p r o v i s i o n has thus f a r a l s o not been made use o f by the P a r t i e s . D., The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission 's most t ime-consuming, most ex ten s i ve and, indeed, t h e i r most important f unc t i on s today are i n v e s t i g a t i v e and adv i so ry - as set out i n A r t i c l e IX o f the Boundary Waters T rea ty . Of the f i f t y cases i t handled from 1944 to 1975, t h i r t y were re ferences under A r t i c l e IX. Moreover, e i g h t out of the e leven cases submitted i n the f i r s t h a l f o f 82 t h i s decade were such r e fe rence s . Accord ing to A r t i c l e IX e i t h e r o f the two governments can r e f e r any "quest ions or matters of d i f f e r e n c e . . . i n v o l v i n g the - 23 -r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s , or i n t e r e s t s o f e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to the o ther or to the i nhab i t an t s of the o t he r , along the common f r o n t i e r . . . to the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission 83 f o r examination and r e p o r t . " But: "Such repor t s of the Commission s h a l l not be regarded as dec i s i on s of the quest ions or matters so submitted e i t h e r on the f a c t s o r the law, and 84 s h a l l i n no way have the cha rac te r of an a r b i t r a l award." Although one government may u n i l a t e r a l l y demand t ha t a p e r t i n e n t quest ion be r e f e r r e d to the Commission, i t has -seemingly by t a c i t agreement -. become standard p r a c t i c e f o r both governments to agree upon the re fe rences i n advance and 85 to i s sue them j o i n t l y . T h i s , of cour se , has the advantage o f a l l o w i n g them to agree i n advance on the scope and r e s t r i c t i o n s o f the r e f e r ence , wh ich , i n t u r n , would appear to enhance the chances of the Commission's subsequent r epo r t being acceptab le to both p a r t i e s . The advantage gained thereby does not seem to be o f f s e t by the p o s s i b i l i t y t ha t t h i s might prevent some important i s sues from being r e f e r r e d to the Commission. a) The f i r s t re fe rence t r an sm i t t ed to the Commission concerned the c o n t r o v e r s i a l Lake of the Woods water l e v e l s . Th i s had been a content ious i s sue between the two coun t r i e s s ince 1888, when Americans on the Minnesota shores o f the l ake began t o complain tha t t h e i r lands were being f looded because o f a dam - 24 -ftfi b u i l t a t an o u t l e t o f the lake on the Canadian s i d e . Only a few months a f t e r i t s c o n s t i t u t i v e meeting i n 1912, the governments of Canada and the Un i ted States submitted to t h e i r r e spec t i ve na t i ona l s ec t i on s of the Commission i d e n t i c a l l e t t e r s 87 of r e f e r ence , a sk ing the Commission to i n v e s t i g a t e va r ious quest ions and to make appropr i a te recommendations concern ing the s t a b i l i z a t i o n and r e g u l a t i o n of the Lake of the Woods water l e v e l s . Almost immediately the Commission employed engineers to c a r r y out necessary i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and o ther p e r t i n e n t research under i t s ausp ices . A f t e r ho ld ing a s e r i e s of p u b l i c hear ing s , i s s u i n g an i n t e r i m r e p o r t , i n s t i t u t i n g a s p e c i a l committee to examine f l o o d c o n d i t i o n s , and ho ld ing severa l subsequent p u b l i c hear ings , the Commission, i n May o f 1917, i s sued i t s f i n a l r epo r t and recommendations. A c e r t a i n maximum and minimum l e v e l s range was recommended, which should be monitored by an i n t e r n a t i o n a l board of eng ineer s , to be appointed by the two governments and superv i sed by the Commission. Th is repor t l a t e r l e d to the 88 a l ready mentioned Lake o f the Woods Convention of 1925. b) In 1964 the Commission was asked to i n q u i r e i n t o the p o l l u t i o n o f the lower Great Lakes and the i n t e r n a t i o n a l s e c t i on of the St . Lawrence R i v e r . 89 This re fe rence was to i n vo l ve the Commission i n i t s most 90 ex tens i ve and most comprehensive opera t ion t o . d a t e . The importance of t h i s p r o j e c t , i t s r e s u l t s , and i t s consequences f o r the Commission mer i t i t s more d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n . PART TWO GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT - 25 -PART TWO: I 1. The f i r s t s ign of Canadian-United States concern f o r p o s s i b l e p o l l u t i o n o c c u r r i n g i n t h e i r common boundary waters c o i n c i de s w i th the c r e a t i o n of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. In A r t i c l e IV, paragraph 2, o f the Boundary Waters Treaty the High Con t r ac t i ng P a r t i e s agreed t h a t boundary and cross-boundary waters " s h a l l not be p o l l u t e d on e i t h e r s i de to the i n j u r y of hea l th or p roper ty on the o t h e r . " Un f o r t una te l y , t h i s statement i s n e i t h e r an express p r o h i b i t i o n , nor i s i t f o l l owed up by a more p o s i t i v e commitment, such as a s s i gn ing c e r t a i n e x p l i c i t p o l l u t i o n s upe r v i s o r y , or even c o n t r o l , powers to the Commission. Yet something to t h i s e f f e c t d i d , i ndeed, coiiie c l o s e to being i n s e r t e d i n t o the T rea t y : Although p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n and concern f o r environmental - s p e c i f i c a l l y water p o l l u t i o n - matters were dormant dur ing the i n i t i a l years o f t h i s cen tu r y , the Treaty nego t i a to r s never the les s f e l t a nece s s i t y f o r some p r o v i s i o n w i t h which to f a t e t h i s p o t e n t i a l problem; e s p e c i a l l y i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f the set t lement o f the western boundary a rea . Thus a c l ause t ha t a c t u a l l y d i d p r o h i b i t p o l l u t i o n o f t r a n s -boundary wate r s , as we l l as a p r o v i s i o n e s t a b l i s h i n g a j o i n t agency wi th r e l e van t enforcement powers, were i nc luded i n the f i r s t t r e a t y d r a f t . 1 However, owing to American unw i l l i n gne s s to c rea te an i n t e r n a t i o n a l agency w i t h powers to i n te rvene i n domestic a f f a i r s , t h i s scheme was dropped and rep laced by the general - 26 -p r o v i s i o n tha t was at tached to the e x i s t i n g A r t i c l e IV of the Treaty and tha t cannot be regarded as much more than a v igorous statement o f i n t e n t . A l l t h i s a l s o e xp l a i n s the r a t h e r unusual l o c a t i o n of the p r o v i s i o n - as the second paragraph of an a r t i c l e to the f i r s t s e c t i on o f which i t i s - i n substance - t o t a l l y un re l a ted . 2. I n s i g n i f i c a n t though the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p o l l u t i o n problem wi th regard to boundary waters may have seemed when the Treaty was conc luded, i n 1909, t h i s was to become a major i s s u e , e s p e c i a l l y i n the Great Lakes a r e a , and to prompt a l a r g e - s c a l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission on ly th ree years l a t e r , i n 1912, the very year the Commission f o r m a l l y took up i t s ope ra t i on s . By t ha t t ime r e c u r r i n g outbreaks o f t ypho id f e ve r were a larming var ious communities i n the Great Lakes a rea . The Commission was t he re f o re requested, on August 2 , 1912, to examine and r epo r t on the causes, the l o c a t i o n , and the extent of p o l l u t i o n i n boundary wate r s , and to suggest appropr ia te p revent i ve o r remedial measures. 3 The f i r s t task o f the Commission was - as i t always has been i n re fe rence cases under A r t i c l e IX o f the Treaty - to s e l e c t and s o l i c i t the s e r v i c e s of q u a l i f i e d experts from both s ides of the boundary, u s u a l l y from the c i v i l s e r v i c e s , to de f i ne the f i e l d s o f research and conduct the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , under the constant s upe r v i s i on of the Commission. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t s e l f , c a r r i e d - 27 -out most ly by s a n i t a r y experts and eng ineer s , was completed i n s l i g h t l y l e s s than two yea r s . I t was e s s e n t i a l l y a b a c t e r i o l o g i c a l study of the boundary waters from Rainy Lake to the St . Lawrence R i v e r , from which more than 17500 water samples were taken and examined. Several sess ions w i th the expert s took p l a c e , a s e r i e s of p u b l i c hear ings were h e l d , and two i n t e r i m repor t s were i s s u e d , a l l o f which led to the f i n a l r e p o r t , pub l i shed by the Commission i n September, 1918. Accord ing to tha t r e p o r t , i n t e r a l i a , a) most the r i v e r s from the Rainy R i ve r to the St . Lawrence R i ve r (and par t o f the S t . John R i ve r ) were p o l l u t e d and u n f i t f o r d r i n k i n g w i thout p r i o r t reatment ; b) The Great Lakes were s e r i o u s l y p o l l u t e d at the mouths o f r i v e r s f l ow ing i n t o them, around major urban a reas , and i n sh ipp ing l a n e s , but other than tha t they were f o r the most pa r t almost a b s o l u t e l y pure; c) p o l l u t i o n was "very i n tense a long the shores of the D e t r o i t 4 and Niagara R i v e r s " ; d) p o l l u t i o n was due, to a l a r ge e x t e n t , to the d i spo sa l o f raw sewage i n t o the r i v e r s by r i p a r i a n communities as we l l as sh ipp ing v e s s e l s ; e) the extreme p o l l u t i o n of some of the boundary waters was d e f i n i t e l y the cause o f the unusua l l y high occurrence o f t ypho id feve r i n the Great Lakes a r e a ; - 28 -f ) " c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t which i m p e r i l the hea l th and we l f a re o f the c i t i z e n s o f both coun t r i e s i n d i r e c t cont ravent ion 5 of the T r e a t y . " The recommendations i n the repo r t conta ined " s p e c i f i c a t i o n s as to the k i n d , l o c a t i o n , c o s t , opera t ion and maintenance of sewage p u r i f i c a t i o n p l an t s and o the r remedial works . " In a d d i t i o n the Commission adv i sed t ha t i t be inves ted w i th j u r i s -d i c t i o n to regu la te the p r o h i b i t the p o l l u t i o n o f boundary and cross-boundary water s . In consequence of the r epo r t the two Governments, in 1919, asked the Commission to d r a f t e i t h e r r e c i p r o c a l l e g i s l a t i o n to be enacted i n the two coun t r i e s or an appropr i a te t r e a t y . A c onven t i on 7 was formulated wi th the help of r ep re sen ta t i ve s o f both governments and presented to them i n 1920. With the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f c h l o r i n a t i o n i n t o mun ic ipa l water systems around tha t t ime , the e f f e c t o f which was the r a d i c a l d e c l i n e of t ypho id f e v e r , l a r ge s c a l e investments i n waste treatment f a c i l i t i e s were no longer deemed necessary, e s p e c i a l l y s i n ce there seemed to be an u n l i m i t e d supply of pure f r e sh water . Thus, though the Canadian Government approved the Commission's d r a f t convent ion i n 1921, nego t i a t i on s cont inued on ly h a l f - h e a r t e d l y , w i th the U.S. Senate producing a counter -proposa l i n 1926, u n t i l the stock market crash terminated the i s sue i n 1929. - 29 -3. Of the e i g h t p o l l u t i o n references, d e a l t w i th by the Commission up to 1964, the o ther one o f con s ide rab le importance to the development of p o l l u t i o n c on t r o l i n the Great Lakes, and indeed to p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l i n g e n e r a l , i s the Connect ing Channels Reference. In 1946 the two Governments requested tha t the Commission i n q u i r e i n t o the degree of p o l l u t i o n of the St. C l a i r R i v e r , 8 Lake S t . C l a i r , and the D e t r o i t R i v e r ; l a t e r t h a t year the r e f e r -ence was extended to i n c l ude the S t . Mary ' s R i v e r . The Niagara g R i ve r was added by separate re ference i n 1948. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t h i s case were c a r r i e d out by a Board of Techn ica l Adv i se r s appointed by the Commission. Phy s i c a l and chemical as we l l as b a c t e r i o l o g i c a l analyses determined the amount of domestic and i n d u s t r i a l wastes i n these r e c e i v i n g waters along thcj shores of which i n d u s t r i a l and popu la t ion exp los ions were having to be d i g e s t e d . 1 ^ The Report , submitted i n l a t e 1950, s t a t e d t ha t the connect ing channels examined were i n a seve re l y p o l l u t e d s t a t e , r e s u l t i n g mainly from domestic sewage, and i n d u s t r i a l waste d i s cha rge s , and r e q u i r i n g immediate a c t i o n . The recommendations of the Commission marked a major i nnova t i ve s tep i n the development o f p o l l u t i o n c on t r o l measures, the main p r i n c i p l e o f which was l a t e r t o be i nco rpo ra ted i n t o va r ious l e g a l p r o v i s i o n s , among them the U.S. Water Q u a l i t y A c t 1 1 of 1965, the Canada Water Ac t o f 1 9 7 0 1 2 as 13 we l l as; the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement o f 1972 : The two Governments were urged to adopt s p e c i f i c Water Q u a l i t y O b j e c t i v e s , " t e c h n i c a l c r i t e r i a to be met i n o rder to ma inta in the waters i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n d i t i o n . " 1 ^ The appointment of a - 30 -p o l l u t i o n c on t r o l adv i so ry board f o r the Super io r -Huron -E r ie connect ing channels and one f o r the O n t a r i o - E r i e connect ing channel to a s s i s t the Commission i n the a c t i v e s u r v e i l l a n c e o f the p o l l u t i o n abatement measures i n the r e s p e c t i v e channels were a l s o recommended. These recommendations were approved by the two Governments and subsequently i nco rpo ra ted to a g rea te r or l e s s e r degree i n the r e spec t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n s . The Commission was asked by the Governments to cont inue to monitor the p o l l u t i o n o f boundary waters through I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boards of Contro l which i t was to appo int . I t was to n o t i f y exces s i ve po l l u te r s , of t h e i r wrong-doings and - i n the absence of adequate assurances of remedial i n t e n t - to make appropr iate recommendations to the re spons i b l e a u t h o r i t i e s . Although the o b j e c t i v e s were not being f u l l y complied w i th i n a l l par t s o f the Connecting Channels, the Commission c o u l d , however, soon note a marked improvement i n the q u a l i t y o f those waters. For example, e i g h t years a f t e r the Governments had approved the Ob jec t i ve s the t o t a l d a i l y d i scharge o f wastes from a l l i n d u s t r i e s had been reduced from 13000 to 2500 pounds of phenols , from 9000 to 4000 pounds of cyan ides , from 18000 to 2500 ga l l on s of 15 o i l , and from 3.1 to 1.6 m i l l i o n pounds of suspended s o l i d s . S t i l l , as the Commission noted i n 1970, i t s water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s were not being met i n a l l the necessary areas "because - 31 -the re spons ib le a u t h o r i t i e s and i n d u s t r i e s have not p rov ided s u f f i c i e n t treatment f a c i l i t i e s to keep pace w i th the popu la t i on 1 g growth and wi th i n d u s t r i a l , expans ion . " During the 1950 's and e a r l y 1960's though, the q u a l i t y o f the water i n the two lower l a k e s , E r i e and O n t a r i o , was d e t e r i -o r a t i n g r a p i d l y , desp i te the e f f o r t s being made w i th regard to the connect ing channels . II 1. By 1964 the p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n c r e a s i n g s t a t e of decay i n the waters of the lower l a k e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Lake E r i e , became so obvious tha t i t cou ld no longer be neg lected or t r e a t e d l i g h t -hea r t ed l y . P u b l i c p re s su re , e s p e c i a l l y i n O n t a r i o , and c a l l s from the State of New York f i n a l l y prompted the two fede ra l Governments to r e f e r the problem to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. Thus, on October 7 of that year i d e n t i c a l l e t t e r s o f re ference were t r an sm i t t ed to the two na t i ona l s e c t i on s of the Commission reques t ing i t to examine arid r epo r t on -i n c l u d i n g making such recommendations as i t deemed necessary -the o r i g i n s and extent of p o l l u t i o n i n Lakes E r i e and Ontar io 17 and the i n t e r n a t i o n a l s e c t i on o f the S t . Lawrence R i v e r . In 1969 a se r i ou s o i l p o l l u t i o n i n c i d e n t o f f the coast o f 18 C a l i f o r n i a , caused by an o i l r i g i n the Santa Barbara Channel prompted the two governments to request the Commission a l s o to - 32 -look a t the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f proposed d r i l l i n g i n the Canadian s e c t i o n o f Lake E r i e , w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g p o l l u t i o n re fe rence o f 1964. The Great Lakes, w i th the connect ing channe l s , are the l a r g e s t f r e sh water system i n the w o r l d , con ta i n i n g almost one f i f t h of the w o r l d ' s supply of f r e s h , l i q u i d su r face water. They have a t o t a l area o f approx imately 96,000 square mi le s o f which nea r l y two t h i r d s are w i t h i n the U.S. t e r r i t o r y . Per  annum they prov ide a sh ipp ing route f o r more than 350 m i l l i o n tons o f cargo and power i n excess o f 50 b i l l i o n k i l owa t hours. Of the 26 m i l l i o n people l i v i n g i n the Great Lakes Ba s i n , seven m i l l i o n l i v e i n O n t a r i o , about 90% o f the p r o v i n c e ' s p o p u l a t i o n ; the lakes are the source o f 70% of the water used by 600 com-muni t ie s i n the p rov i nce . One f i f t h o f the United States and h a l f o f the Canadian gross na t i ona l product comes from t h i s a rea . Approx imately 1000 mi le s o f the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary between Canada and the Un i ted S tates runs through the Great Lakes. Lake E r i e has a su r face area of 9900 square m i le s and a 19 volume of 110 cub ic m i l e s . I t has an average depth of 58 f e e t , w i t h a maximum of 210 f e e t . Lake Ontar io has a su r face area o f on ly 7500 square m i l e s , but a volume of 393 cub i c m i l e s . I t s average depth i s 276 f e e t , i t s maximum 802, f e e t . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Sec t i on o f the S t . Lawrence R i ve r - extending f o r a d i s t ance of 112 mi le s from Lake Ontar io to Cornwall - v a r i e s i n width from one to f ou r m i l e s . 2 0 - 33 -The scope of the Commission's i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i s o u t l i n e d 21 i n the f i n a l r e p o r t . An impress ion o f the magnitude of t h i s i n q u i r y can a l ready be gained from these few f a c t s : Two boards were e s t a b l i s h e d to e d i t p e r t i n e n t i n fo rmat ion a l ready gathered by agencies w i t h i n the r e spec t i ve j u r i s d i c t i o n s of the two n a t i o n s , and to conduct o the r necessary research together -the I n t e r na t i ona l Lake E r i e Water P o l l u t i o n Board and the I n t e r -na t i ona l Lake Onta r i o/S t . Lawrence R i ve r Water P o l l u t i o n Board: The Board ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a lone t o t a l l e d approx imate ly 450 man years of work. A l t o g e t h e r , 600,000 samples were taken and analyzed by the var ious agencies i n vo l ved . Severa l s e r i e s o f p u b l i c hearings were he ld on both s ides o f the border. The Boards i s sued ten semi -annual r e p o r t s , and the Commission submitted three i n t e r i m repor t s p r i o r to p resent ing i t s f i n a l one. The Board ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were and are probably s t i l l " t he most ex tens i ve water p o l l u t i o n study to be undertaken anywhere to 22 d a t e . " They i nvo l ved the " concer ted e f f o r t s of twelve agencies 23 from two sovere ign nat ions and f i v e o ther j u r i s d i c t i o n s . " 2. a) Although more than s i x years e lapsed. f rom the t ime the Com-mis s ion rece i ved the re ference u n t i l i t pub l i shed i t s f i n a l Report , s u b s t a n t i a l resu l t s , of the i n q u i r y were emerging f a r sooner. In i t s f i r s t i n t e r i m r e p o r t , pub l i shed i n December 1965, l i t t l e more - 34 -than a year a f t e r the probe was i n i t i a t e d , the Commission i d e n t -i f i e d phosphorus as the prime c a t a l y s t of the a c c e l e r a t i n g d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f the lower l a k e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Lake E r i e , and adv i sed the re spons i b l e Governments to take appropr i a te remedial a c t i on as soon as p o s s i b l e . These f i n d i n g s were not q u i t e expected by the Governments, and the recommendations caused some g r i evances , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the Un i ted S t a t e s , the r e s u l t of which was that there was no immediate o f f i c i a l p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n t h e r e t o . Then, i n 1970, Canada u n i l a t e r a l l y r egu la ted the maximum a l l owab l e con-24 c e n t r a t i o n o f n u t r i e n t s i n de te rgen t s , pursuant to the (then) 25 newly enacted Canada Water A c t . These r e gu l a t i o n s were r e v i s e d , l i m i t i n g n u t r i e n t s i n detergents s t i l l f u r t h e r i n 1972. In 1971 the U.S. government was s t i l l d i s cou rag ing the l i m i t a t i o n o f 27 phosphorus i n de te rgen t s , a l though some o f the r i p a r i a n s t a t e s 28 had a l ready f o l l owed Canada's example. The second i n t e r i m r e p o r t , re leased i n August 1968, was essen-t i a l l y a progress r e p o r t . The t h i r d i n t e r i m r e p o r t , dated A p r i l 1920, was submitted to the two Governments because the Commission deemed i t necessary to draw t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to what i t cons idered urgent p o l l u t i o n problems: p o t e n t i a l o i l p o l l u t i o n , e u t r o p h i c a t i o n and p o l l u t i o n from water -c r a f t . The repor t conta ined s i x recommendations to be c a r r i e d out 29 as soon as p o s s i b l e . The essence o f t h i s r epo r t was l a t e r embodied i n the f i n a l Report , submitted to the two Governments on December 9, 1970. - 35 -b) In i t s f i n a l Report the Commission found, i n t e r a l i a , t h a t : - " t he waters r e f e r r e d t o . . . are being s e r i o u s l y p o l l u t e d on both s ides of the boundary to the detr iment o f both c oun t r i e s and to an ex tent which i s caus ing i n j u r y to hea l th and p roper ty 30 on the other s i de o f the boundary;" - " the p o l l u t e d waters are lakewide i n e x t e n t ; t ha t the two p r i n c i p l e causes are wastes d i scharged by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and i n d u s t r i e s i n t o the . . .water s and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s ; and tha t p o l l u t i o n i s t a k i n g p lace i n a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n s which share 31 these boundary wa te r s ; " - " the remedial measures i n c l ude the adopt ion and adherence to 32 t h i s Commission 's General and S p e c i f i c Ob jec t i ve s as a matter o f urgency; immediate reduct ion o f the phosphorus content i n de te rgent s ; the prompt implementation of a v igorous programme to prov ide the necessary munic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l waste treatment 33 f a c i l i t i e s . . . " - " the s a fe t y requirements and procedures a p p l i c a b l e to d r i l l i n g and product ion operat ions i n Lake E r i e . . . i f e f f e c t i v e l y super-v i s ed and p rope r l y en fo r ced , are Adequate to prevent o i l escaping i n t o the Lake so as to produce ser ious transboundary o i l p o l l u t i o n 34 c o n d i t i o n s ; ' 1 - " t he cu r r en t methods o f c o n f i n i n g , remoying, d i s p e r s i n g and c l ean i n g up a major o i l s p i l l t h a t may occur from any source 35 are p r i m i t i v e and inadequate. - 36 -Of the Repo r t ' s severa l remaining conc lu s ions the most outs tand ing one noted a l ack o f adequate na t i ona l and i n t e r -na t i ona l cont ingency p lans . Twenty-two s p e c i f i c recommendations f o r a c t i o n by the two Governments and o the r j u r i s d i c t i o n s w i t h i n the r e s p e c t i v e c oun t r i e s were made,- among them being t h a t - the Water Q u a l i t y Ob jec t i ve s be j o i n t l y adopted by the two Federal Governments and recogn ized by M ich igan, Ohio, New York, Pennsy lvan ia and Ontar io as the minimal bas i s f o r the e s t a b l i s h -ment o f standards f o r the waters i n q u e s t i o n , and - t ha t an agreement to implement the suggested Ob jec t i ve s be concluded between the two Coun t r i e s , and t ha t the Commission be g iven " the a u t h o r i t y , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and means f o r c o o r d i -n a t i o n , s u r v e i l l a n c e , mon i t o r i n g , implementat ion, r e p o r t i n g , making recommendations to goverments . . . and such o the r du t i e s r e l a t e d to p re se r va t i on and improvement of the q u a l i t y o f the 36 boundary waters o f the Great Lakes - S t . Lawrence Sys tem.. . " -I I I 1. a) Canadian and Un i ted States o f f i c i a l s f i r s t met to con s ide r Great Lakes water q u a l i t y measures i n the sp r ing o f 1969, soon a f t e r the re lea se o f the two Great Lakes water q u a l i t y board ' s 37 summary r e p o r t s . Formal d i s c u s s i o n s , however, d i d not get under way u n t i l June 1970, though s t i l l h a l f a year before the f i n a l - 37 -Report was pub l i s hed . On June 23, 1970 the f i r s t M i n i s t e r i a l Meeting dea l i n g w i th p o l l u t i o n i n the Great Lakes was convened at Ottawa, main ly to cons ide r j o i n t measures i n reponse to the Commission's t h i r d i n t e r i m r e p o r t . I t was attended by h i g h - l e v e l r ep re sen ta t i ve s o f f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and s t a t e governments. At t ha t t ime , however, the r ep re sen ta t i ve s o f the U.S. f ede r a l government d i d not accept the Canadian p r opo sa l , i n l i n e w i th the Commission 's recommendations, to conclude a formal water q u a l i t y agreement wi th regard to the Lower Lakes. A J o i n t Working Group, composed o f s en i o r o f f i c i a l s from the governments t a k i n g par t i n the meet ing, was e s t a b l i s h e d to ponder app rop r i a te measures and to r epo r t to a second M i n i s t e r i a l Meet ing. The f o l l o w i n g year was one of con s i de rab le a c t i v i t y i n both c o u n t r i e s , r e l a t e d , to a g r ea te r o r l e s s e r e x t e n t , to Great Lakes water q u a l i t y . In August 1970 the Canadian Government e f f e c t e d 38 i t s f i r s t phosphorus r e g u l a t i o n s . New York S t a t e , Michigan and Indiana f o l l owed s u i t soon a f te rward s . In September the f i r s t Great Lakes Environmental Conference was held i n Toronto, p r i m a r i l y i n v o l v i n g Ontar io and Great Lakes r i p a r i a n s t a t e s , the r ep re sen ta -t i v e s o f which emphasized the need f o r a n - i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement. An Ac t i on Committee was e s t a b l i s h e d and ass igned superv i so ry and i n fo rmat ion exchange f unc t i on s wh ich , i t was hoped, would soon be t r a n s f e r r e d to the Commission. In October the Environmental P r o -t e c t i o n Agency was f o rma l l y c reated i n the Un i ted S t a t e s ; the 39 Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Act i nc reased U.S. f ede ra l c on t r o l over - 38 -p o l l u t i o n . In Ottawa, a s i m i l a r c o n s o l i d a t i o n of environment r e l a t e d departments and agencies was t ak i ng p l a c e , cu lm ina t i ng i n June 1971 w i th the i n s t i t u t i o n o f the f e d e r a l Department o f the Environment. In December 1970 the Commission 's f i n a l Report was pub l i s hed . I t was reviewed i n depth by government o f f i c i a l s 40. on both s ides of the boundary. 1 By the t ime the second M i n i s t e r i a l Meeting was he ld i n Washington on June 10, 1971, the American f ede r a l government had changed i t s a t t i t u d e towards a water q u a l i t y agreement f o r the Great Lakes. The overwhelming evidence presented by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, the J o i n t Working Group, the Great Lakes Environmental Conference and the Ac t i on Committee, as we l l as p u b l i c p r e s s u r e ^ a l l b a s i c a l l y advocat ing the agreement, as proposed by the Commission convinced the U.S. government o f the importance o f such an accord , b) Formal nego t i a t i on s d i d not get s t a r t e d u n t i l the autumn of 1971, slowed somewhat by U.S. o f f i c i a l s owing to t h e i r admin i -s t r a t i o n ' s discouragement of government phosphorus c o n t r o l s . Neve r the le s s , both s i de s f u l l y app rec i a ted the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f what was a t i s s u e , the ba s i c p r i n c i p l e s of the accord had a l ready been agreed upon, and the f i r s t f u l l n e g o t i a t i n g se s s ion took p lace on December 14, 1971. The main problem to be overcome was the r e s u l t of the American i n s i s t e n c e on an " execu t i ve agreement". Under the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Un i ted States i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r e a t i e s r equ i r e the consent of the Senate, w i thout which they cannot become the law o f the - 39 -- •• 42 land a f t e r r a t i f i c a t i o n by the P re s i den t . The vast and e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g number of i n t e r n a t i o n a l commitments made by the Un i ted States have l ed to the development o f " e xecu t i ve 43 agreements," v a l i d i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreements on a lower l e v e l of importance than r e gu l a r t r e a t i e s ( t h i y are) concluded on beha l f o f the Un i ted States by the P r e s i d e n t , w i thout Senate app rova l . The bypassing of the Senate, however, prec ludes the P re s ident from conc lud ing any execut i ve agreement, i n which the Un i ted States i s p o s i t i v e l y committed to making payments o f any k i n d , these needing Congress ional a p p r o v a l . ^ I t i s thus obvious ; tha t an execut i ve agreement can gene r a l l y not be o f as great a va lue to a pa r t y c o n t r a c t i n g w i th the Un i ted S tates on a matter i n v o l v i n g the expendi ture of money. The American n e g o t i a t i n g team i n s i s t e d t ha t such an execu t i ve agreement best served the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , f o r b r i ng i ng a t r e a t y i n t o f o r c e , i f , i ndeed, i t were po s s i b l e at a l l , would take much longer than the p a r t i e s cou ld a f f o r d to w a i t . An execut i ve agreement cou ld come i n t o f o r c e on the day i t was s igned. Such an agreement can , o f cour se , prov ide Un i ted States nego t i a to r s w i t h a convenient means of e i t h e r committ ing them-se l ves to a f a r l e s s e r degree than woulld normal ly be c a l l e d f o r , or o f r e c e i v i n g a f i r m e r commitment f o r a l e s s e r one i n r e t u r n , or even both. In the case of the water q u a l i t y agreement n e g o t i -- 40 -a t i o n s , however, the argument appeared cogent; because the Great Lakes d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a g rea te r p ropo r t i on o f Canadians 45 than Americans a Great Lakes c l ean up scheme l a r ge enough to prov ide a reasonable chance of success was by no means c e r t a i n to be approved by the U.S. l e g i s l a t o r s , many of whom were not i n t e r e s t e d i n the Great Lakes and would probably have resented having to g ive the Great Lakes funding p r i o r i t y over some o f t h e i r l o c a l p r o j e c t s to which they had a l ready committed them-se l ve s . Another de te r r en t on U.S. i n c l i n a t i o n toward accept i ng p r e c i s e and broad-reach ing o b l i g a t i o n s concern ing the abatement o f p o l l u t i o n i n the Great Lakes was a major r e v i s i o n o f p e r t i n e n t 46 f ede ra l l e g i s l a t i o n t ha t was being prepared a t t ha t t ime. Consequently the U.S. nego t i a t o r s s t r ong l y advocated an agreement every commitment o f which would exp re s s l y be " . . . s u b j e c t to the a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f funds by Congres s . . . " A f t e r some st rong r eac t i on s to t h i s p o s i t i o n by the Canadians, who quest ioned the bas i c va lue of such an agreement t h a t - to them - was bare o f any substance f o r l a ck o f a f i r m unequivocal commitment, a com-promise formula was e v e n t u a l l y found, w i th the app r op r i a t i o n r e s e r v a t i o n appear ing on ly once towards the end o f the Agreement fo l l owed immediately by a commitment to seek the app r op r i a t i o n o f the r equ i r ed funds , the enactment o f necessary l e g i s l a t i o n , and - 41 -p e r t i n e n t S tate and P r o v i n c i a l coope ra t i on . In t h i s way the r e s e r v a t i o n assumes a much l e s s prominent p o s i t i o n i n the s t r u c t u r e o f the agreement and though i t remains extant i t s impact i s d i s t i n c t l y reduced. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l problem Canada had been faced w i th i n t h i s connec t i on , t ha t o f secur ing P r o v i n c i a l cooperat ion f o r i t s 47 i n t e r n a t i o n a l commitments, had a l ready been r e so l ved . F o r t u n a t e l y , 48 there was on ly one Prov ince tha t Ottawa had to contend w i t h : On August 13, 1971, the governments of Canada and Ontar io s igned the Canada-Ontario Agreement on the Q u a l i t y o f Water i n the 49 Great Lakes. The purpose of the F e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l agreement was not on ly to procure the p r o v i n c i a l government 's support f o r the planned i n t e r n a t i o n a l Agreement, but a l s o to reach a consensus on and make p r o v i s i on s f o r i t s implementat ion. Nego t i a t i on s were not easy i n i t i a l l y , p a r t l y because of i nherent su sp i c i on s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s e l f i s h n e s s on both s i de s . These su sp i c i on s were p r i m a r i l y overcome by each p a r t y ' s making v i r t u a l l y a l l r e co rd s , f i l e s and other documents a v a i l a b l e to the o the r s i d e . Cooperat ion between Canada and Ontar io has, i n c i d e n t a l l y , improved s t i l l f u r t h e r i n the f i e l d of environmental c on t r o l s ince the f ede ra l M i n i s t r y o f the Environment e s t a b l i s h e d o f f i c e s f o r a small pa r t o f i t s operat ions i n the Ontar io M i n i s t r y o f the Environment i n Toronto. The agreement conta in s mutua l l y accepted general as we l l as s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s based on the Commission 's 1970 - 42 -P o l l u t i o n Report. The essence of the agreement, however, i s O n t a r i o ' s pledge to a c c e l e r a t e c on s t r u c t i o n o f sewage treatment p l an t s i n the lower Great Lakes b a s i n , the t o t a l cos t of which was est imated to be $250,000,000." , f o r wh ich , i n t u r n , the fede ra l government promised to make up to $167,000,000.- i n loans 50 under Pa r t V I I I of the Nat iona l Housing Act a v a i l a b l e to the p rov ince . In a d d i t i o n , the f ede r a l government agreed to grant Ontar io up to $3,000,000." under the Canada Water Act to pay f o r h a l f of the p r o v i n c e ' s munic ipa l p o l l u t i o n abatement research c o s t s , i f they were approved by the Board o f Review. The Board o f Review, c o n s i s t i n g of th ree o f f i c i a l s from each o f the two p a r t i e s , was e s t a b l i s h e d to "monitor and r epo r t to the p a r t i e s 51 on the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s agreement. . . " The p a r t i e s agreed to amend t h e i r l e g i s l a t i o n , where necessary, to f u l f i l t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s under the agreement, which was to 52 exp i re on December 31, 1975. The f i n a l t e x t of the Agreement was agreed to i n March 1972 53 and s igned by the two heads o f government and t h e i r f o r e i g n 54 m i n i s t e r s at Ottawa on A p r i l 15, 1972. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission was not i n vo l ved w i th the events l ead ing up to the Agreement a t a l l . I t n e i t h e r took an a c t i v e par t i n the n e g o t i a t i n g p roces s , nor was i t , i n s p i t e of i t s e x p e r t i s e , imv i ted to a s s i s t the n e g o t i a t i n g teams i n an adv i so ry c a p a c i t y . I t i s d o u b t f u l , however, whether t h i s seeming - 43 -neg lec t o f e x p e r t i s e , r e g r e t t a b l e though i t appears to be, had an app rec i ab le negat ive e f f e c t on the end r e s u l t , f o r as has a l ready been suggested, a l b e i t i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t 55 conno ta t i on , many o f those persons bear ing r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n the var ious steps o f the process l ead i ng up t o the f i n a l t e x t o f the Agreement had taken par t i n the j o i n t research and other a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out under the auspices of the Commission i n response t o the p o l l u t i o n re fe rence o f 1964. Thus, de sp i te the Commission 's absence from the n e g o t i a t i n g t a b l e many o f i t s recommendations which were, i n f a c t , the constant 56 guide o f the n e g o t i a t o r s , d i d reappear i n the Agreement. Never-t h e l e s s , the Commission d i d not see the f i n a l t e x t u n t i l the day before the Agreement was s igned and was t h e r e f o r e , con t ra r y to some expec t a t i o n s , not equipped to assume i t s new r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s immediately. 2. 57 a) The qu intessence of the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement i s found i n the e i gh th paragraph o f the preamble, i n which the P a r t i e s a f f i r m t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n t ha t the q u a l i t y of the Great Lakes water can best be improved through " the adopt ion of common o b j e c t i v e s " ( dea l t w i th i n A r t i c l e II - IV of the Agreement), " the development and implementation o f coope ra t i ve programs and other measures" ( A r t i c l e V ) , and - 44 -" the assignment o f s p e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and f unc t i on s to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission " ( A r t i c l e VI - I X ) . 5 8 59 The general water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s set f o r t h i n the Agreement a r e , i n substance, i d e n t i c a l w i t h those proposed by the Commiss ion 6 ^, w i th but very few changes i n the wording. The Commission 's recom-fil fi? mended s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s were mod i f i ed s l i g h t l y , though not to any app rec i ab l e e x t e n t . S i m i l a r l y , most o f the cooperat ion schemes and programs recom-63 mended by the Commission were adopted by the P a r t i e s . The most s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e r e l a t e s to the problems posed by e u t r o p h i c a t i o n The U.S. government was not prepared to g ive up i t s oppo s i t i on to 64 l i m i t i n g phosphorus contents i n detergents wh ich, as has been 65 mentioned be fo re , Canada had a l ready s t a r t e d doing i n 1970. Hence, on ly the development and implementation o f munic ipa l sewage t r e a t -ment c on s t r u c t i o n programs and r e gu l a t o r y measures designed to reduce the amount of phosphorus i n waste d i scharges were agreed t o , the ques t ion of whether or not to r e s t r i c t the amount of phosphorus pe rm i s s i b l e i n detergents being l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the P a r t i e s . A noteworthy f ea tu re o f the s t r u c t u r e o f t h i s Agreement i s i t s inherent f l e x i b i l i t y . Amendments to i t and the annexes are 67 p o s s i b l e , .upon agreement o f the P a r t i e s , which i s not unusual. Some annexes, however, may be mod i f i ed by a s imp le r procedure. Annex I, f o r i n s t a n c e , which set s f o r t h the s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y - 45 -o b j e c t i v e s , enables v a l i d amendments to be made to i t by way of an app rop r i a te recommendation o f the Commission to the govern-ments and the subsequent " r e c e i p t by the Commission of a l e t t e r 68 from each Par ty i n d i c a t i n g i t s agreement w i th the recommendation." Whereas the Boundary Waters Treaty r e f e r s on ly to the p o l l u t i o n 69 of boundary waters , from which t r i b u t a r y water s , i n t e r a l i a , are exp re s s l y e x c l u d e d 7 0 , the t r i b u t a r i e s o f the Great Lakes are d e f i n i t i v e l y covered by the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, where the "Great Lakes S y s t e m , " 7 1 t o which the Agreement a p p l i e s , comprises the f i v e Great Lakes w i t h t h e i r connect ing channe l s , the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Sec t ion of the S t . Lawrence R i v e r , and the t r i b u -t a r i e s of these waters . I t i s furthermore exp re s s l y s t a ted i n the Agreement t ha t the p o l l u t i o n abatement programs and measures should be designed to i n c l ude t r i b u t a r y waters where necessary or 72 d e s i r a b l e . Cons ider ing that the u n r e s t r i c t e d v a l i d i t y of the 73 Treaty i s conf i rmed i n the Agreement one might be l ed to suspect - w i th regard to Great Lakes t r i b u t a r y waters - an inherent c o n t r a -d i c t i o n i n the Agreement. However, t r i b u t a r i e s are t h e r e i n not t r e a t ed as a separate c l a s s o f waters but r a t he r as a n c i l l a r y to boundary wate r s , the l a t t e r undoubtedly f a l l i n g under the p o l l u t i o n p r o v i s i o n o f the T rea ty . The re fo re , de sp i t e the f a c t t ha t the wording of the Treaty appears to prec lude an i m p l i c i t extens ion of i t s p r o v i s i o n s to i n c l ude t r i b u t a r y waters per se , which would a l s o have to apply to the p r o v i s i o n s of the Agreement, i t does - 46 -appear po s s i b l e to i n c l ude t r i b u t a r y waters i n any arrangement designed to minimize the p o l l u t i o n o f boundary wate r s , e s p e c i a l l y i f measures aimed on ly a t boundary waters would not l i k e l y produce the de s i r ed or necessary r e s u l t s . Such i s ttie case w i th the Agreement and the p o l l u t i o n of the Great Lakes. The p r o v i s i on s i n the Agreement t ha t r e f e r to t r i b u t a r y waters are thus not cont ra ry to the Boundary Waters T reaty and, consequent ly , not to the remainder of the Agreement e i t h e r . From a l l t h i s i t i s not d i f f i c u l t t o endorse the op in ion t ha t the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement i s but a g loss on the 74 p o l l u t i o n c lause o f A r t i c l e IV 2 o f the Boundary Waters T rea ty . I t may be po in ted ou t , i n c i d e n t a l l y t ha t t h i s i s the f i r s t attempt a t U.S. - Canadian water q u a l i t y management on a bas in-wide l e v e l . Despite the f a r - r e a c h i n g degree o f cooperat ion promulgated by the two P a r t i e s through the Agreement, i t would be wrong to assume tha t they have thereby "poo led " t h e i r water re sources . On the c o n t r a r y , they have unequ i voca l l y a s se r ted " the r i g h t s of each country i n the use o f i t s Great Lakes waters " (emphasis added) i n 75 the preamble of the Agreement. In one i n s tance the preamble appears, to be s u f f e r i n g from some i n con s i s t enc y . There i s tw ice mention of r e s t o r i n g and en -7fi hancing water q u a l i t y i n the Great Lakes Ststem ; as w e l l , the - 47 -P a r t i e s s t r e s s t h e i r i n t e n t i o n o f " p revent ing f u r t h e r p o l l u t i o n o f the Great Lakes S y s t e m " 7 7 and r e f e r to the best means f o r 78 ach iev ing improved water q u a l i t y i n the Great. Lakes System. The second one of these phrases, p revent ing f u r t h e r p o l l u t i o n , i s super f luous because r e s t o r i n g water q u a l i t y i s I nconce ivab le wi thout f i r s t s topping p o l l u t i o n from i n c r e a s i n g , i . e . p revent ing f u r t h e r p o l l u t i o n . To avo id p o s s i b l e confus ion i t should have been omi t ted . Th i s a l s o app l i e s to r e s t o r i n g and enhancing water q u a l i t y , which sounds very appea l ing but i s too e l u s i v e a phrase to be p r a c t i c a b l e . Nowhere i n the Agreement i s there to be found a s p e c i f i c g o a l , the atta inment of which cou ld be s a i d to c o n s t i t u t e the t e rm ina t i on of the r e s t o r a t i o n process . Moreover, enhancement cou ld be i n t e r p r e t e d to apply to the r e s t o r a t i o n phase or to d e s i g -nate a phase of f u r t h e r improvement of the water s . Ach iev ing im-proved water q u a l i t y i s a more neut ra l express ion to which the s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i on s of the Agreement and the Annexes can more e a s i l y be a t tached . I t i s h o l i s t i c a l l y the most appropr i a te one here, and f o r the sake of c l a r i t y and c o n c i s i o n , i t alone should have been used i n t h i s con tex t . b) The P a r t i e s have ass igned to the Commission, which, " s h a l l 79 a s s i s t i n the implementat ion o f t h i s Agreement," c e r t a i n - 48 -i n v e s t i g a t i v e and superv i so ry r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , w i th a q u a s i -a d m i n i s t r a t i v e impact , i n a d d i t i o n to i t s f unc t i on s a l ready 80 acqu i red under the Boundary Waters T rea ty . The Commission has been empowered to e s t a b l i s h a k ind of 81 c e n t r a l Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y data bank. I t i s au tho r i zed to c o l l a t e , analyze and d i s seminate data concerning the q u a l i t y of these waters and p o l l u t i o n en te r i n g them, to be prov ided by the f ede r a l and s t a t e / p r o v i n c i a l r i p a r i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n s ( cont inu ing s ta tu s quo repo r t ) c o l l e c t , analyse and d i s seminate data concerning the progress made as a r e s u l t of the programs and measures implemented A data exchange system between the Commission and the va r i ou s r i p a r i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n s as we l l as between the p a r t i e s themselves o p i s a l s o prov ided f o r . The Commission has been empowered to v e r i f y independent ly the data p r o v i d e d w h i c h demonstrates the P a r t i e s ' i nc reased f a i t h i n i t s i m p a r t i a l i t y . Furthermore, the Commission i s to submit progress r e p o r t s , i n c l u d i n g app rop r i a te recommendations, to the f ede ra l and s t a t e / - 49 -p r o v i n c i a l r i p a r i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n s a t l e a s t a nnua l l y ; i t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , make s p e c i a l r epo r t s to the mentioned govern-84 -ments and to the p u b l i c . Indeed, i t i s permi t ted to pub l i s h any of i t s r epo r t s or statements r e s u l t i n g from " the 85 d i scharge of i t s f unc t i on s under t h i s Agreement." T h i s , again a t t e s t s to the Commission 's c r e d i b i l i t y i n the eyes of the P a r t i e s , as does, to a c e r t a i n extent the f o l l o w i n g . The Commission i s to f u n c t i o n as a c e n t r a l Great Lakes water q u a l i t y adv i so ry and coo rd i na t i on agency. I t i s t o adv i se the var ious r i p a r i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n s on app rop r i a te measures to be c a r r i e d out i n the f u l f i l m e n t o f the terms o f the Agreement, and to coord ina te the var ious programs and other measures as we l l as research a c t i -v i t i e s . Although t h i s adv i so r y r o l e of the Commission i s not an i n e x t r i c a b l e consequence o f i t s f u n c t i o n as a data bank, i t does appear l o g i c a l to g ive the q u a s i - n e u t r a l and expert adv i so r y r o l e to the o r gan i z a t i on which c o l l a t e s a l l the r e l e van t data and wh ich , moreover, has acqu i red great e x p e r t i s e i n the s p e c i f i c f i e l d of Great Lakes water q u a l i t y . A r t i c l e VII of the Agreement prov ides f o r the es tab l i shment of a Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board to a s s i s t the Commission i n c oo rd i na t i n g water q u a l i t y s u r v e i l l a n c e and mon i tor ing compliance 87 w i th the programs and other measures , and a (Great Lakes) Research Adv i so ry Board to adv i se on p e r t i n e n t research a c t i v i t i e s . The members of both boards are to be appointed by the Commission a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the governments concerned. The Commission i s - 50 -a l s o empowered to e s t a b l i s h a Great Lakes Regional O f f i c e . O r i g i n a l l y , Canada had wanted the reg iona l o f f i c e to be i n s t i t u t e d by the Agreement, which was, however, opposed by the United S tates oo f o r reasons o f funding and a p p r o p r i a t i o n . The o f f i c e has s i n ce been set up i n Windsor, On ta r i o . A comparison o f the p rov i s i on s o u t l i n e d above w i t h the 89 Commission 's o r i g i n a l recommendations revea l s t h a t he re , t o o , the P a r t i e s almost who l l y agreed on what the Commission had suggested. Given the axiom tha t pr imary p o l i t i c a l e n t i t i e s , i . e . governments, c on s t an t l y seem to endow independent agencies w i t h con s i de rab l y l e s s a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than the l a t t e r themselves u s u a l l y deem e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e i r own u t i l i t y , t h i s degree o f consensus between the Commission and the governments might, a t f i r s t g l ance , seem somewhat e x t r a o r d i n a r y . Upon c l o s e r s c r u t i n y , however, c r e d i b l e exp lanat ions soon emerge - from both s i de s . For one, the Commission's two chairmen o f the time the Report was prepared and p re sented , C h r i s t i a n A. He r t e r , J r . , and Arno ld D.P. Heeney, were s k i l l e d and p o l i t i c a l l y exper ienced d ip lomats who q u i t e obv ious l y knew the p o l i t i c a l and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t s which even a very benevolent sovere ign government cou ld not be induced to t ranscend. In a d d i t i o n , the Commission sought the op in ions o f the two f e d e r a l governments on the ques t ion of i n s t i t u -t i o n a l arrangements regard ing Great Lakes water p o l l u t i o n abatement 90 before the f i n a l Report was r e l ea sed . To conclude therefrom tha t the Commission, i n i t s Report , was merely echoing the sentiments - 51 -o f the governments, though, would be to thoroughly misconceive contemporary p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s as w e l l as the Commission 's own s t r a t egy . While on one hand choosing to present a p o l i t i c a l l y v i a b l e concept r a t h e r than a p u r i s t i c one, thereby render ing i t s acceptance more probable than o the rw i se , the Commission, on the o ther hand, does not appear to have h e s i t a t e d unduly i n t a k i n g . maximum advantage o f the o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n the g iven c o n s t r a i n t s and s t r e t c h i n g i t s p o s s i b i l i t i e s to the l i m i t s , as the nego t i a t i on s l ead ing t o the Agreement o u t l i n e d above, demonstrate. On the p o l i t i c a l s ide i t was p u b l i c pressure as we l l as a thorough a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the g r a v i t y o f the i s sue t h a t e v e n t u a l l y convinced competent p o l i t i c i a n s o f the prudence of the Commission 's recommendations and u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t e d i n t h e i r being accepted 91 and implemented. 92 c) Contrary to some op in ions the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement cannot be regarded as a major i nnova t i on so f a r as the f unc t i on s and j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission are concerned. Despite the i nc rease o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i t has brought the Commission, i t i s merely a - admi t ted l y very ex ten s i ve -f u r t h e r step i n a development t ha t began w i th the Connecting 93 Channels Report , i n consequence of which the Commission was f i r s t au tho r i zed to c o n t i n u a l l y monitor p o l l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . The l e g a l s ta tus of the Commission was ha rd l y a l t e r e d . The P a r t i e s d i d not surrender any a d d i t i o n a l sovere i gn ty to i t . The scope - 52 -of i t s a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g l e ga l framework were expanded. The changes tha t the Commission underwent due to the Agreement were, f o r the most p a r t , changes i n f a c t , r a the r than i n law. IV a) The Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement of 1972 represents n e i t h e r an a l t e r a t i o n nor a s u b s t a n t i a l p rogres s ion i n the deve lop-94 ment of i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l l u t i o n law, which i t does not coun te rac t . Obvious ly the e f f e c t o f a b i l a t e r a l agreement on i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s very l i m i t e d , and, i n a d d i t i o n , the contents of the Agreement are by no means e x t r a o r d i n a r y . As has a l ready been po inted out 95 elsewhere p o l l u t i o n i s a very broad and loose term tha t has so 96 f a r d e f i e d p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n . I t cannot have been the i n t e n t i o n of those who d r a f t e d the Agreement to dev i se o r propose such a d e f i n i t i o n . But a new impulse i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n was made here i n t ha t p o l l u t i o n was c i r cumsc r ibed by means o f an ex tens i ve and com-prehens ive set of standards and o b j e c t i v e s tha t can , moreover, be mod i f i ed without undue c o n s t r a i n t s , t a k i n g account o f new f a c t u a l developments as w e l l as f u r t h e r or more s o p h i s t i c a t e d research r e s u l t s . De lege ferenda the Agreement i n general i s n e i t h e r i n c o n s i s t e n t 97 w i th the H e l s i n k i Rules , nor does i t c o n f l i c t w i th the Stockholm P r i n c i p l e s . The Agreement i s noteworthy alone f o r showing the i n t e r n a t i o n a l community t ha t such a comprehensive agreement i s , indeed., p o s s i b l e . - 53 -Th i s might prov ide some encouragement f o r s t a t e s s i m i l a r l y a f f e c t e d , a lthough no two i n t e r n a t i o n a l water basins are a l i k e , some s i m i l a r i t i e s do e x i s t . Th is would appear to p e r t a i n to Rhine p o l l u t i o n , f o r example, where - to date - but two s p e c i a l i z e d p o l l u t i o n agreements have been conc luded, one d e a l i n g w i t h 99 c h l o r i d e , the o ther w i th chemica l s . b) The most important e f f e c t o f the Agreement on the Commission has been to strengthen i t s r o l e as the c e n t r a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l f o c a l po in t f o r a l l Canadian - U.S. endeavours aimed at m in imiz ing p o l l u t i o n i n the Great Lakes a r e a . 1 0 0 Th i s has c l e a r l y g iven the Commission a s o l i d foundat ion i n t h i s f i e l d , which has enabled i t to speak out more v i g o r o u s l y and w i t h g rea te r a u t h o r i t y than before w i th regard to governmental s lackness and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l e f f o r t s . The Agreement has a l s o had a t w o - f o l d f a c t u a l impact on the Commission, the e f f e c t of which was a marked expansion of i t s work-l oad . F i r s t , there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l i nc rease i n r e g u l a r , r e c u r r i n g a c t i v i t i e s , brought about by the terms o f the Agreement. Whereas the Commission was, p r i o r to 1972, p r i m a r i l y concerned w i th a v a r i e t y o f i n d i v i d u a l cases w i th the appendage o f a r a t h e r unobtrus ive con t r o l or s u r v e i l l a n c e board i n many i n s t an ce s , i t i s now having to cope w i th the con t i nua l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the ex tens i ve a d d i t i o n a l f unc t i on s r e l a t e d to one i s s u e , and a s u b s t a n t i a l one a t t h a t . - 54 -The annual Great Lakes water q u a l i t y repor t s exempl i f y t h i s cons ide rab le inc rease i n volume of bus iness , not to f o r ge t the added tasks imposed by the a c t i v i t i e s o f the Research Adv i so ry Board and the unusua l l y l a r ge and a c t i v e Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board, composed of e ighteen r ep re sen ta t i v e s o f the var ious r i p a r i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n s . 1 0 1 In recent years the head o f f i c e s t a f f of the Commission 's Canadian Sec t i on has been s u b s t a n t i a l l y expanded, so as to enable the Commission to comprehend and c r i t i c a l l y rev iew 102 the var ious r epo r t s submitted to i t . Then , the importance o f the q u a l i t y of Great Lakes wate r s , the l a r ge number of people i t concerned, and the r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c awareness of and i n t e r e s t i n the problem, to which the Commission i t s e l f c on t r i bu ted through i t s e a r l y r e p o r t s , l ed to growing p u b l i c demands f o r more and b e t t e r i n fo rmat ion on t h i s i s s u e , but l i k e w i s e on the r o l e and work o f the Commission as a whole. The o r g a n i z a t i o n has emerged from an almost h a l f - c e n t u r y -long r e l a t i v e l y obscure e x i s t ence to become an i n s t i t u t i o n a t t r a c t i n g 103 con s ide rab le p u b l i c a t t e n t i o n . Consequently i t has been incumbent upon the Commission not on ly to make i t s r epo r t s and o ther ma te r i a l a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c , but a l s o to e d i t and pub l i s h them i n such a manner as to make them as comprehensible to a l a rge and d i ve r se number o f people as p o s s i b l e , y e t , a t the same t ime , as i n f o rmat i ve 104 . • as necessary. The f i r s t annual r epo r t , on i t s a c t i v i t i e s i n general was pub l i shed by the Commission i n 1975. The second annual r epo r t was c l e a r l y aimed a t the i n t e r e s t e d general p u b l i c , c on t a i n i n g - 55 -a synopsis and app ra i s a l of the Commission's a c t i v i t i e s . A l a r ge po r t i on o f i t s p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s work i s c a r r i e d out by i t s r eg i ona l o f f i c e i n Windsor, t o which i t s f i r s t i n fo rmat i on o f f i c e r was appointed a few years ago. c) Supplementary to t h e i r pledge to j o i n t l y rev iew each o f the Commission's r epo r t s submitted i n accordance w i th the A g r e e m e n t , 1 0 7 108 and to con su l t each other immediately i n cases o f emergency, the P a r t i e s agreed to "conduct a comprehensive rev iew of the opera t i on and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s Agreement dur ing the f i f t h year a f t e r i t s coming i n t o f o r c e . 1 , 1 °?here i s no mention o f a j o i n t rev iew, ye t the f a c t t ha t a rev iew i s c a l l e d f o r suggests t ha t a t some stage before i t s conc lu s i on the r e s u l t s of the at present s epa ra te l y a s ses s ing P a r t i e s w i l l be pooled to produce a common denominator. I t has been obvious f o r some time alreaidy tha t the high expec-t a t i o n s o f the e f f e c t s o f the Agreement held by many, e s p e c i a l l y i n the general p u b l i c 1 1 0 were not to be f u l f i l l e d . The proc la imed date a t which the agreed programs and other measures were to be " e i t h e r completed or i n the process o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n " 1 1 1 , December 31, 1975, soon became obso lete and u n r e a l i s t i c , as f a r as t h e i r being completed i s concerned. The Commission, which has c o n t i n u a l l y po in ted out areas of concern w i t h regard to the Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n abatement p rog rams ,^ 2 ' noted i n 1976, t ha t "progress i n implementing the terms of the Agreement has been g e n e r a l l y s low, uneven and i n some cases d i s a p p o i n t i n g . 1 , 1 ^ " W h i l e the Commission recogn izes t ha t s i z e a b l e programs f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of water p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l f a c i l i t i e s i n the Great Lakes Bas in are c u r r e n t l y i n progress i n - 5 6 -the Un i ted States and Canada, i t never the le s s perce ives t h a t these e f f o r t s must be strengthened and i n f a c t a c ce l e r a t ed i f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s o f the Agreement are to be achieved by the end o f t h i s c en tu r y . " (emphasis added). "The c i t i e s of D e t r o i t and C leve land cont inue to be the two l a r g e s t sources o f mun ic ipa l p o l l u t i o n i n the Ba s i n . The Commission cannot emphasize too s t r o n g l y , the need to complete these two major mun ic ipa l p r o j e c t s on the h ighest l e v e l p r i o r i t y 114 115 base. * I n the 1975 repo r t s i x t y - t h r e e s p e c i f i c areas were i d e n t i f i e d as "problem a r e a s " , where the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s were not being met. 116 Recent ly the Commission submitted a Spec ia l Report t o the P a r t i e s and the s t a t e / p r o v i n c i a l r i p a r i a n governments, i n which i t gave i t s v iews , gained from i t s e xpe r i ence , on severa l p r o v i s i o n s of the Agreement, so as to a s s i s t those concerned i n the comprehensive rev iew; i t i s the best b r i e f e va l ua t i on a v a i l a b l e to date. I n te r a l i a , i t s t a te s the f o l l o w i n g : The bas ic concept of the Agreement, e s p e c i a l l y the f l e x i b i l i t y of i t s p r o v i s i on s concern ing water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , has proven to be sound, and i t s substance need not be a l t e r e d to accommodate the necessary program m o d i f i c a t i o n s . Because t o x i c substances may pose the most se r i ous of the problems concern ing the Great Lakes wate r s , both Governments should implement t h e i r a l ready enacted p e r t i n e n t l e g i s l a t i o n s w i thout de lay . Phosphorus a l s o remains " a major source of c o n c e r n , " ^ 7 , n e c e s s i t a t i n g the exped i t i ou s complet ion - 57 -and e f f i c i e n t ope ra t i on of munic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l treatment f a c i l i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t D e t r o i t and C leveland, as we l l as the s t r i c t l i m i t a t i o n o f the phosphorus content i n detergents used i n the Great Lakes Ba s i n . However, caut ion should govern the use of phosphorus s u b s t i t u t e s to prevent them from becoming an equal menace. As funding has, a t t ime s , been i r r e g u l a r and r e s u l t e d i n unnecessary delays i n program; -implementations i t i s suggested tha t " the Great Lakes Basin a c t i v i t i e s of the var ious agencies i n each country under the Agreement be i nc luded as a l i n e item i n t h e i r r e s pec t i v e budgets, r a t he r than i n va r ious ca tego r i e s under the na t i ona l programs as at p r e s e n t . " 1 1 8 Program c o o r d i n a t i o n , j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s , as w e l l as water q u a l i t y mon i to r ing and s u r v e i l l a n c e have been found~ lack ing and i n need o f r i go rous a m e l i o r a t i o n . Neve r the le s s , on the whole the Commission found t h a t " the concerted e f f o r t s of the Governments have i n f a c t r e s u l t e d i n many successes s i nce 1972. The Commission f e e l s t ha t cont inued e f f o r t s over at l e a s t the next f i v e year pe r i od are v i t a l t o the u l t ima te success 119 of the Agreement." By c on t r a s t to the high expecta t i ons mentioned above those most c l o s e l y connected w i th the Agreement 's coming i n t o being are 120 the l e a s t s u r p r i s ed by i t s r a t h e r modest r eco rd . Yet the ana l y s i s has, i ndeed, shown tha t a lthough a comprehensive p o l l u t i o n abatement p r o j e c t was agreed upon by the P a r t i e s , l e g a l l y the l a t t e r merely committed themselves to endeavouring to secure the f u l f i l m e n t of 121 the Agreement. T h i s , along w i t h the funding r e s e r v a t i o n would have made i t very d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h the l i a b i l i t y o f a P a r t y , - 58 -mainly the United S t a t e s , a t the i n s i s t e n c e o f which t h i s p ro -v i s i o n had been i n s e r t e d f o r domestic reasons, f o r breach o f t r e a t y . However, because funds were gene r a l l y appropr i a ted by 122 the U.S. Congress toward water p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l , under which the Great Lakes a l s o f e l l , i n 1972, n e i t h e r s i de cou ld be excused under A r t i c l e X of the Agreement f o r any f a i l u r e to comply w i t h i t s p r o v i s i o n s . The only d e f i n i t i v e sho r t - te rm commitment o f the var ious ones i n the Agreement, i s found i n Annex 4, where i t was agreed to adopt c e r t a i n vesse l waste r e gu l a t i on s " w i t h i n one year from the en t r y 123 i n t o f o r ce of the Agreement." This p r o v i s i o n was c l e a r l y not complied w i t h by both P a r t i e s , as the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission was compelled to conclude i n i t s second annual Great Lakes water 124 q u a l i t y r epo r t e a r l y i n 1974. Whether o r not the Agreement was otherwise v i o l a t e d r e s t s on the meaning o f " i n process o f implementat ion" i n A r t i c l e V; t ha t the programs and o ther measures were not completed i n t ime has a l ready been e s t a b l i s h e d . Th i s p r o v i s i o n i s conspicuous f o r i t s vagueness. A more conc i se s p e c i f i c a t i o n , such as when a p r e l i m i n a r y p lann ing stage passes on to an implementat ion p roces s , should not have been too d i f f i c u l t t o ach ieve. In view of the otherwise p r e c i s e p r o v i s i on s i n the Agreement i t must be assumed t ha t t h i s vagueness was d e l i b e r a t e , so as to a l l ow f o r a c e r t a i n amount o f f l e x i b i l i t y should e i t h e r government, or bo th , run i n t o unforeseen d i f f i c u l t i e s . Yet f o r purposes of l e ga l c l a r i t y a l i n e must be drawn somewhere. Making - 59 -al lowances f o r the p r i n c i p l e ' i n dubio pro r eo ' the minimum requirement s t i l l acceptab le i f the Agreement i s to be at a l l cohes ive i s t ha t the programs and other measures prov ided f o r i n A r t i c l e V, i n con junc t ion w i th the va r i ou s annexes, must ,a t l e a s t , be seen to have been dea l t w i th by the P a r t i e s i n some manner, e i t h e r by conduct ing necessary ex ten s i ve r e s ea r ch , by p resent ing a comprehensive remedial p lan or by a l ready t a k i n g concrete a c t i o n . Mere mention of the f a c t t ha t something i s being done w i th regard to a c e r t a i n program or o the r measure, or that the matter i s being looked i n t o cannot be deemed adequate. Given 125 t h i s d e l i m i t a t i o n no f u r t h e r breach o f t r e a t y i s e v i den t . Ne i t he r the Agreement nor the Treaty o f 1909 con ta in p r o v i s i o n s concern ing consequences of breach o f t r e a t y . Given tha t on ly a minor breach of the Agreement has so f a r been found to have taken p l a c e , and t ha t i t has been committed by both P a r t i e s , s t rengthen ing the assumption t ha t n e i t h e r of them w i l l be i n t e r e s t e d i n ho ld ing the other l i a b l e t h e r e f o r e , en t e r i n g i n t o an a n a l y s i s o f the r e l e van t i n t e r n a t i o n a l law on l i a b i l i t i e s f o r breach o f t r e a t y would exceed the scope o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 0 PART THREE : THE RELATIVE SUCCESS OF THE COMMISSION; A COMPARISON - 60 -PART THREE: In the s i x t y - f i v e years o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission's e x i s t ence i t s s e r v i c e s have been c a l l e d upon i n more than a hundred i n d i v i d u a l cases , w i th some of wh ich , as has been shown, i t has cont inued to be i nvo l ved on a more permanent b a s i s . In terms o f quan t i t y t h i s i s q u i t e an achievement. Yet the preceding pages may have given the impress ion t h a t , q u a l i t a t i v e l y , the Commission's record leaves something to be d e s i r e d . On the other hand, i t has so f a r not been^estab l i shed e x a c t l y what can reasonably be expected from such an o r g a n i z a t i o n , nor w i l l a complete ly p rec i s e and t o t a l l y accurate e va l ua t i on ever be p o s s i b l e . A comparison w i th severa l o ther i n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions, the main or s o l e f unc t i on s o f which concern i n t e r n a t i o n a l water s , should a f f o r d a b e t t e r assessment o f the performance o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. For t h i s purpose three other such o r gan i za t i on s have been s e l e c t e d f o r s c r u t i n y , wh ich , apar t from t h e i r involvement w i th i n t e r n a t i o n a l waters problems, do not have much i n common. This d i v e r s i t y o f models i s d e l i b e r a t e i n order to permit i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and performance to be r compared s e p a r a t e l y . The value o f the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements are not always d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to the wisdom o f those r e spon s i b l e f o r producing them. More o f ten than not na tu ra l geography p lays the d e c i s i v e r o l e . S t i l l , cho ices and opt ions are po s s i b l e and do i n f l u e n c e the r e s u l t s . - 61 -The o r gan i za t i on s to be reviewed and compared w i th the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission here are the U.S. - Mexico I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary and Water Commission, the Chad Bas in Commission, and the I n t e r na t i ona l Commission f o r the P r o t e c t i o n of the Rhine aga in s t P o l l u t i o n . Emphasis i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l be p laced upon - the k ind and s i z e of the water resource( s ) to which the a t t e n t i o n o f the r e s p e c t i v e commission i s d i r e c t e d , - the o b j e c t i v e s o f the cooperat ion and the " s ub s tan t i ve o b l i g a t i o n s " 1 agreed to i n each case, - the s t r u c t u r e and f unc t i on s o f each Commission, e s p e c i a l l y w i th regard to the s t a t e sovere ignty p r i n c i p l e and means by which areas f o r p o t e n t i a l f r i c t i o n between the cooperat ing p a r t i e s can be reduced. In o rder to permit a more conc i se overview the examinat ion o f the work of the U.S. - Mexico I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary and Water Commission w i l l be r e s t r i c t e d to i t s involvement w i th the Rio Grande, which has taken up the m a j o r i t y o f i t s t ime , con t ra ry to what one might have been l e d to assume i n recent years i n l i g h t o f the 2 Colorado s a l i n i t y i s s u e , and which g ives comprehensive i n s i g h t i n t o i t s work ings. L i k ew i s e , the performance o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission s h a l l be p r i m a r i l y gauged from i t s accomplishments v i s - a - v i s Great Lakes water p o l l u t i o n , w i th re fe rence to other aspects o f i t s work where necessary. - 62 -I. 1. a) The most s e n i o r o f the commissions d i scussed here i s the I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary and Water Commission o f the Un i ted Mexican States and the United States o f Amer ica. I t was c r e a t e d , o r i g i n a l l y , as the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary Commission, pursuant to the 3 U.S. - Mexican Boundary Waters Convention of March 1, 1889. Var ious U.S. - Mexican commissions had a l ready been i n e x i s t ence 4 s i nce the 1848 Treaty o f Guadalupe-Hidalgo. In 1882 the two governments had agreed to c reate an i n t e r n a t i o n a l commission to be 5 concerned w i th the boundary west o f the Rio Grande. Because the term of t h i s commission was extended severa l times there e x i s t e d f o r severa l y e a r s , j u s t before the turn o f the m i l l e n i u m , two i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary commissions between the United S tates and Mexico: one ( o f 1882) " f o r the purpose o f r e - su r vey i ng and r e l o c a t i n g the e x i s t i n g boundary l i n e between the two c o u n t r i e s , west o f the Rio Granda," and one to s e t t l e boundary d i f f e r e n c e s between the two count r i e s a long the Rio Grande and the Colorado R i ve r . The I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary Commission o f 1889, however, was the f i r s t permanent U.S. Mexican commission, a lthough i t a l s o s t a r t e d out w i th on ly a f i v e yea r mandate. 7 But the mandate was o extended severa l times u n t i l , i n 1900, the two c o n t r a c t i n g p a r t i e s Q agreed t h a t the commission was to " cont inue i n f o r ce and e f f e c t i n d e f i n i t e l y , s u b j e c t , however, to the r i g h t o f e i t h e r c o n t r a c t i n g - 63 -par ty to d i s s o l v e the s a i d Commission by g i v i n g s i x months' n o t i c e to the o t h e r . " 1 0 The 1889 Convention g ives the commission e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to examine and dec ide on " a l l d i f f e r e n c e s or quest ions that may a r i s e on that po r t i on o f the f r o n t i e r between the United S tates o f America and the Un i ted States o f Mexico where the Rio Grande and the Colorado r i v e r s form the boundary l i n e . " 1 1 In a d d i t i o n , i t i s the commiss ion ' s f u n c t i o n to determine the p e r m i s s i b i l i t y o f works being cons t ruc ted i n e i t h e r o f the two mentioned boundary r i v e r s and, i f necessary, to suspend con s t r uc -t i o n thereon. The commission i t s e l f i s made up of two s e c t i o n s , each c o n s i s t i n g o f a commissioner, a c o n s u l t i n g eng ineer and o ther 12 necessary s t a f f . The dec i s i on s o f the commission on any matter submitted to i t i s f i n a l i f not r e j e c t e d by a t l e a s t one o f the p a r t i e s w i t h i n one month a f t e r the d e c i s i o n has been pronounced. b) The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission f o r the P r o t e c t i o n o f the Rhine aga in s t P o l l u t i o n (Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission) has been i n ex i s t ence s i nce 1950. Superseding a salmon commission, i t was e s t a b l i s h e d subsequent to an exchange o f no te s , which c o n s t i t u t e d 13 no more than a bas i c agreement to cooperate. I t was not f o rma l l y i n s t i t u t e d , though, u n t i l 1963, by the Bern Convent ion, - 64 -entered i n t o by the Swiss Con federa t i on , the French Repub l i c , the Federal Republ ic o f Germany, the Grand Duchy o f Luxemburg, and the Kingdom o f the Nether lands. The p a r t i e s agreed to cooperate i n t h e i r endeavours to abate p o l l u t i o n of the Rhine below the lower 15 lake arm of Lake Constance. Although t h i s commission d i d have a predecessor there has a l s o been an i n t e r n a t i o n a l commission f o r the c o n t r o l o f nav i ga t i on on the Rhine s i nce 1815, which has con -s i d e r a b l e powers, i n c l u d i n g i t s own j u d i c i a l t r i b u n a l s . The p a r t i e s ass igned the f o l l o w i n g f unc t i on s to the p o l l u t i o n commission, •• - to p repare, have c a r r i e d ou t , and eva luate a l l necessary i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the k i nd s , degrees and o r i g i n s o f Rhine p o l l u t i o n , - to recommend to the p a r t i e s app rop r i a te measures f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of the Rhine aga in s t p o l l u t i o n , and - to prepare the foundat ion f o r any r e l e van t agreement between the p a r t i e s . In a d d i t i o n , the commission was g iven j u r i s d i c t i o n over 1 fi anyth ing the p a r t i e s would, by consensus, r e f e r to i t . The commission i s composed o f na t i ona l d e l e g a t i o n s , each c o n s i s t i n g of up to four de lega te s , i n c l u d i n g a c h i e f d e l e g a t e . 1 7 The de legat ions a l t e r n a t e every three y ea r s , on a r o t a t i o n system, i n assuming the c h a i r o f the commission. The de lega t i on i n the - 65 -c h a i r des ignates one o f i t s delegates - p r e f e r a b l y not the c h i e f 18 delegate - as p re s i den t o f the commission. Dec i s ions must be made unanimously and i n the presence o f a l l d e l e g a t i o n s ; a 19 de lega t i on votes en b l o c . Cooperat ion w i th other r e l e v a n t 20 i n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions i s prov ided f o r . c) In T.964';the Federal Republ ic o f Cameroun, the Republ ic o f Chad, the Republ ic o f N iger and the Federal Republ ic of N i g e r i a 21 e s t a b l i s h e d the Chad Bas in Commission. The purpose o f the agreement,was to - prov ide f o r the f o rmu la t i on o f " p r i n c i p l e s f o r the u t i l i z a t i o n of the resources o f the Chad Bas in f o r economic purposes, i n c l u d i n g the harness ing o f the 22 wa te r , " and to - i n t e n s i f y the p a r t i e s ' " cooperat ion and e f f o r t s i n the 23 development o f the Chad Ba s i n . The r i g h t o f each par ty to develop i t s pa r t of the Bas in was a f f i r m e d , s ub jec t however, to the l i m i t a t i o n s o f present and 24 f u tu re agreements. The Member S tates agreed not to undertake any measure having..an:"apprec.iable e f f e c t ^on .the waters o f the 25 • Bas in w i thout p r i o r . x o n s u l t a t i o n . The agreement requ i re s the commission - " t o prepare general r e gu l a t i on s which w i l l permit the f u l l a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s se t f o r t h i n the - 66 -present Convention and i t s annexed S t a t u t e , and to ensure t h e i r e f f e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n ; - " t o c o l l e c t , eva luate and d i s seminate i n fo rmat ion on proposals made by Member S tates and to recommend plans f o r common p r o j e c t s and j o i n t research programmes i n the Chad B a s i n ; - " t o ma in ta in l i a i s o n between the Member S ta tes to ensure the most e f f i c i e n t use o f the water of the B a s i n ; r " t o f o l l o w the progress of the execut ion o f surveys and works i n the Chad Bas in as envisaged i n the present Convent ion, and to keep the Member S tates i n f o rmed . . . . . . t h e r e o n . . . ; - " t o draw up common r u l e s regard ing nav i ga t i on and t r a n s p o r t ; - " t o draw up S t a f f Regulat ions and to ensure t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n ; - " t o examine compla ints and to promote the se t t lement o f d i sputes and the r e s o l u t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s ; - g e n e r a l l y , to superv i se the implementation o f the p rov i s i on s o f the present S ta tu te and the Convention 26 to which i t i s annexed. The commission con s i s t s o f two commissioners from each member s t a t e , one of whom s h a l l be recommended by the commission - 67 -f o r appointment to the p o s i t i o n o f execut i ve s e c re t a r y by the heads o f s t a te s and governments o f the p a r t i e s . The s e c r e t a r y -general 's term of o f f i c e l a s t s three y e a r s , w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t y 27 o f renewal. The commissioners and the execut i ve s ec re ta r y enjoy 28 ?Q d i p l oma t i c s t a t u s . Dec i s ions must be taken i n the presence o f a t l e a s t one commissioner from each member s t a t e ; they must be 30 unanimous. The commissioners are not independent; they f u n c t i o n 31 as i n s t r u c t e d and are c o n t r o l l e d ; n a t i o n a l de lega te s . B a s i c a l l y the p a r t i e s have c reated here a commission w i th 32 both c o n s u l t a t i v e and execut i ve elements. Disputes unable to be re so l ved by the commission are to be r e f e r r e d to the Commission o f Med i a t i on , C o n s i l i a t i o n and A r b i t -33 r a t i o n o f the Organ i za t i on o f A f r i c a n U n i t y , f o r de te rm ina t i on . 2. a) The l a r g e s t area any o f the fou r commissions was given as the focus o f i t s a t t e n t i o n i s t ha t o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission: the U.S. - Canadian boundary which i s , i n c l u d i n g A l a s k a , almost 8000 km long . Moreover, the commission c o u l d , under A r t i c l e s IX or X o f the Boundary Waters T r ea t y , be asked to address i t s e l f to a l a rge v a r i e t y o f matters t ha t need not even be r e s t r i c t e d to water per se. And indeed, as has been shown, i n the s i x t y - f i v e years of i t s e x i s t ence the commission has d e a l t 34 w i th a number o f d i ve r se i s s ue s . But because the s i n g l e most out s tand ing problem i t has d e a l t w i th i n recent years was t ha t - 68 -o f environmental p o l l u t i o n , i t s Canadian chairman goes so f a r as to suggest t h a t i n the eyes o f the general p u b l i c , i t i s g r adua l l y 35 assuming the r o l e o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l environmental ombudsman. The a c t i v i t i e s o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary (and Water) Commission a r e , : b y 'comparison, somewhat more modest, both i n terms o f a rea l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a u t h o r i t y , being r e s t r i c t e d pure l y to boundary i s s ue s . I t s main concerns over the l a s t few decades have been the s a l i n i t y of the Colorado R i ve r and the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the water o f the Rio Grande (R io Bravo) f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes and f l o o d c o n t r o l . At the r e spec t i v e times these two commissions were c reated the d e l i m i t a t i o n o f the water resource s e c t o r they were g iven a u t h o r i t y over as we l l as the scope of t h i s a u t h o r i t y (not to be confused w i th the degree o f t h e i r powers) seemed e n t i r e l y adequate i n l i g h t of the problems then needing s o l u t i o n . Yet de sp i te the mu l t i t ude of d i f f e r e n t problems each o f these two commissions might p o t e n t i a l l y be i n vo l ved w i t h , the balance of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s would, i n i t i a l l y a t l e a s t , be noonore than the sum o f i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t i e s . In c o n t r a s t , the founders o f the Chad Bas in Commission de f i ned both the sub jec t and the o b j e c t o f t h e i r common concern, the ' c o n v e n t i o n a l ' Chad Bas in as the water resource i n ques t ion and i t s u t i l i z a t i o n i n a compre-hens ive andccooperat ive manner, very b road l y . The convent iona l Bas in i s an a r b i t r a r i l y chosen p o r t i o n , about one - s i x t h o f the - 69 -hydrographic Lake Chad Ba s i n . The l a t t e r , having an o v e r a l l area o f 2,500,000 sq . km., would appear to be complete ly unmanageable as a whole; the convent iona l b a s i n , though s t i l l cover ing the vast area o f 427,300 sq. km., seems eminent ly more 37 s u i t a b l e f o r a concerted water resource management e f f o r t . In s p i t e o f the s i z e o f the B a s i n t h i s d u a l l y ex tens i ve approach, bas in-wide management as w e l l as comprehensive p lann ing o f the uses o f the water re source , appears prudent (much more so than i f , f o r i n s t ance , the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission had been se t up to deal w i th a l l the boundary waters ba s i n s , which cou ld i n c l ude h a l f o f North America) f o r seve ra l reasons: 38 Lake Chad , a unique body o f water , i s a very l a rge but very sha l low f re sh water lake i n west c e n t r a l A f r i c a , approx imate ly 12.5° to 14.5° north o f the equator , w i th a sea sona l l y va ry ing area o f 13000 to 22000 sq. km. and an average depth of no more than 2 m . I t i s fed almost e n t i r e l y by f ou r r i v e r s , the f low o f on ly one o f wh ich, the C h a r i , does not dry up f o r pa r t o f the yea r . The l ake does not d i scharge any wate r , most o f which i s l o s t through evaporat ion and t r a n s p i r a t i o n . ! I t reaches i t s peak volume i n December. "The general l e v e l of i t s su r face r i s e s and f a l l s by i r r e g u l a r amounts w i t h a v a r i a b l e p e r i o d i c i t y . These changes apparent l y depend upon the combined e f f e c t o f three separate c y c l e s : f i r s t , major c yc l e s o f which each comprises an indeterminate number of y e a r s ; second ly , minor o r seasonal - 70 -c y c l e s ; and t h i r d l y , temporary, wind- induced and t i d a l c y c l e s . " 3 ' This e a s i l y leads to the conc lu s i on tha t not even Lake Chad a l one , but r a the r the whole o f the Chad Bas in i s a s eve re l y l i m i t e d water resource. A few uncoordinated u n i l a t e r a l p r o j e c t s cou ld prevent a l t e r n a t i v e , perhaps e q u a l l y j u s t i f i e d and maybe even more necessary, u t i l i z a t i o n o f the B a s i n ' s water re source ; they cou ld even j eopa rd i ze the e c o l o g i c a l l y most d e l i c a t e l y balanced l a k e , which would almost s u r e l y en large the Sahel zone, c u r r e n t l y touching the north o f the l a k e . In t h i s case, t h e r e f o r e , regard ing the Chad Bas in as a u n i t to be managed c o o p e r a t i v e l y seems to l a ck an a l t e r n a t i v e . That i t i s a t a l l p o s s i b l e i s owing to the c i rcumstances tha t thus f a r ha rd l y any use has been made o f bas in wate r s , wh ich , i n t u r n , i s owing to the f a c t t ha t the young A f r i c a n s t a te s are j u s t beginning to develop i n d u s t r i e s i n t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s . T h i s , i n l i g h t o f what has been s a i d above about the l i m i t e d water resources i n . t h e Ba s i n , r a the r than focus ing on on l y a few conce ivab le uses o f i t s water resources . The f a c t t ha t " the harness ing of water " i s the on ly use exp re s s l y mentioned i n the general o u t l i n e of the aims o f the p a r t i e s does suggest a c e r t a i n p r i o r i t y , though i t ; i s not s p e c i f i e d as such; but o ther uses o r the l a t e r adopt ion of o ther p r i o r i t i e s regard ing uses are not prec luded thereby. - 71 -One major problem concerning the Chad Bas in Commission seems, nonethe les s , to e x i s t , a l b e i t l a t e n t a t p resent . This concerns the Chari-Logone R i ve r complex; the Logone f lows i n t o the Chari a shor t d i s tance before the l a t t e r empties i n t o the l a k e . 94% of the su r face water feed ing the lake comes from the C h a r i -Logone system; more than h a l f of t h i s water o r i g i n a t e s i n the Cent ra l A f r i c a n R e p u b l i c . ^ 0 Thus, t h i s count ry , though not a lake r i p a r i a n s t a t e , i s eminent ly important f o r the secure f u t u r e of any Chad Bas in p r o j e c t s . Why the Cent ra l A f r i c a n Republ ic i s not a par ty to the 1964 Agreement cou ld not be a s c e r t a i n e d . The broad approach adopted f o r the spa r se l y i n hab i t ed and ha rd l y developed Chad Bas in i s , o f course, not so e a s i l y taken i n a densely populated and h i gh l y developed area such as c e n t r a l Europe. For t h i s reason alone i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission deals on ly w i th p o l l u t i o n , and on ly 41 i f i t occurs i n the Rhine i t s e l f . Not on l y the enormous problems ( i n c r e a s i n g d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y to t e r r i t o r i a l expansion) tha t are encountered i n i n t e g r a t i n g a new i n t e r n a t i o n a l agency i n t o the d i f f u s e and densely populated as we l l as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y , j u d i c i a l l y and, perhaps most important o f a l l , economica l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d and d e l i c a t e l y balanced s t a t e of present-day c e n t r a l Europe, though, suggest the f e a s i b i l i t y of the u n i t o f s upe r v i s i on chosen - the Rhine from where i t f lows out o f Lake Constance to - 72 -where i t f lows i n t o the North Sea. This i s the area where the bulk of Rhine p o l l u t i o n o r i g i n a t e s ( r i p a r i a n usage), being caused mainly by i n d u s t r i a l wastes and urban sewage. A l a rge po r t i on a l s o comes from waters f l ow ing i n t o the r i v e r , but combatting p o l l u t i o n on a Rhine drainage bas in s c a l e would be, as has a l ready been i m p l i e d , v i r t u a l l y imposs ib le owing to the number o f j u r i s -d i c t i o n s i n v o l v e d , each rep re sen t i ng a h e a v i l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d s t a t e . Some t r i b u t a r i e s are e n t i r e l y w i t h i n na t i ona l j u r i s d i c t i o n s , which v i r t u a l l y r u l e s out i n t e r n a t i o n a l c oope ra t i on , f o r reasons o f j e a l o u s l y guarded sovere ign r i g h t s , w h i l e o ther i n t e r n a t i o n a l wate r s , such as Lake Constance, the Saar and the Mose l , have t h e i r own i n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions concern ing themselves w i t h p o l l u t i o n , and w i th which the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission i s , 42 under the Bern Convent ion, au tho r i zed to (and should) cooperate. Moreover, from the v iewpoint o f c o n t r o l l i n g p o l l u t i o n to the mutual b e n e f i t o f a l l Rhine r i p a r i a n coun t r i e s i t appears s u f f i c i e n t (though ba re l y ) to e s t a b l i s h c o n t r o l over the Rhine i t s e l f . I t i s then up to the o ther na t i ona l o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l agencies to r eac t i n accordance t he r ew i t h . However, the scope o f the Commisiori.':s a c t i v i t i e s has not been l i m i t e d to t r a n s -f r o n t i e r p o l l u t i o n . The Rhine i s used p r i m a r i l y f o r n a v i g a t i o n , f o r waste d i s p o s a l , and as a source f o r munic ipa l water s u p p l i e s . The - 73 -l ong - s tand ing and q u i t e a c t i v e I n t e r na t i ona l Rhine Nav igat ion Commission handles n a v i g a t i o n ; the o ther two uses are d e a l t w i th 43 by the P o l l u t i o n Commission. G i v i ng the l a t t e r added func t i on s concerning the u t i l i z a t i o n o f the Rh ine ' s water resource i s , i n l i g h t o f both t h e i r i n s i g n i f i c a n c e and the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s mentioned above, not a d v i s a b l e . S i m i l a r l y , i t seems e a s i e r and more e f f e c t i v e to have the two Rhine Commissions coo r -d inate ove r l app ing concerns , which p r i m a r i l y i n vo l ve s waste d ischarges from s h i p s , than to p lace one commission i n charge o f nav i ga t i on and p o l l u t i o n , both o f which are e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t aspects o f one water resource and wh ich , w i th regard to the Rhine i n p a r t i c u l a r , are so i n t r i c a t e and o f such a magnitude as to each demand the complete a t t e n t i o n o f a separate commission. Whereas the cooperat ion o b j e c t i v e of the U.S. - Mexican arrangement was, i n 1889, the set t lement o f boundary d i s p u t e s , wh ich, a t t ha t t ime , appeared adequate, the U.S. went a step f u r t h e r w i th Canada two decades l a t e r : the o b j e c t i v e there was mainly to prevent d i sputes (but a l s o to s e t t l e them). The o b j e c t i v e o f the Rhine r i p a r i a n s t a te s i s e q u a l l y c l e a r l y s t a t e d : to cooperate i n t h e i r attempts a t abat ing the p o l l u t i o n of the Rhine. The Chad Bas in s t a t e s ' o b j e c t i v e s are twofo ld - to develop p r i n c i p l e s f o r the u t i l i z a t i o n o f water resources f o r economic purposes and to i n t e n s i f y cooperat ion i n the development - 74 -o f the resources - but p rope r l y de f ined i n l i g h t o f the p a r t i c -u l a r p o l i t i c a l and economic s i t u a t i o n of the r e g i o n , i t i s e s p e c i a l l y noteworthy tha t the bas in s t a t e s d i d not succumb to the temptat ion of c a r r y i n g t h e i r cooperat ion scheme so f a r as to immediately aim a t a r e l a t i v e l y f e d e r a l i z e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , sa fe to assume tha t both the u n i t o f management chosen and the fundamental p r i n c i p l e s governing the scope of coope ra t i on , i . e . the s e c t i o n ( s ) of the p a r t i c u l a r . water resource which the p a r t i e s agreed to develop and admin i s te r c o o p e r a t i v e l y , were at the out se t s u i t a b l y determined i n the case of a l l f ou r i n t e r n a t i o n a l arrangements. The p r i n c i p l e of s t a t e sovere ignty has on ly been exp re s s l y su r rendered, and on l y to a very l i m i t e d e x t e n t , i n one o f the four cases examined, t h a t o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, w i th respect to i t s a u t h o r i t y to approve the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f work 44 a f f e c t i n g boundary water s . But the Treaty permits the two Governments to set a s ide the Commission's j u r i s d i c t i o n by means o f s p e c i a l agreements, which are de f ined so broad ly as to i n c l ude 45 almost any p e r t i n e n t mutual arrangement. Thus t h i s paramount p r i n c i p l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law has not been weakened o r m o d i f i e d , l e t alone r e p l a c e d , to any app rec i ab le ex tent by the i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperat ion arrangements examined here. - 75 -I t might be argued tha t when c r e a t i n g the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary and Water Commission i n 1889 the Un i ted S tates and Mexico d i d indeed l i m i t t h e i r r e s pec t i v e sovere ignty i n s o f a r as 46 c e r t a i n boundary waters i s sues were concerned. However, the two p a r t i e s must, i n f a c t , f i r s t agree to submit the matter i n quest ion to the commission before i t can become i n vo l ved i n the i s s u e , and A r t i c l e VI I I c l e a r l y r e t a i n s u l t ima te government 47 j u r i s d i c t i o n . The commision 's a u t h o r i t y to suspend c o n s t r u c t i o n o f c e r t a i n works can on ly be an i n t e r i m measure; the f i n a l dec i s i on s a r e , a ga i n , made a t the government l e v e l . In g e n e r a l , the on l y a u t h o r i t a t i v e dec i s i on s the commissions are permi t ted to make p e r t a i n to procedural and a few pure l y 48 t e c h n i c a l matter s . The powers a commission has been granted i s one f a c t o r , though by no means the predominant one, a f f e c t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f such a body. Of con s ide rab le importance, as w e l l , i s the s t r u c t u r e o f the commission, i . e . i t s s i z e and the s ta tu s o f i t s commiss ioners, as w e l l as the i n t e r n a t i o n a l dec i s ion-mak ing process . Here the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission appears to have been given a d e f i n i t e advantage a t the ou t s e t . F i r s t , i t has s i x commiss ioners, more than the U.S. - Mexican commission has, but l e s s than are on the o ther two. Gene r a l l y , the sma l l e r such - 76 -an o r gan i z a t i on i s , the more e f f e c t i v e i t should be. Thus the 49 wisdom of having a commission c o n s i s t i n g o f up to twenty persons i s very much open to q u e s t i o n . On the other hand, chances are that a two-member panel might not v e n t i l a t e problems and i s sues as thoroughly as a group o f s i x probably would. The l a t t e r can o f f e r a wider range of i n d i v i d u a l thought as we l l as a g reate r v a r i e t y o f p r o f e s s i o na l views and approaches (w i thou t , i t may be added, assuming the cha rac te r o f an assembly). The Chad Bas in Commission a l s o seems to have an almost i d e a l s i z e - two commis-s ioner s from each o f i t s member s t a t e s . Second, the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i s the on ly one of the four o r gan i z a t i on s where each commissioner upon assuming o f f i c e must solemnly d e c l a r e , i n w r i t i n g , h i s a l l e g i a n c e to h i s new d u t i e s , thereby s t r e s s i n g h i s 50 c o l l e g i a l r a t he r than h i s n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s . Another l e s s than opt imal aspect o f the set -up o f the Rhine Commission i s the f a c t t ha t a lthough each member country i s e n t i t l e d to send up to f ou r delegates to serve on i t , v o t i ng must occur en b l o c , which a l s o emphasizes the na t i ona l t i e s very s t r ong l y at the probable expense o f a more cooperat i ve approach t ha t c o u l d , i n t ime , l ead 51 to a k ind o f " e s p r i t de c o rp s . " F i n a l l y , the prospects f o r the success o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l commission a l s o depend on the nat ions i n v o l v e d . Here, undoubtedly, 52 the r u l e i s ' t h e sma l l e r the b e t t e r ' . In the f i e l d o f i n t e r -- 77 -na t i ona l r e l a t i o n s and law, governed as i t i s , by the p r i n c i p l e o f abso lu te s t a t e sovere ignty and l a c k i n g a coe r c i ve system, a dec i s i o n taken by on ly m a j o r i t y vote i s r a r e l y adhered to by s t a t e s t r u l y opposed to i t . In consequence, dec i s i on s a f f e c t i n g severa l c o u n t r i e s , e s p e c i a l l y those e n t a i l i n g some k ind o f commit-ment to p o s i t i v e a c t i on r a t he r than j u s t a pass ive t o l e r a t i o n o f some other a c t i o n o r a s ta tus quo endorsement, must u s u a l l y be supported unanimously. Most o f the time such a consensus can on ly be reached a f t e r time consuming n e g o t i a t i n g , hard barga in ing and compromising, a process t ha t becomes i n f i n i t e l y more d i f f i c u l t w i th every a d d i t i o n a l member a t the n e g o t i a t i n g t a b l e . Y e t , though c a t e r i n g to the lowest common denominator ( a l l the more so the l a r g e r the commission) unanimity does inc rease compl iance, a lthough there sometimes i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i n the end there w i l l be noth ing l e f t to comply w i t h . The two North American Commissions, being on ly b i l a t e r a l , have a d i s t i n c t advantage i n t h i s re spect over the Chad and Rhine Commissions w i th t h e i r four and f i v e member s t a t e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The q u a l i t y of a commiss ion ' s work w i l l a l s o be i n f l u enced by the q u a l i t y of re l a t i on s * between member s t a t e s . In 1889 r e l a t i o n s between Mexico and the United S tates were not; very, bad, but they were not e x c e p t i o n a l l y good e i t h e r ; a s t a t e o f b e l l i g e r e n c y had e x i s t e d between them on ly a generat ion e a r l i e r . At the time the Boundary Waters Treaty was conc luded, on the other hand, i n 1909, - 78 -the United States and i t s neighbour to the north had not been a t war w i th each other f o r almost a century . In 1963 Europe had ba re l y su rv i ved a devas ta t i ng war the l i k e s of which had not been wi tnessed f o r a t l e a s t three cen tu r i e s and i n which c o u n t r i e s , now a f f i r m i n g t h e i r i n t e n t to cooperate i n combatting p o l l u t i o n i n the Rhine, had fought v i c i o u s l y aga in s t each other a scant two decades e a r l i e r . O c c a s i o n a l l y , some l a t e n t a ve r s i on s , notab ly on the pa r t of the French aga in s t the Germans,' s t i l l s u r face even today. But good work ing, i f not e x c e p t i o n a l l y c o r d i a l , r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the Rhine r i p a r i a n coun t r i e s are f a c i l i t a t e d by c l o se economic t i e s , (w i t h i n o r w i thout the E.E.C., of which Sw i t ze r l and i s not a member) and long - s tand ing d i p l oma t i c and other channels of communication, a l l of which was almost t o t a l l y l a c k i n g i n the Chad Bas in i n 1964. The coun t r i e s i n vo l ved there had j u s t emerged as independent s t a te s and had not y e t e s t a b l i s h e d any notable .53 degree of formal contact s w i t h each o t he r . " A l l they r e a l l y had i n common was t h e i r an t i pa thy toward the "European" conventions p e r t a i n i n g to A f r i c a o f the time around the tu rn of the cen tu ry , •54 which to them were "an unwelcome reminder o f the c o l o n i a l p a s t . " % Thus i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t ha t the Chad Bas in agreement has prov ided f o r a d i spute se t t lement procedure i n v o l v i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n commission of the Organ i za t ion o f A f r i c a n Un i ty r a t he r than , f o r i n s t a n c e , the I n t e r na t i ona l Court o f J u s t i c e . 5 5 - 79 -Another d i s t i n c t advantage the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission had over the o ther commissions from the very beginning was that i t was the on ly such body the sponsor ing s t a te s o f which b a s i c a l l y spoke the same language and had very s i m i l a r s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l and economic backgrounds. Th is tends to f a c i l i t a t e communication between the p a r t i e s as we l l as enab l i ng a b e t t e r general a p p r e c i a t i o n of each o the r . Common denominators can thus be more e a s i l y found. France and Germany, f o r i n s t a n c e , have c u l t u r a l and l i n g u i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e s ; Mexico and the Un i ted States d i f f e r l i n g u i s t i c a l l y , c u l t u r a l l y and economica l l y , as do the Chad Basin s t a t e s , a l b e i t w i th g rea te r economic d i s p a r i t y : N iger and Chad are extremely poor w i th ha rd l y any p o t e n t i a l f o r development, Cameroun i s r a t he r w e l l - t o - d o and has a reasonably developed i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , wh i l e N i g e r i a i s one o f the w e a l t h i e s t nat ions on the c on t i nen t . In conc lu s i on the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission was a t the o u t s e t , f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons, i n a markedly b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to succeed i n what i t was se t up to do than were the o ther three commissions, even the two most recent ones. I t w i l l now have to be examined whether or not t h i s "head s t a r t " has l ed to the appropr i a te performance r e co rd . - 80 -I I . a) The youngest o r g a n i z a t i o n under s c r u t i n y here , the Chad Bas in Commission i s m u l t i l a t e r a l , wh ich , as has been shown, i s not due to i t s t ime o f c r e a t i o n , but to hydrography and E C p o l i t i c a l boundar ies. So f a r as can be determined, the commission has on ly a modest record to i t s c r e d i t to da te , which i s not a t a l l s u r p r i s i n g , g iven i t s age and the f a c t t h a t i t was n e i t h e r c reated t o , nor has i t s i n ce been c a l l e d upon to deal w i th any se r i ou s problem t h a t might have demanded immediate, perhaps even r a d i c a l a c t i o n . I t does not e x i s t as a response to c e r t a i n concrete problems, but r a t h e r , i n t e r a l i a , to a n t i c i p a t e them and prevent them from assuming major p r opo r t i o n s . In 1973. the commission was, f o r i n s t a n c e , ab le to r epo r t t ha t " p o l l u t i o n o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l waters does not a t the present t ime c o n s t i t u t e 57 a se r i ou s problem f o r the Lake Chad Bas in Commission." One of the g rea te s t d i f f i c u l t i e s the commission has had to cope w i t h i s i t s own lack o f e x p e r t i s e , a dilemma t h a t pervades newly independent A f r i c a . Thus most o f the commiss ion 's s tud ie s were conducted by v <. 58 o r w i t h the a s s i s t ance o f Un i ted Na t i on s ' a genc i e s . Lack o f funds, both on the pa r t o f the coun t r i e s i n vo l ved and, subsequent t h e r e t o , on the pa r t o f the commission, wh ich , moreover had to 59 have a l l e x t r a o r d i n a r y expendi tures s p e c i a l l y approved, .added to i t s d i f f i c u l t i e s . As a r e s u l t o f these f a c t o r s the comiriission, i n i t s very e a r l y - 81 -en years d i d l i t t l e o the r than c a r r y out r e sea r ch , u s u a l l y i n i t i a t e d and superv i sed by the FAO. In 1972, however, the Heads o f the member s t a t e s , meeting f o r the f i r s t time s i nce the s i g n i n g 61 o f the 1964 Convention and S t a t u t e , e s t a b l i s h e d - by Agreement 62 the Lake Chad Bas in Commission Development Fund. The commission does not appear to have p layed a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the p repa ra t i on o f the agreement. The fund, i n t o which each member s t a t e agreed to pay l/1000th o f i t s na t i ona l annual budget, w i t h i n the range o f CO $30,000.00 to $750,000.00 per annum, • was designed to f i nance the 64 commiss ion 's development p r o j e c t s . This gave the commission added impetus and enhanced i t s s t and ing . An amendment to the 1964 agreement au tho r i zed the commission to negot i a te e x t e r na l 65 66 l oans . In a d d i t i o n to i t s research work i t now assumed a more a c t i v e r o l e w i th regard to the development of the Ba s i n . In 1976 the commission was d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h p r o j e c t s such as a g r i c u l t u r a l development centres ( f o r the t r a i n i n g o f peasants i n modern methods o f a g r i c u l t u r e ) and l i v e s t o c k development p r o j e c t s , as we l l as being a c t i v e i n the f i e l d s o f f i s h e r y , r e f o r e s t a t i o n , road development, te lecommunicat ion, and t rade p r o m o t i o n . 6 7 Most o f these endeavours a re not s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned i n the 1964 Agreement, but they can be s a i d to f a l l w i t h i n i t s general p r o v i s i o n s . Recent ly the FAO was ins t rumenta l i n the p repara t i on o f a d r a f t agreement on water u t i l i z a t i o n and conservat ion i n the - 82 -Chad Ba s i n ; i t i s based on the p r i n c i p l e o f e q u i t a b l e CO u t i l i z a t i o n . Because the Chad Bas in commission has done so l i t t l e e n t i r e l y on i t s own a d i r e c t comparison o f i t s performance w i t h tha t o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission i s ha rd l y p o s s i b l e . Neve r the le s s , a general impress ion of the commission does emerge. 69 From the i n fo rmat ion a v a i l a b l e i t appears t h a t , a l though not y e t f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d on the c e n t r a l A f r i c a n scene as a permanent and i nd i spensab le i n s t i t u t i o n w i th an i d e n t i t y o f i t s own through a record o f continuous performance i n c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c f i e l d s of work, the Chad Bas in Commission i s , by t a k i n g a small step a t a t ime , s l ow l y ga in ing a f i r m f oo tho l d i n the reg ion i t was se t up to se rve . Young, undeveloped A f r i c a n s t a te s are gene ra l l y u n w i l l i n g to surrender even smal l and unimportant par t s o f t h e i r r e c e n t l y acqu i red and sometimes hard fought f o r sovere ignty i n favour of i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperat ion agreements. This commission may p o s s i b l y encounter tha t problem in the f u t u r e , as i t increases i t s a c t i v i t i e s and thereby becomes more i n vo l ved w i th na t i ona l p o l i c i e s , but as y e t i t has not s u f f e r e d from i t . By i t s very ex i s tence i t has inc reased f o r e i g n a i d p o s s i -b i l i t i e s . 7 0 I t i s thus apparent t ha t the development of t h i s commission has taken a d i f f e r e n t turn from tha t o f i t s U.S. - Canadian - 83 -counte rpa r t . The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission i s as c l o s e l y i n vo l ved w i th water as i t ever was, whereas the Chad Commission has moved away somewhat from s o l e l y concerning i t s e l f w i t h matters d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to water ; i t a l s o serves as a c a t a l y s t f o r a c t i o n r e s u l t i n g from ex te rna l a s s i s t a n c e , a r o l e w i th which the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission should not need to concern i t s e l f i n the fo re seeab le f u t u r e . The s h i f t i n p r i o r i t y o f a c t i v i t i e s which t h i s A f r i c a n commission has achieved w i t h i n the terms o f the t r e a t y s e t t i n g i t up, and i n a r e l a t i v e l y shor t t ime a t t h a t , d i s p l a y s a c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t y to the U.S. - Canadian commiss ion 's change i n emphasis from work p r i m a r i l y p r o t e c t i n g the nav i ga t i on o f the Great Lakes system to i t s cu r r en t preoccupat ion w i th environmental aspects of these water re sources , a l s o w i t h i n the terms o f i t s c o n s t i t u t i v e l e g a l i n s t rument , the Boundary Waters T reaty . S t i l l , a t rue comparison between these two bodies w i l l not be f r u i t f u l , and should t he re f o re be postponed, u n t i l such time i n . t h e f u t u r e when the Lake Chad commission w i l l f u n c t i o n f u l l y i n d e p e n d e n t l y . 7 1 .! . Here, however, a caveat i s i n o rde r : The Chad and Cameroun, i n a d d i t i o n to being p a r t i e s to the Chad Bas in agreements, have e s t a b l i s h e d a b i l a t e r a l Logone Bas in Commission 72 p r i m a r i l y to deal w i th h y d r a u l i c problems o f common i n t e r e s t . - 84 -This commission has, i n t e r a l i a , a l ready been i n vo l ved w i th a f e a s i b i l i t y study o f c o n s t r u c t i n g two storage dams f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l , i r r i g a t i o n and e l e c t r i c i t y genera t i on . Given the l a k e ' s dependence on the water i t r e ce i ve s from the Logone R i v e r , the ex i s t ence of these two commissions, should t h e i r work not c o n t i n u a l l y be c l o s e l y coo rd i na ted , cou ld lead to grave c o n f l i c t s between Chad and Cameroun on one hand, and Niger and N i g e r i a on the o the r . That need no t , and should not happen. b) A con s ide rab l y more b e n e f i c i a l comparison i s p o s s i b l e between the other r e l a t i v e l y new o r gan i z a t i on under s c r u t i n y here , the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission, and the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, b a s i c a l l y because they operate i n h i g h l y developed areas and a r e , a t p re sent , both concerned w i t h water p o l l u t i o n . Whereas the Chad Bas in Commission, f o r i n s t an ce , v i r t u a l l y had to s t a r t from s c r a t ch i n a l a r g e l y undeveloped a r e a , which conf ronted i t w i th s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i e s , the problems f a c i n g the I n t e r na t i ona l Commission f o r the P r o t e c t i o n of the Rhine aga in s t P o l l u t i o n a r e , to a l a r ge e x t e n t , o f almost e x a c t l y the oppos i te na tu re : the very problem i t was s e t up to so l ve was a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f overdevelopment. Broadly s t a t ed i t s i n i t i a l task was one of c oo rd i na t i on r a t h e r than" of i n i t i a t i o n . . Th i s would i n vo l ve the coo rd i na t i on f i r s t l y o f r e sea r ch , then o f cu r rent a c t i v i t i e s , - 85 -and u l t i m a t e l y o f measures deemed f e a s i b l e ( i . e . .necessary as w e l l as po s s i b l e ) f o r the atta inment of the se t aim: a s u b s t a n t i a l r educ t i on o f p o l l u t i o n i n the Rhine. To the l a s t o f the aspects mentioned above would be added the task o f i n i t i a t i n g proposa ls o f i t s own tha t would be r e l e van t to Rhine water q u a l i t y . S ince 1953 the commission has been ga the r i n g , e d i t i n g and e v a l u a t i n g the Rhine water q u a l i t y data t r an sm i t ted to i t by the var ious n a t i ona l t s amp l i n g and t e s t i n g s t a t i o n s s i t u a t e d along the r i v e r . The r e s u l t s are repor ted to the na t i ona l governments 73 and pub l i shed annua l l y . To make the r e s u l t s comparable uni form methods o f a n a l y s i s were f i r s t developed by a committee e s t a b l i s h e d by the commission. In the e a r l y 1970's the commission began prepar ing an agreement f o r the reduc t i on of chemical wastes i n the Rhine (chemicals agreement) and, l a t e r , a separate one f o r s a l t reduct ion (ch lo r ide - agreement). Progress however, was extremely s low, and i t wasn ' t u n t i l the member s t a te s governments, l a t e i n 1972, agreed to meet r e g u l a r l y , a t l e a s t a nnua l l y , on a m i n i s t e r i a l l e v e l , i n o rder to exped i te agreement upon and adopt ion o f the necessary measures to combat the i n c r e a s i n g p o l l u t i o n of the r i v e r s , t ha t some headway was made. S t i l l , a f t e r two such meetings, one i n October 1972 and the o ther i n December 1973, there was a major impasse, which r e s u l t e d i n - 86 -cont inued postponement of the next m i n i s t e r i a l conference. During t ha t time the commission was asked to work out and recommend compromise s o l u t i o n s to va r ious un se t t l ed s i n g l e i s s u e s , but agreement w i t h i n the commission cou ld not be reached. The m i n i s t e r i a l meeting e v e n t u a l l y took p lace i n A p r i l , 1976, to be f o l l owed by another one a few weeks l a t e r , a t which the major con t rove r s i e s regard ing the two mentioned agreements were s e t t l e d . The two f i n a l d r a f t s were approved by the commission i n J u l y 1976 and s igned by the governments i n December o f t ha t y e a r , a long w i th an a d d i t i o n a l agreement g r an t i ng commission membership to the E.E.C. The agreements are cons idered by many experts to be inadequate and too weak to have an app rec i ab l e 74 e f f e c t on Rhine P o l l u t i o n . At t h e i r f i r s t meeting i n 1972 the m i n i s t e r s requested the commission to draw up a long-range p o l l u t i o n abatement program, arranged i n order o f p r i o r i t i e s , to serve as a g u i d e l i n e f o r the governments. This program, c on t a i n i n g d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion on the present s t a t e of the r i v e r as w e l l as the commiss ion ' s long-range task program, was pub l i shed i n 1976. I t i s a con se r va t i ve document t h a t ha rd l y conta ins anyth ing not a l ready known. The commission was, i n 1972, a l s o asked to recommend to 75 the m i n i s t e r s , a t t h e i r next meet ing, i n what ways i t s s t r u c t u r e and modus operandi cou ld be changed so as to render i t more - 87 -e f f e c t i v e . I t was unable to comply w i th t h i s request w i t h i n the a l l o t t e d t ime, so tha t the m i n i s t e r s agreed to augment the number o f c l e r i c a l s t a f f i n the commiss ion ' s head o f f i c e i n Koblenz, a measure designed to a c c e l e r a t e the commiss ion ' s performance. The commissioners are u s u a l l y hijgh-ranking na t i ona l c i v i l s e r v a n t s 7 6 de legated by t h e i r governments to serve on the commission i n a d d i t i o n to performing t h e i r r e g u l a r d u t i e s . Th is synops i s s u f f i c e s to revea l t h a t the Rhine Commission has achieved but l i t t l e s i n ce i t s formal i n c o r p o r a t i o n , and i f the i n i t i a l years of i t s unchartered ex i s t ence are not d i scounted i t s performance has been abysmal. One of the main reasons f o r c r e a t i n g the commission i n the f i r s t p lace was t o curb the - then a l ready - menacing i nc rease i n the r i v e r ' s s a l i n i t y . Yet from 1950 to 1970 the i nc rease was g rea te r than be fo re , from 180 kg/sec to 365 kg/sec, a f a r c ry from r e t a i n i n g a s ta tu s quo, l e t a lone ach i ev i ng a d e c r e a s e . 7 7 W i th in t h a t same time the commission d i d not s e r i o u s l y cons ider having thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c a r r i e d out to determine the p rec i s e o r i g i n s and causes of the var ious p o l l u t a n t s , nor d i d i t i n earnest attempt to e s t a b l i s h a communal means o f data gather ing and e va l ua t i on beyond the above-mentioned i n i t i a l , even then no more than cur sory steps taken before 1953, which i n no way have kept abreast o f product ion developments tha t have occurred s i n ce tha t t ime. I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , - 88 -not s u r p r i s i n g tha t i n recent years the commission has on ly made such general and imprec i se recommendations to the governments concerned as : "The I n t e r na t i ona l Commission f o r the P r o t e c t i o n o f the Rhine aga in s t P o l l u t i o n recommends to the p a r t i c i p a t i n g governments t h a t , pending a mutua l l y acceptab le r e g u l a t i o n of the pe rm i s s i b l e thermal c apac i t y of the Rhine, they take the necessary s t ep s , when p lann ing and c o n s t r u c t i n g works tha t d i scharge heat i n t o the Rhine, to ensure tha t these works can be mod i f i ed to comply w i t h 78 such requirements as w i l l be agreed upon." Or: "The I n t e r na t i ona l Commission f o r the P r o t e c t i o n o f the Rhine aga in s t P o l l u t i o n recommends tha t new waste treatment f a c i l i t i e s be cons t ruc ted i n such a way as to permit the i n c o r -79 po ra t i on of the t h i r d c l e an s i n g stage (phosphate e l i m i n a t i o n ) . " By con t r a s t the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission has performed r e l a t i v e l y w e l l . This s t r i k i n g d i s s i m i l a r i t y i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s appears to stem from a cumulat ion o f severa l d i ve r se causes. The l o c a t i o n s of the s t a te s i n vo l ved i n r e l a t i o n to the r e s p e c t i v e waters g i ve the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission a two - f o l d e x t r i n s i c advantage: Only two coun t r i e s share the resources of the Great Lakes, whereas f i v e coun t r i e s (and now 80 the E.E.C.) are i n vo l ved w i th the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission. Furthermore;; the problems posed by the Great Lakes to the two - 89 -coun t r i e s are s i m i l a r because the common boundary runs p r e t t y w e l l through the middle o f the waters . The s i t u a t i o n along the Rhine i s con s ide rab l y more compl i ca ted . Germany borders on a l l the other member s t a t e s : the r i v e r i s a boundary water between i t s e l f and France and S w i t z e r l a n d , but i t i s a l so a v i t a l i n t e r n a l waterway. I t i s not a boundary water between France and Sw i t ze r l and or between Germany and the Nether lands ; i t i s a cross-boundary water w i th regard to the l a t t e r two c o u n t r i e s . The Netherlands do not border on France or S w i t z e r l a n d , but being the lowermost r i p a r i a n s the Dutch a r e , of a l l the peoples i n v o l v e d , the hardest h i t by the se r ious s t a t e the r i v e r i s i n . This l e a d s , not w i thout a c e r t a i n degree o f l o g i c , to another a spec t : there i s much more confus ion among the p a r t i e s to the Bern Convention of 1963 concern ing t h e i r r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s under i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n g ene r a l , impeding cooperat ion c on s i de r ab l y , than there i s among Canada and the United S tates i n t h i s r e spec t . D i f f i c u l t i e s between the l a t t e r two coun t r i e s concerning the law o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary waters have a r i s e n on ly over the v a l i d i t y of the Harmon doc t r i n e wh ich , however, was not as p rob lemat i ca l as may seem at f i r s t g lance, f o r the waters a f f e c t i n g the common boundary f low so as to permit both coun t r i e s to base r e s p e c t i v e 81 c la ims on t h i s d o c t r i n e . In time both coun t r i e s have grown to apprec i a te t h i s f a c t , so t ha t i t s importance has dwindled acco r -d i n g l y . I t does not p lay a r o l e i n the Great Lakes water q u a l i t y - 90 -problems. The Rhine r i p a r i a n c o u n t r i e s , on the other hand, each appear to have adopted the views most s u i t e d to t h e i r geographica l p o s i t i o n w i th regard to the r i v e r . To compl icate matters f u r t h e r , the o f f i c i a l statements o f some o f the r ep re sen ta t i ve s o f some of 82 the coun t r i e s concerned lack con s i s t ency . I t might be assumed tha t the Rhine p o l l u t i o n commission has an advantage over i t s U.S. - Canadian counterpar t i n t ha t i t i s concerned w i th on l y one major aspect o f the water resource as a whole - i t s q u a l i t y . But even i f t h i s be the case, the commission has c e r t a i n l y not been ab le to c a p i t a l i z e on i t so f a r , as much because o f the p o l i c i e s o f the member s t a te s as because o f the a t t i t u d e s w i t h i n the commission i t s e l f . While Canada and the United S tates have given t h e i r j o i n t commission some, a l b e i t l i m i t e d , powers, the Rhine r i p a r i a n count-r i e s have not seen f i t to g ive even a most minute po r t i on o f t h e i r 83 sovereign r i g h t s over to the commission. Such a step would, f o r one, be con t ra r y to the Swiss paramount do c t r i n e of abso lu te 84 n e u t r a l i t y ( i . e . non-a l ignment) . Of con s ide rab l y g rea te r con-sequence, though, i s the economic s i t u a t i o n i n Europe. The market there i s so h i g h l y compet i t i ve and the na t i ona l economies so very much export o r i e n t e d t ha t no government would wish t o , o r indeed, dare t o , take i n i t i a t i v e a c t i o n f o r f e a r o f p l a c i n g some of i t s i n d u s t r i e s a t a d i sadvantage, which cou ld lead to grave economic - 91 -and p o l i t i c a l consequences on the domestic scene. This quasi s ta lemate i s caused l e s s by deep e t h n i c d i s t r u s t s o r resentments o f each other - the coun t r i e s i n vo l ved appear to have developed a good, l a r g e l y unemot ional , working r e l a t i o n s h i p w i th one another - than normal cau t i on d i c t a t e d by s t i f f c ompet i t i on . T h i s , of cour se , can, and i n t h i s case does, l ead to the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n o f almost every i s s u e , i n s t ead o f being the other way around, which would f a c i l i t a t e progress con s i de rab l y . Such problems ha rd l y e x i s t i n Canada-U.S. r e l a t i o n s . Here t oo , there have c e r t a i n l y been boundary waters d i sputes r e s u l t i n g i n p r o t r a c t e d , l abo r i ou s n e g o t i a t i o n s , the most notab le o f which preceded the 85 Columbia R iver T reaty . But these s u b s t a n t i a l c on t rove r s i e s u s u a l l y arose ' o n l y ' out of a mutual f e a r o f being taken advantage o f , w i thout the p re s s ing compet i t i ve connotat ion,, and when they were e v e n t u a l l y s o l v e d , the repor t s of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission were always o f v a l u e , as a c a t a l y s t , i f noth ing more. In a d d i t i o n , the p a r t i e s to the Rhine p o l l u t i o n commission have not y e t assumed any ba s i c o r sub s tan t i ve o b l i g a t i o n s towards the. reduct ion of p o l l u t i o n , whereas the United S tates and Canada a t l e a s t agreed to the p o l l u t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n A r t i c l e IV of the Boundary Waters T rea t y , which has subsequently been given substance by the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement. I t i s t h e r e f o r e , ha rd l y s u r p r i s i n g t ha t the d i s c u s s i on s o f the Rhine - 92 -p o l l u t i o n commission d i d not l ead to much, s u f f e r i n g , as they 87 : were, from lack o f foundat ion and d i r e c t i o n . As regards the commissions themselves, t h e i r s t r u c t u r e s and t h e i r methods, the s u p e r i o r i t y o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i s on ly too obv ious. This i s ^ o t merely the r e s u l t o f the number of p a r t i e s i n vo l ved w i th and the number of persons se r v i ng on each commission, which was suggested e a r l i e r as a f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g performance, and which has been shown to be t rue i n t h i s case. S i x i n d i v i d u a l s compr i s ing a commission can communicate much more d i r e c t l y and more t e r s e l y w i th one another , 88 as we l l as being ab le to develop c l o s e r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e s p e c i a l l y i f they speak the same language and come from s i m i l a r c o u n t r i e s , than a body of twenty, or more, ever c o u l d ; t h i s b e n e f i t s the general working atmosphere w i t h i n the commission, 89 and, consequent ly , improves the r e s u l t . I t was hard ly by coincidence tha t the e a r l y commissioners rep laced ' d e c i s i o n by 90 ma jo r i t y v o te ' w i th ' d e c i s i o n by consensus , and tha t a l l t h e i r 91 successors have not quest ioned the p r a c t i c e . T h i s , t oo , d i s p l a y s a c e r t a i n degree of personal involvement on the pa r t o f the U.S. - Canadian commission, which the delegates o f the Rhine 92 P o l l u t i o n Commission do not e x h i b i t . The unanimity r u l e , the advantage o f which i s u s u a l l y deemed to be tha t i t i s condusive to compliance because i t prevents p a r t i e s from being outvoted i n - 93 -matters concerning them d i r e c t l y , i n the Rhine r i p a r i a n c o n s t e l l a t i o n can lead to p a r t i e s having a veto i n matters not d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g them. A l l o w i n g abs tent ions has m i t i g a t e d t h e i r problem somewhat, but the presumed w i l l to cooperate does appear somewhat s t r e t ched here. Indeed, the wisdom of r e q u i r i n g unanimity a t a l l i n t h i s case i s very much open to ques t ion g iven the r e l a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n a l impotence.) of the Rhine 93 P o l l u t i o n Commission, e s p e c i a l l y the f a c t t ha t t h e i r dec i s i on s are l e g a l l y not a t a l l b i nd i n g . The North American commissioners are b a s i c a l l y independent 94 o f t h e i r r e s pec t i v e governments. By and l a rge they have become very i n t e r e s t e d i n , i n vo l ved w i t h , and ded icated to t h e i r work w i th the commission. The i r d e c l a r a t i o n o f a l l e g i a n c e to the commission, which cou ld be viewed as no more than a mere f o r m a l i t y , 95 appears, i n s t e a d , to be taken q u i t e s e r i o u s l y . On the other hand, f o r the European commissioners, u s u a l l y de legated c i v i l ; s e r van t s , t h e i r p o s i t i o n s are o f ten merely more work and more inconvenience. In a d d i t i o n , they are f u l l y r e spon s i b l e to t h e i r governments, a s i t u a t i o n tha t can c u r t a i l the i n c l i n a t i o n to take i n i t i a t i v e a c t i o n , and that a l s o p r a c t i c a l l y prevents them from tak i ng a po s s i b l e case to the p u b l i c i n an e f f o r t to p r e s s u r i z e i d l e governments i n t o a c t i o n . While the prime aim o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commissioners i s to hammer out f e a s i b l e - 94 -s o l u t i o n s to concrete problems, the European de legates seem more concerned w i t h t r y i n g to prevent t h e i r own governments f rom being burdened w i th costs that are cons idered e i t h e r u n f a i r l y apport ioned o r unnecessary. Thus, i t i s ha rd l y s u r p r i s i n g tha t the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission has not y e t attempted to ' d e - p o l i t i c i z e ' any i s s u e s , which cou ld help to pave the ways towards.conc lud ing necessary agreements by, f o r i n s t a n c e , t r y i n g to c on so l i d a te the var ious data ga ther ing and e va l ua t i on processes ex tant among 96 member s t a t e s . Not u n t i l the f i r s t m i n i s t e r i a l meeting i n 1972 cou ld any no t i c eab l e motion w i th re spect to Rhine p o l l u t i o n abatement be r e g i s t e r e d . The commission has r e s t r i c t e d i t s e l f to being p r i m a r i l y a data c e n t r e . But even there i t has not succeeded i n e s t a b l i s h i n g an acknowledged r epu t a t i on t h a t would l e ad o the r e n t i t i e s to look to i t f o r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n ; these o f ten research on t h e i r own, which r e s u l t s i n cons ide rab le d u p l i -c a t i o n and ove r l app ing . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, i n i t s Lower Lakes re fe rence s tud ie s t h a t l ed to the 1970 p o l l u t i o n 97 r e p o r t , coord inated research a c t i v i t i e s and a l s o ed i t ed a l l the pe r t i n en t i n fo rmat ion obta ined through major i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c a r r i e d out p r e v i ou s l y by other o r gan i za t i on s and agenc ies . There i s no evidence to suggest tha t the cu r ren t g rea te r success o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i s owing to i t s age and expe r i ence , though i t s r eco rd o f i m p a r t i a l and thorough - 95 -dec i s i on s and repor t s have p r o g r e s s i v e l y given i t more o f a ' c r e d i b i l i t y bonus ' , which has s u r e l y had i t s e f f e c t on the two governments' w i l l i n g n e s s to g ive i t the func t i on s under the Great 98 Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement. But as f a r as the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission i s concerned, i t cou ld e q u a l l y be s a i d per argumentum e c o n t r a r i o tha t i t cou ld have b e n e f i t t e d con s ide rab l y from the past exper iences o f i t s U.S. - Canadian counterpar t wh ich , 99 i n c i d e n t a l l y , d i d not have such an advantage. However, i f one compares the i n i t i a l years o f the two commissions one f i nd s t ha t they were both faced w i th major problems very e a r l y and t h a t , whereas the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission concentrated on data e d i t i n g , the U.S. - Canadian commission undertook a t l e a s t two major p r o j e c t s , which r e s u l t e d i n the d r a f t convent ion on Boundary Waters P o l l u t i o n (1920) and the Lake o f the Woods Convention ( 1 9 2 5 ) . 1 0 0 c) The f i n a l commission to be examined i n t h i s s e c t i o n , the I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary (and Water) Commission i s b i l a t e r a l , as i s the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. Moreover, the two commissions have one par ty i n common, the United S t a t e s . The f i r s t major U.S. - Mexican boundary waters problem to a r i s e a f t e r the c r e a t i o n o f the I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary Commission was brought about by s t rong Mexican p ro te s t s over exces s i ve U.S. - 96 -withdrawals o f Rio Grande waters before the r i v e r reached the boundary, caus ing se r i ous water shortages to Mexican r i p a r i a n a g r i c u l t u r e i n the Juarez r e g i on . The Rio Grande r i s e s i n the south c e n t r a l Colorado mountains and f o l l o w s a 1900 m i l e course to the Gu l f of Mexico. For the lower 1200 mi le s i t forms the boundary between Mexico and the United S t a t e s . 1 0 1 The 1889 Convention had, i t may be remembered, not made any re fe rence to water resource a l l o c a t i o n or r e g u l a t i o n . I t was t h i s cont rover sy that l ed to the unfortunate Harmon doc t r i ne which formed the cornerstone o f the American p o s i t i o n i n p e r t i n e n t nego t i a t i on s f o r 102 decades t h e r e a f t e r . Nevertheless the commission, upon request , prepared a study o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y and r e g u l a t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f the waters o f the Rio Grande, i n which i t found t h a t the f l ow o f the r i v e r had been reduced by upstream d i v e r -103 s ions and tha t a dam was needed to regu la te i t . Government l e v e l n e g o t i a t i o n s , w i thout any f u r t h e r involvement o f the commission, f o l l owed and e v e n t u a l l y l ed to the Water Treaty o f 1906, which prov ided f o r the c on s t r u c t i o n o f the Elephant Butte 104 105 Dam near Eag le , New Mexico, and the g ra tu i t ou s d e l i v e r y of 60,000 a c r e - f e e t o f water to Mexico, s ub jec t to p ropo r t i ona te reduct ions i n times o f drought. This was the f i r s t t ime t h a t the problem o f water supply a long the U.S. - Mexican boundary was d e a l t w i t h . The commission was l a t e r en t ru s ted w i t h the admin i s -t r a t i o n o f the d e l i v e r y procedure: a t the proper time the U.S. - 97 -s e c t i on requests the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to re l ea se the a l l o t t e d amount from s to rage , and the commission ( j o i n t l y ) •J r\c measures the amounts d e l i v e r e d . The c on s t r u c t i o n of the dam has l e d to a d i v i s i o n o f the r i v e r i n t o an upper s e c t i o n , nor th o f F o r t Quitman, and a lower s e c t i o n , from the Rio Conchos conf luence to the Gu l f o f Mexico. Over the 212 m i l e s t r e t c h from Fo r t Quitman to the Conchos conf luence the r i v e r bed i s u s u a l l y d r y . 1 0 7 However, as popu la t ion and land c u l t i v a t i o n was a t t ha t time a l ready r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g , Mexico was not s a t i s f i e d w i th what i t f e l t was a meagre, e n t i r e l y inadequate po r t i on o f the 108 water resource. Lengthy, tough n e g o t i a t i o n s , i n t e r r u p t e d by the Mexican C i v i l War, ensued, dur ing which time U.S. - Mexican r e l a t i o n s were somewhat s t r a i n e d . An I n t e r n a t i o n a l Water Commission was e s t a b l i s h e d to study the ques t ion o f Rio Grande water a l l o c a t i o n and r e g u l a t i o n , but when i t f a i l e d to reach agreement a f t e r s e v e r a l years of d e l i b e r a t i o n i t was d i s s o l v e d and the con t i nua t i on o f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were r e f e r r e d to the Boundary Commis s i on . 1 0 ^ Despite the e x i s t i n g t e n s i o n , though, the two coun t r i e s cont inued to cooperate over matters concerning the Rio Grande boundary. An i n t e r n a t i o n a l f l o o d con t r o l p r o j e c t , 1 1 0 p r o v i d i n g f o r levees and floodways on each bank of the r i v e r , to be - 98 -cons t ruc ted sepa ra te l y through the two sec t i on s o f the commission, was adopted by an exchange o f notes i n 1932. In 1933 a Convention f o r the R e c t i f i c a t i o n o f the R io Grande i n the E l Paso-Juarez V a l l e y was c o n c l u d e d . 1 1 1 Based on s tud ie s c a r r i e d out by the commission a t the request o f the two governments, i t p rov ided f o r the s t r a i g h t e n i n g o f a 155 m i l e long s t r e t c h o f meandering r i v e r , thereby reducing i t s length to 86 m i l e s , and almost doub l ing i t s g rad ient i n the El Paso-Juarez a rea. In a d d i t i o n , i t was agreed to c on s t r u c t a dam, the Caba l lo Dam, 28 m i le s below the Elephant Butte Dam, about 110 mi le s upstream from the r e c t i f i c a t i o n p r o j e c t , to catch and s to re f l o o d s p i l l s and e l e c t r i c i t y - g e n e r a t i n g water from the upstream dam. Cons t ruc t ions were again c a r r i e d out s epa ra te l y under the d i r e c t i o n o f the na t i ona l s ec t i on s o f the commission i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o u n t r i e s . Costs were apport ioned 88% United States to 12% Mexico, i n 112 p ropor t i on to the est imated b e n e f i t s expected. This f o l l owed a recommendation made by the commission. E ven tua l l y compromises over the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the 113 boundary waters were reached, and i n 1944 the Water Treaty was s i gned. This i s the most ex ten s i ve and perhaps the most important U.S. - Mexican agreement a f f e c t i n g boundary waters to 114 date . The by then . i l l u s o r y dogma of f r ee nav i g a t i on was d i s c a r ded . i n favour o f a u t i l i z a t i o n preference guide w i th "domest ic and mun ic ipa l uses" and " a g r i c u l t u r e and s t o c k r a i s i n g " - 99 -i n the f i r s t and second p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y , and 115 nav i ga t i on i n f i f t h p l a ce . The pa r t o f t h i s t r e a t y w i th the g rea te s t impact i s a scheme appo r t i on ing the boundary waters to 116 the two c o u n t r i e s , and p r o v i d i n g f o r the c on s t r u c t i o n o f c e r t a i n works, i n c l u d i n g dams f o r water con t r o l and r e g u l a t i o n . The Rio Grande apportionment comprised a l l the waters o f the bas in below For t Quitman. The other important pa r t g ives the I n t e r n a t i o n a l ! Boundary Commission an e n t i r e l y new, though not a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t , f oundat ion . F i r s t o f a l l , i t s name has been changed to I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary and Water Commission. Then, whereas under the 1889 Convention each s e c t i o n con s i s t ed o f a commissioner, a c o n s u l t i n g eng ineer and a s e c r e t a r y 1 1 7 the new t r e a t y s t i p u l a t e s t ha t an "Engineer Commissioner" ; i s . t o head each s e c t i o n ; there i s no s p e c i f i e d l i m i t to the number of adv i se r s each s e c t i on i s a l l owed to have, but on ly the commissioner, two p r i n c i p a l eng ineer s , a l e ga l a d v i s e r and a s e c r e t a r y w i l l be 118 accorded d i p l oma t i c p r i v i l e g e s from the oppos i te s i d e . As be fo re , though, on ly the commissioners are empowered to make d e c i s i o n s . With regard to the Rio Grande the commiss ion ' s f unc t i on s 119 under the 1944 t r e a t y i n c l u d e : " 1 . A l l o c a t i o n s o f water between the two coun t r i e s i n accordance w i th the terms o f the T reaty . - 100 -2. The gauging o f the Rio Grande and t r i b u t a r i e s and the keeping o f records o f waters be long ing to each country . 3. As agents o f the two Governments to c o n s t r u c t , to operate and mainta in on the main r i v e r channel o f the Rio Grande: a) the dams requ i red f o r the con se r va t i on , storage and r e g u l a t i o n o f the g r ea te s t q u a n t i t y o f the annual f l ow o f the r i v e r i n a way to i n su re the cont inuance o f e x i s t i n g uses and the development o f the g r ea te s t number o f f e a s i b l e p r o j e c t s w i t h i n the l i m i t s imposed by the water a l l o tmen t s . b) The dams and other j o i n t works r equ i r ed f o r the d i v e r s i o n o f the f l ow o f the R io Grande. 4. The study and i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r p r e l i m i n a r y plans f o r f l o o d con t r o l works, where and as necessary, below Fo r t Quitman. 5. The study and i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p repara t i on o f plans f o r h y d r o - e l e c t r i c energy development, where found f e a s i b l e and i n the i n t e r e s t o f the two c o u n t r i e s . " 120 The new p rov i s i on s concern ing the v a l i d i t y o f dec i s i on s made by: the commission were expanded i n d e t a i l , but - 101 -r e s t r i c t e d i n substance, compared to the appropr i a te p r o v i s i on s 121 o f the 1889 convent ion. Whereas the o l d e r agreement purported to i n c l ude a l l dec i s i on s made by the commission, i . e . any dec i s i o n concerning any boundary problem, the new t r e a t y r e s t r i c t s dec i s i on s becoming e f f e c t i v e a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n the absence o f any government's d i s p rova l to those not r e q u i r i n g express approval by the governments under the terms o f the t r e a t y . T h i s , however, does not c u r t a i l any more o f the commiss ion 's powers than i t had a l ready l o s t , such a s , f o r i n s t a n c e , i n the 1920's when i t s f unc t i on o f d i v i d i n g shared waters was withdrawn. The commiss ion ' s p o s i t i o n was augmented, though, i n t ha t i t was given d i r e c t access to the cour t s f o r a s s i s t ance i n the d i scharges o f i t s f unc t i on s and 122 d u t i e s . Despite the undeniable progress t h a t the Water Treaty has brought w i th regard to the o r d e r l y d i s t r i b u t i o n and admin i s -123 t r a t i o n o f U.S. - Mexican boundary waters,; Mexico was s t i l l l e s s than s a t i s f i e d w i th the r e s u l t . There i s , indeed, s t rong evidence to suggest t ha t the United S tates took advantage o f severa l d i f f i c u l t i e s Mexico was expe r i enc ing i n the e a r l y 1940 ' s , the main one of which was a severe drought i n the Rio Colorado a r ea , to p r e s s u r i z e the government to the south i n a k ind of " take i t o r leave i t " a t t i t u d e i n t o s e t t l i n g f o r much l e s s than 124 i t f e l t i t was e n t i t l e d t o . - 102 -The c on s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s c a r r i e d out pursuant to the t r e a t y were done so - as usual - s imu l t aneou s l y , but s epa ra te l y on each s ide o f the border , under the s upe r v i s i on of the respon-s i b l e s e c t i o n . There were a few procedural m o d i f i c a t i o n s , though. For example, the Falcon Dam complex, the f i r s t o f the new storage dams, was designed by the U.S. Department o f the I n t e r i o r under the s upe r v i s i on o f the commission. The con s t r uc -t i o n o f the dam was p r e c i s e l y d i v i ded up accord ing to the cos t apportionment p lan o f the commission, each s e c t i o n s upe r v i s i n g the work done by i t s government. Two power p l an t s were c on s t r u c t ed , one on each s i de o f the boundary, by the r e s p e c t i v e governments, again under the s upe r v i s i on o f the na t i ona l s ec t i on s o f the commission, which a l s o oversee the opera t ion and maintenance o f 125 the whole p r o j e c t . However, the combined costs o f the power p lant s were halved and shared e q u a l l y , and each country rece i ve s h a l f of the generated energy. The Anzalduas D i ve r s i on Dam was completed i n 1960, the Amistad ( s torage) Dam i n 1969. A l l three dams are s i t u a t e d south o f the Pecos con f luence. Of the more recent boundary waters p r o j e c t s r e l a t e d to the Rio Grande and i n v o l v i n g the commission, two are worth ment ion-i n g : the Chamizal boundary s e t t l ement , and the Lower Rio Grande s a l i n i t y c a n a l . The former concerned the se t t lement o f a l ong -s tand ing land c la ims d i spute i n the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez area - 103 -by r e - c h a n e l l i n g the r i v e r so as to t r a n s f e r 823.50 acres o f land back to the Mexican s i de o f the r i v e r . The l a t t e r ^ pe r t a i ned to an i nc rea se i n the s a l i n i t y o f the r i v e r caused by Mexican i r r i g a t i o n i n f l o w s , which r e s u l t e d i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a j o i n t l y f i nanced 37 km. drainage canal on Mexican t e r r i t o r y , 127 heading s t r a i g h t to the Gu l f o f Mexico. Both p r o j e c t s were c a r r i e d out subsequent to commission recommendations and a c co r -d ing to i t s p l an s . Though these two i s sues are suggest ive o f a s l i g h t l y more a c t i v e r o l e t h a t the commission might be p l a y i n g i n boundary waters mat te r s , wh ich , however, cannot be s ub s t an t i a t ed 1 no 1 a t t h i s po i n t i n t ime, they do not prov ide any f u r t h e r i n s i g h t s e i t h e r i n t o i t s development o r i t s work and, t h e r e f o r e , need not be d i scussed i n d e t a i l here. The I n t e r na t i ona l Boundary and Water Commission obv iou s l y d i f f e r s from the two r e c e n t l y i n s t i t u t e d commissions reviewed here i n t h a t , u n l i k e the Rhine P o l l u t i o n Commission i t does have a record o f con t i nua l a c t i v e involvement i n i t s f i e l d of endeavour, boundary r e l a t i o n s , and, u n l i k e the Chad Bas in Commission, i t s " f i e l d " has r a i s e d s u f f i c i e n t problems to have demanded i t s complete a t t e n t i o n , p r ec l ud i n g i t from becoming i n vo l ved w i th o the r matters on ly i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to i t s " f i e l d " . I t s one very d i s t i n c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t c l e a r l y from the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission: - 104 = Along the U.S. - Mexican border na t i ona l p r o j e c t s are developed and c a r r i e d out autonomously w i th the commission examining merely whether or not such an endeavour would adver se ly e f f e c t i n t e r e s t s on the o ther s i d e ; or p r o j e c t s o f common concern to both count r i e s are developed sepa ra te l y on both s ides o f the border but coord inated to such a degree as to enable s imul taneous , p a r a l l e l development. Only r e c e n t l y have the two coun t r i e s c a r r i e d t h e i r coopera t i ve e f f o r t s a marginal step beyond these 129 l i m i t s , and then but very r e l u c t a n t l y , f o r l a c k o f an a l t e r n a -t i v e . The accent i s c l e a r l y on sepa ra te , independent, perhaps p a r a l l e l development that does no t , i f p o s s i b l e , i n t e r f e r e w i th the o ther s i d e . The emphasis w i t h i n the sphere o f the U.S. -Canadian commission, however, i s on cooperat ion and c o o r d i n a t i o n , i . e . j o i n t data g a the r i n g , j o i n t p l ann i ng , j o i n t c on s t r u c t i o n and 130 j o i n t ope ra t i on o r s upe r v i s i on wherever p o s s i b l e . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission attempts to f u s e , where the I n t e r -na t i ona l Boundary and Water Commission, a t most, attempts to match. The "degree o f d i f f e r e n c e i n the a u t h o r i t y o f the two commissions i s / c o n s i d e r a b l y g reate r now than i t was a t t h e i r r e s pec t i v e beg inn ings . With i t s q u a s i - j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y and i t s , s t i l l dormant, f unc t i on as a b ind ing a r b i t r a t i o n t r i b u n a l , should both governments make an appurtenant reques t , the - 105 -I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission d i d , o f cour se , have more powers a t the out se t than d i d i t s counterpar t to the south. On the o ther hand, A r t i c l e VI I I o f the 1889 convention gave the work o f the boundary and water commission added we ight , because the commission 's w i l l was done i f the governments d i d not take a s tand. This i nherent mechanism f o r a c t i o n , o r r e a c t i o n , i s l a c k i n g i n the U.S. - Canada boundary s i t u a t i o n . S t i l l , t h i s a u t h o r i t y and the general j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the boundary and water commission were c u r t a i l e d , wh i l e the f unc t i on s and powers o f the j o i n t commission 131 were i nc rea sed . The one advantage the southern commission s t i l l has over i t s counterpar t to the north i s t ha t i t may examine, any boundary matter which i t deems worthy o f i t s o f f i c i a l a t t e n -t i o n . The j o i n t commission has on ly r e c e n t l y been given t h i s a u t h o r i t y w i th regard to the q u a l i t y o f the Great Lakes; o ther than tha t i t must wa i t f o r a matter to be " referred to i t by the governments. The two main c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s to t h i s d i sc repancy i n the development of the two commissions de sp i te t h e i r s i m i l a r -132 i t i e s i n some respects appear to be found i n the recent h i s t o r y o f boundary r e l a t i o n s as w e l l as i n the commissions themselves, w i th the former f a c t o r a l s o c o n t r i b u t i n g to the l a t t e r one. Here too , as i n the case o f the p a r t i e s to the Bern Convention o f 1963, one can see the disadvantages o f not having - 106 -agreed to c e r t a i n sub s tan t i ve o b l i g a t i o n s , by which the commission cou ld be guided i n i t s work. Ne i t he r the 1889 Conven-t i o n nor the 1944 Treaty conta in such p r o v i s i o n s . Un l i ke the gene r a l l y c o r d i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between the United States and Canada throughout t h i s Century, the bonds between the Un i ted S tates and Mexico were under c o n s i d -e rab le pressure f o r var ious lengths o f t ime dur ing t ha t same pe r i od . The problems s t a r t e d as e a r l y as the c l o s i n g years o f the l a s t Century w i th the upper Rio Grande d i v e r s i on s and the Harmon 133 d o c t r i n e . U.S. power d ip lomacy, wh i l e b r i n g i n g about a s o l u -t i o n o f s o r t s , which r e s u l t e d i n the 1906 convent ion , d i d noth ing to promote Mexican f a i t h i n U.S. f a i r n e s s o r to enhance mutual boundary r e l a t i o n s . This fundamental a t t i t u d e o f the .mighty v United S tates towards i t s sma l l e r neighbour to the south and the r e s u l t i n g Mexican f r u s t r a t i o n cont inued to dominate t h e i r common 134 boundary p o l i t i c s u n t i l the e a r l y pa r t o f t h i s decade, when the Colorado s a l i n i t y i s sue was so lved to Mex ico ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n . A l l t h i s was not conducive to the t r u s t and f a i t h necessary f o r c l o s e r cooperat ion over boundary (waters) mat te r s . Th is atmosphere o f mutual d i s t r u s t and s u sp i c i on d i d not stop shor t of the commission. Thus the p reva l en t s p i r i t w i t h i n the commission has ha rd l y been one o f c o r d i a l i t y and 135 " e s p r i t de c o r p s " , which has so f a c i l i t a t e d work w i t h i n the - 107 -J o i n t Commission. That the commission was unable to reach agreement on the important i s sue o f water a l l o c a t i o n i n the 1920's i s , a c c o r d i n g l y , not s u r p r i s i n g . However, the commiss ion ' s f a i l u r e i n that in s tance a l s o po in t s out another problem i t i s ' faced w i t h . I t s range o f focus i s n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d , de sp i t e a suppor t ing s t a f f o f expe r t s . The commissioners a lone are c a l l e d 136 upon to make dec i s i on s and, as has a l ready been suggested, two persons cannot v e n t i l a t e an i s sue as thoroughly as s i x can, e s p e c i a l l y i n a commission such as t h i s one where both commissioners have u n t i l 1944 u s u a l l y , and s i nce then d e f i n i t e l y , been eng ineers . This suggests tha t the two governments regard t h i s commission 137 p r i m a r i l y as a t e c h n i c a l adv i so ry body. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, on the o ther hand, i s u s u a l l y composed o f a v a r i e t y o f experts rang ing , f o r example, from lawyer s , over eng ineer s , economists and pub l i s he r s to diplomats and p o l i t i c i a n s . This almost a u t o m a t i c a l l y leads to a more ex tens i ve approach to the problems a t i s sue on the pa r t o f t h i s commission than cou ld be expected o f the Boundary and Water Commission. Another f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g to the g rea te r success o f the U.S.-Canadian Commission i s the a l ready s t r e s sed commiss ioners ' unusua l ly high degree o f d e d i c a t i o n to and personal involvement 138 w i th " t h e i r " o r g a n i z a t i o n . A l l t h i s i s not to suggest, however, t h a t the I n t e r n a t i o n a l - 108 -Boundary and Water Commission has been a complete f a i l u r e . I t has, e s p e c i a l l y s i nce the Water Treaty o f 1944, mainta ined a steady watch over the boundary, mainly through i t s p a i r s o f f i e l d 139 o f f i c e s : ; and has addressed i t s e l f to a v a r i e t y o f i s s ue s . By and l a r ge i t s r eco rd i s f a i r l y good, though not overwhelming. I t s f a i l u r e to con t r o l the numerous unauthor ized withdrawals of water below the Falcon Dam, thus l a y i n g open the d e l i c a t e balance o f the a l l o c a t i o n system, has been a d e f i n i t e shortcoming. Most o f the c r i t i c i s m concerning i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperat ion and water 140 u t i l i z a t i o n a long the Rio Grande should not be l e v e l l e d a t the Commission, which i s but the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arm o f the gov-ernments on the i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l , a l though i t cou ld be argued t ha t the Commission has not e x a c t l y spa rk l ed w i th imag ina t i on . I t s value as a b u f f e r , a t l e a s t , cannot be den ied. That a lone would j u s t i f y i t s e x i s t e n c e . In the absence of unusua l l y c o r d i a l boundary r e l a t i o n s , such as e x i s t between Canada and the United S t a t e s , an o r g a n i z a t i o n such as the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission would have great d i f f i c u l t i e s being c o n s t i t u t e d , o r s u r v i v i n g . I t has been suggested tha t then the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary and Water Commission cou ld serve as a model f o r a \ i a b l e and moderately e f f e c t i v e i n t e r -na t i ona l water resource commis s i on . 1 ^ 1 This cou ld w e l l be; the concept o f separate but p a r a l l e l development o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l - 1Q9 r r i p a r i a n p r o j e c t s , however, appears acceptab le pu re l y out of n e c e s s i t y , i n l i g h t of the s t a t e sovere ignty dogma, r a t he r than 142 being a p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s i r a b l e one. i n . The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission has by no means l i v e d 143 up to a l l the expecta t ions had o f i t over the yea r s . The Skag i t cont rover sy has s t i l l hot been brought to a mutua l l y 144 s a t i s f a c t o r y conc lu s i on - a f t e r 37 y ea r s , the Columbia i s sue 145 was not handled we l l w i t h i n the Commission, regard le s s o f the "J AC value of i t s u l t i m a t e outcome, and p o l l u t i o n i n the Great Lakes i s s t i l l i n t o l e r a b l y h i gh , to c i t e but a few examples. However, t h i s comparison has shown tha t the U.S. - Canadian Commission was, a t the o u t s e t , b e t t e r equipped f o r i t s f i e l d than were the o ther s examined, even the more r e c e n t l y c reated ones, and t ha t the Commission has used t h i s advantage w e l l . I t s importance has increased con s i de rab l y over the y e a r s , e s p e c i a l l y s ince the end of World War I I . Th i s i s the r e s u l t not on ly of the s t i l l 147 excep t i ona l U.S. - Canadian r e l a t i o n s . The fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of the Boundary Waters Treaty are not unreasonably or d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . The Harmon d o c t r i n e , I AO i n c l uded i n the t r e a t y i n a s l i g h t l y weakened form, has hard ly a f f e c t e d American-Canadian r e l a t i o n s because the waters a long the northern boundary o f the Un i ted S tates do not p lace one country i n an advantageous p o s i t i o n over .the o t h e r , as i s the 110 -case i n favour of the United S tates over Mexico. The p rov i s i on s o f the t r e a t y were f l e x i b l e enough to enable the Commission to s h i f t the emphasis of i t s work from i t s q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n , which c l e a r l y dominated the f i r s t h a l f 149 o f i t s e x i s t e n c e , to i n v e s t i g a t i n g and r e p o r t i n g , and, moreover, to such matters as a i r q u a l i t y i n the Det ro i t -Windso r 150 and Por t Huron-Sarnia a reas , an i s sue c l e a r l y beyond the imag inat ion o f the d r a f t e r s o f the t r e a t y . The importance of the p o l l u t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n A r t i c l e IV has been c l e a r l y shown. The balance between s t a t e sovere ignty and commission a u t h o r i t y , more ex tens i ve here than i n the o ther cases , has proved to be v i a b l e , a lthough a p r o v i s i o n s i m i l a r to A r t i c l e V I I I o f the U.S. - Mexican Boundary Waters Treaty o f 1889 might have been i nc l uded to cover c e r t a i n o f the Commission's dec i s i on s made pursuant to A r t i c l e IX o f the 1909 T r e a t y . 1 5 1 The s t r u c t u r e of the Commission has been shown to be v a s t l y s upe r i o r to those o f i t s counterpart s rev iewed. That data be gathered and eva luated j o i n t l y , thus m in im iz ing f r i c t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and t h a t dec i s i on s be a r r i v e d a t by consensus, are the r e s u l t s o f i n t e r n a l developments and i n d i c a t i v e o f the Commision's v i t a l i t y . One f i n a l word may be permi t ted i n t h i s con tex t . This comparative a n a l y s i s , b r i e f though i t has had to be, has - I l l -e l u c i d a t e d the f a c t t h a t whatever c on t r i bu ted to the success o r f a i l u r e o f one o r the o ther of the examined commissions was not the r e s u l t of the r e spec t i v e p a r t i e s ' ded i ca t i on to i n t e r n a t i o n a l 152 law. The paramount aim o f the var ious i n vo l ved coun t r i e s was to gain maximum b e n e f i t s f o r themselves out of any i n t e r n a t i o n a l arrangements they were concerned w i t h , i f not w i t h i n then wi thout the bounds o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. F o r t u n a t e l y , though, the p a r t i e s to the u l t i m a t e l y more succes s fu l of the cooperat ion arrangements achieved t h e i r successes w i t h i n the accepted per im-e te r s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. PART FOUR : THE COMMISSION AND THE FUTURE - 112 -PART FOUR: Having looked i n t o the o r i g i n s o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, t r aced - though somewhat c u r s o r i l y - i t s development to the p re sent , e l u c i d a t e d i t s va r ious f unc t i on s from the o r i g i n a l general ones of the Boundary Waters Treaty to the most recent s pec i a l a u t h o r i t i e s pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, and assessed i t s achievements as we l l as i t s u t i l i t y by means o f a comparative e v a l u a t i o n , i t now remains to focus on a few s e l e c t aspects regard ing i t s f u t u r e , w i thout which t h i s a n a l y s i s would remain uncompleted. As has been suggested, the room f o r improving the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the Commission, de sp i te i t s r e l a t i v e l y good performance, e s p e c i a l l y i n recent y e a r s , i s s t i l l c on s i de r ab l e . Moreover, the mentioned e f f e c t .>that i t s involvement w i th the water q u a l i t y o f the Great Lakes has had on i t lead to a v a r i e t y of problems and que s t i on s , some of which a l ready demand i t s a t t e n t i o n and w i th others of which i t w i l l need to concern i t s e l f i n the near f u t u r e . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , t hen , t ha t a l l th ree i s sues touched upon here are r e l a t e d to Great Lakes water q u a l i t y and the broadened p u b l i c awareness o f the ex i s tence and operat ions of the Commission. 1. a) The marked i nc rea se i n the work load o f the Commission has compelled i t to cons ide r a compensatory m o d i f i c a t i o n of i t s s t r u c t u r e . So f a r i t has s t i l l been ab l e to f u l f i l i t s o b l i g a t i o n s ; but i t i s a cu te l y aware of the problems tha t may a r i s e i n the near f u t u r e , e n t a i l i n g p r i m a r i l y a back- log o f un f i n i s hed work as w e l l as -- 113 -what appears to be even more important - p o s s i b l e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n f i n d i n g competent, independent persons to serve on i t f o r a worthwhi le pe r i od of t ime. Thus f a r there has been no o f f i c i a l r e a c t i o n i n t h i s re spect e i t h e r by the Commission o r by the two Governments. S t i l l , two main a l t e r n a t i v e approaches appear to be emerging; they bear con -s i d e r a t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t : E i t h e r the number o f Commissioners cou ld be i n c r e a s e d , w i th the Commissioners, except ing the two f u l l - t i m e Chairmen, se rv ing on a pa r t - t ime b a s i s , as i s p r e s en t l y the case , or the number o f Commissioners would not be a l t e r e d but they would a l l be made f u l l - t i m e appointments. b) Increas ing the s i z e of the Commission seems to have the ad -vantage t ha t the work cou ld be d i v i ded among more persons, spreading and thereby reducing the i n d i v i d u a l wo rk - l oad , and thus p e r m i t t i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n to cont inue r e l y i n g on the pa r t t ime s e r v i c e s of q u a l i f i e d , independent p r o f e s s i o n a l s , a prime c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r to i t s success so f a r . That t h i s can be achieved wi thout amending the corpus o f the Boundary Waters T r ea t y , has been demonstrated i n the case of the Great Lakes F i s h e r i e s Commission, the membership o f which was i nc reased from s i x t o e i g h t by means o f an exchange 2 of notes at tached to the Great Lakes F i s h e r i e s Convent ion. Th i s proposal conta ins the d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y o f a decrease i n the e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n d e c i s i on-making^though. Increas ing the - 114 -Commission i n s i z e cou ld weaken the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i r e c t , t e r s e s t y l e of i n t e r n a l communication,from which i t has thus f a r b e n e f i t t e d , i n d i r e c t p ropo r t i on to the enlargement. Moreover, i f - f o r example - two members were added at t h i s t ime a precedent would be c reated which cou ld l a t e r f a c i l i t a t e the a d d i t i o n o f two f u r t h e r members f o r perhaps a l e s s e r reason. With every new a d d i t i o n the Commission would g r adua l l y d r i f t towards becoming more of an assembly and lo se i n c onc i s i o n on the way. I t may be f u r t h e r doubted whether t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e would r e a l l y r e s u l t i n the de s i r ed s u b s t a n t i a l r educ t i on i n the work- load o f each Commissioner. The bulk o f t h e i r work, the d e l i b e r a t i o n s and the hear ing s , i s accomplished comrnunally. Although the hear ings cou ld be conducted i n the presence o f on l y one Commissioner from 3 each s e c t i o n i t should remain the p o l i c y o f the Commission, wherever p o s s i b l e , t o be present i n t o t o a t a l l p u b l i c hea r i ng s ; given t ha t the whole Commission i s c a l l e d upon to d e l i b e r a t e and dec i de , second-hand repo r t s can be but a meagre s u b s t i t u t e f o r f i r s t - h a n d impress ions . For the most pa r t the rough d r a f t i n g of the r e p o r t s , a f t e r a consensus has been reached, i s d i v i d e d among the Commissioners. So even i f on ly one Commissioner were to be added to each na t i ona l s e c t i o n , the e f f e c t would be no more than a marginal r educ t i on i n the amount of work each Commissioner i s c a l l e d upon t o ca r r y out . c ) Appo in t ing f u l l - t i m e Commissioners, a lthough apparent l y b e t t e r s u i t e d to cope w i t h the inc reased work - l oad , cou ld pose other prob-lems. For one, t h i s cou ld lead to g rea te r governmental i n f l u e n c e - 115 -over the Commissioners. A f u l l t ime Commissioner would not have a p r i v a t e job to which he cou ld t u r n , i n the event o f h i s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h h i s government 's a t t i t u d e o r p o l i c y toward the Commission, or v i c e v e r s a ; he cou ld l a ck ma te r i a l independence, which i s a very important c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r to i n t e l l e c t u a l independence. Given t h a t , as has been e s t a b l i s h e d 4 , the value o f the Commission i s dependent to a con s i de rab le ex tent upon the 5 independence o f i t s members and the ' e s p r i t de co rp s ' among them, the l a t t e r hard ly being p o s s i b l e wi thout the former, i t i s impera t i ve tha t t h i s independence be ma in ta ined , whatever s t r u c t u r a l a l t e r -a t i on s the o r g a n i z a t i o n may be subjected" . to.Th is cou ld be accomplished by >guarahifceeing Commissioners an independence of p o s i t i o n ak in t o t h a t enjoyed by judges i n f r e e o c c i d e n t a l s o c i e t i e s w i t h s o p h i s t i c a t e d l e ga l systems. Th i s i s not a major i nnova t i on but r a t h e r the express con f i rmat i on of an a l ready e x i s t i n g f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n . Once i n o f f i c e a Commissioner would remain there u n t i l h i s term e x p i r e d , unless he d i d before them; apart from tha t he cou ld on ly be removed f o r q u a s i -impeachable c o n d u c t . 6 In o rder to f u r t h e r d i scourage Governments from being tempted to attempt to i n f l u e n c e the operat ions o f the Commissi on,; a Commis-s i o n e r ' s appointment should not be renewab le . 7 Adm i t t ed l y , there cou ld a r i s e the odd in s tance where i t would be i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the work o f the Commission to r e t a i n the s e r v i c e s o f an except iona l Commissioner f o r more than j u s t one te rm, however long t ha t may be. The po s s i b l e d i sadvantages , though, appear to be f a r outweighed by the b e n e f i t s t ha t would be gained by prevent ing government i n t e r -- 116 -o ference w i t h the a c t i v i t i e s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Another f a c t o r to be cons idered here i s the p r e s t i g e and the va lue o f an appointment to the Commission. I t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t t ha t the q u a l i t y o f the Commission's work i s dependent upon the p r o f e s s i ona l s k i l l and a b i l i t y of i t s members. Thus i t i s important to make an appointment to the Commission a t t r a c t i v e to persons o f 9 the h ighest p r o f e s s i o na l s tandards . Approp r i a te s a l a r i e s would have to be o f f e r e d , which should not be d i f f i c u l t i n l i g h t o f the f a c t t ha t each Par ty would have on l y th ree such s a l a r i e s to pay. The q u a l i t y of past appointees coupled w i t h s u i t a b l e r e m u n e r a t i o n 1 0 would appear most l i k e l y to ensure tha t h i gh l y q u a l i f i e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s cont inue to be a v a i l a b l e f o r these p o s i t i o n s . 1 1 A problem c l o s e l y connected w i th the prev ious two, and more important to f u l l - t i m e appointments than to pa r t - t ime s e r v i c e i s t h a t o f tenure . I f someone i s to be moved t o g i ve up a succe s s fu l ca reer elsewhere i n order to serve on the Commission he must r e g u l a r l y 1 ' be able to r e l y on the s e c u r i t y of h i s appointment f o r a c e r t a i n , more than j u s t s h o r t , pe r i od o f t ime. I t w i l l , l i k e w i s e , be i n the i n t e r e s t of the Commission to be ab le to count on the f i d e l i t y o f i t s membership f o r a c e r t a i n , b e n e f i c i a l : term o f s e r v i c e ; one can , i t appears, s a f e l y assume tha t nowadays, i t takes approx imately 13 one and a h a l f to two years f o r a Commissioner to f u l l y comprehend and app rec i a te the extent and the i n t r i c a c i e s o f h i s p o s i t i o n . On the other hand, i t must be apprec ia ted t ha t too long a term of o f f i c e cou ld lead to too c l o se a personal involvement and i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n w i th the Commission on the pa r t of an i n d i v i d u a l Commissioner; - 117 -such a l ack of i n t e l l e c t u a l pe r spec t i ve and c r i t i c a l d i s t ance cou ld impa i r a Commissioner ' s judgment over the years and a f f e c t the q u a l i t y o f h i s work n e g a t i v e l y . 14 A f u r t h e r aspect hereof concerns c o n t i n u i t y . I f , f o r example, a whole na t i ona l s e c t i o n were to be complete ly r ep laced 15 at one t ime , the e f f e c t would probably hot on ly be a t o t a l rupture o f the i n t e r n a l personal t i e s t ha t t ranscend the boundary and t ha t have been shown to be conducive to the atmosphere of i m p a r t i a l i t y w i t h i n the Commission and, subsequent ly , to the value of i t s work, but there cou ld a l s o be - to a c e r t a i n ex tent -a re tu rn to orthodox n e g o t i a t i n g along na t i ona l l i n e s wh ich , u n t i l overcome, cou ld impede progress app rec i ab l y . Th is cou ld be c i r c u m -vented by means of an a l t e r n a t i n g replacement system, whereby on ly one Commissioner from each na t i ona l s e c t i on would be rep laced at one t ime. The way to achieve t h i s would be to dev i se a term o f o f f i c e d i v i s i b l e by t h r ee . A l l t h i s leads to the conc lu s i on t ha t the membership of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission should not be en l a r ged , but t ha t the s i x Commissioners serve on i t f o r a f u l l - t i m e , non-renewable term of n ine y e a r s ; 1 7 one Commissioner from each na t i ona l s e c t i o n should s imu l taneous ly be rep laced every three yea r s . I t cou ld be argued t h a t a term o f t h i s l eng th would d i scourage a con s ide rab le number of p o t e n t i a l candidates from accept ing such an appointment because of a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s of v oca t i ona l - 118 -r e i n t e g r a t i o n a f t e r an absence therefrom of almost a decade. However, g iven the importance o f the f u n c t i o n o f a Commissioner and the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i t demands, not the l e a s t o f which would be an abundance of p r o f e s s i ona l as we l l as personal exper ience those best s u i t e d f o r t h e ^ o f f i c e would appear to be persons i n a p o s i t i o n to r e t i r e from p ro fe s s i ona l l i f e a f t e r t h e i r term w i t h the Commission. Should the s e r v i c e s o f an e x c e p t i o n a l l y q u a l i f i e d younger i n d i v i d u a l be deemed d e s i r a b l e , though, i t i s submitted here t ha t the exper ience gained as a Commissioner, the p r e s t i g e of having been one and the e x c e p t i o n a l i t y o f t h i s person, which l ed to h i s unusua l ly e a r l y appointment i n the f i r s t p l a c e , would enable him to r e - e n t e r the voca t i ona l market w i thout d i f f i c u l t y . Although there i s no i n d i c a t i o n tha t the comparat ive ly r i g i d appointment and tenure concept as o u t l i n e d above would have any negat ive e f f e c t on the i n t e r n a l operat ions o f the Commission as they are c a r r i e d on today, such an e f f e c t i s conce i vab le w i th regard to the p o l i t i c a l s t r a t e g i e s o f appo in to r s . Even today Commissioners cannot, i n f a c t , be d i smissed at random, though, l e g a l l y , there i s not p e r t i n e n t express p r o h i b i t i o n . The advent o f such appo in t -ment r e v i s i o n s as o u t l i n e d above cou ld lead to r e con s i de r a t i o n o f appointment p o l i c i e s i n l i g h t o f the r e l a t i v e permanency of such 19 a c t i o n over a c e r t a i n pe r iod of t ime. To r e t a i n the b a s i c a l l y non-par t i san cha rac te r of the Commission i t should be prov ided tha t no more than two Commissioners of each s e c t i on are a f f i l i a t e d to 20 the same p o l i t i c a l pa r t y . - 119 -d) The essence of the f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i on s should be agreed 21 to and supplemented to the Boundary Waters Treaty , perhaps by an exchange of notes : 1. a) A l l Commissioners o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission s h a l l hold o f f i c e dur ing good behaviour f o r one term of n ine yea r s . b) A Commissioner s h a l l not be e l i g i b l e f o r re -appo intment . 2. a) The terms of the Commissioners s h a l l e xp i r e accord ing to a r o t a t i o n a l system. A Commissioner from each s e c t i o n s h a l l be rep laced on the f i r s t day o f every t h i r d consecut ive y e a r , beginning . b) No more than two Commissioners o f each na t i ona l s e c t i on s h a l l be a f f i l i a t e d t o the same p o l i t i c a l 22 pa r t y . 3. a) The s a l a r y of the Chairman of the Canadian Sec t i on s h a l l be f i x e d at A Canadian Do l l a r s per. annum. The s a l a r y o f the Chairman of the Un i ted S tates Sec t i on s h a l l be f i x e d a t B Un i ted States D o l l a r s per annum. The s a l a r i e s o f the remaining Commissioners o f the Canadian Sect ion s h a l l be f i x e d at C Canadian D o l l a r s per annum f o r each Commissioner. The s a l a r i e s of the remaining Commissioners of the Un i ted States Sec t i on s h a l l be f i x e d at D Un i ted S tates D o l l a r s per annum f o r each Commissioner, b) These s a l a r i e s s h a l l be sub jec t to annual adjustment accord ing to the r e s p e c t i v e f ede r a l cos t of l i v i n g i n d i c e s . - 120 -4. Every Commissioner s h a l l d i scharge h i s du t i e s i n -dependently of na t i ona l governmental p o l i c i e s , bound, however, by the terms o f any re fe rence and i n accordance w i t h the solemn d e c l a r a t i o n as set f o r t h i n A r t i c l e XII of the T r e a t y . 2 3 5. No Commissioner s h a l l , w i thout the w r i t t e n approval o f h i s Government, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y engage i n any occupat ion or bus iness o ther than h i s d u t i e s t o the Commission, tb\which he s h a l l devote h imse l f 24 e x c l u s i v e l y . F i n a l l y i t should be s t re s sed that the Commission 's f unc t i on s c on s t an t l y b r i ng i t i n t o c l o se contac t w i th domestic and i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, so t ha t there should be a lawyer on each s e c t i o n o f the 25 Commission a t a l l t imes . 2. a) The present a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a t e of the a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i n g to the abatement o f p o l l u t i o n i n the Great Lakes i s such t ha t each r i p a r i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n attempts to a t t a i n the o b j e c t i v e s o f the Agreement i n i t s own way, w i th some coo rd i na t i on - to a g r ea te r or l e s s e r degree, depending on the i n d i v i d u a l matter - t a k i n g p l a c e , u s u a l l y through in formal b i l a t e r a l contac t s on an i n te rmed ia te government l e v e l . Such c o n s u l t a t i o n o f ten occurs w i t h i n the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board , which c o n s i s t s of 18 members - one from each o f the two f ede r a l governments, one from each o f the e i g h t - 121 -r i p a r i a n s t a t e s , f ou r from O n t a r i o , and one from Quebec. Th i s broadly o u t l i n e d system i s u s u a l l y cons idered by those re spons i b l e f o r i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n to be the most acceptab le 27 one, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n l i g h t of the inherent d i f f i c u l t i e s posed 2ft by i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperat ion schemes i n gene ra l . To date the 29 a u t h o r i t i e s are q u i t e s a t i s f i e d w i t h the way i t f unc t i on s and are qu ick to s t r e s s t ha t any o ther arrangement, e s p e c i a l l y one g i v i n g p o l i c y making or enforcement a u t h o r i t y of any k i n d , or both , to any i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , would not be acceptab le to any f ede ra l government, which can and must be held r e spon s i b l e f o r i t s a c t i on s by i t s e l e c t o r a t e . Yet i f progress i n Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n abatement cont inues a t the p re sent , e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y / s l u g g i s h pace the Government may have no cho ice but to cons ide r o t h e r , c l o s e r forms o f cooperat ion i n t h i s f i e l d , prov ided there i s no r e t r e a t from the r e l e v a n t , c u r r e n t l y v a l i d goals as set f o r t h in the Agreement. Indeed, severa l other arrangements have a l ready been proposed, some of which advocate a r o l e f o r the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, i n va ry ing degrees, which cou ld best be def ined as t ha t o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l Great Lakes Management agency."^ 0 The conf ines o f t h i s t h e s i s do not permit a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r a c l o s e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l co -opera t ion scheme capable of a t t a c k i n g the problem of Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n more e f f e c t i v e l y than h i t h e r t o . However, i t i s app rop r i a te - 122 -to u t i l i z e the knowledge acqu i red thus f a r to assess the ex tent to which the Commission should be a pa r t of such an arrangement. b) Because Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n i s by f a r the most important boundary waters problem today, i t would seem appropr i a te to e n t r u s t the Commission w i th the management or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f these 31 waters or aspects t h e r e o f , augmenting i t s r o l e from a main ly 32 r e a c t i v e to a more i n i t i a t o r y one. The Commission 's exper ience to date w i th the r e l e van t problems could be b e n e f i c i a l l y used; t h i s would i nc lude r e q u i r i n g a l e s s f a r - r e a c h i n g and i nnova t i ve s t r u c t u r e than would probably be necessary should an e n t i r e l y new o r gan i z a t i on be e s t a b l i s h e d . I t s r epu ta t i on f o r i m p a r t i a l i t y as we l l as f o r thorough research and subsequent repor t s of high q u a l i t y would seem to make i t s e f f o r t s c r e d i b l e to the general p u b l i c and acceptab le to the ' Governments; t h i s cou ld a l s o lead to a decrease i n p o l i t i c a l hagg l i ng , fewer stumbl ing b locks having to be removed, and r e s u l t i n a c ce l e r a ted development and implementation o f the necessary remedial measures. c) Y e t , when one stops to con s ide r the o r i g i n a l reasons and f a c t o r s l ead ing to the es tab l i shment of the Commission i n 1909/1912 a some^ what d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e emerges. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the much p u b l i c i z e d -though not to be underest imated - r o l e o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission i n the campaign aga in s t Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n appears to have somewhat shrouded i t s r ea l r a i s on d ' e t r e . I t s main f u n c t i o n has thus f a r been the prevent ion and the r e s o l u t i o n o f d i sputes - 123 -so as to preserve the important good r e l a t i o n s between the two ne ighbours , Canada and the Un i ted S ta te s . (Admitted ly the Commission 33 v/as a l s o g iven c e r t a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , But these were o f a l i m i t e d and e a s i l y monitored nature as we l l as being w i t h i n the o u t l i n e d con tex t . ) I t i s w i t h i n t h i s framework tha t s o l u t i o n s to the Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n problem, so f a r as they i n vo l ve changing the r o l e of the Commission, should f i r s t be sought. I t s fundamental f unc t i on s as j u s t emphasized should not be a l t e r e d , unless i t i s c l e a r t ha t the Commission can b e t t e r f u l f i l i t s purpose o the rw i se , i . e . under d i f f e r e n t premises, owing e i t h e r to a c e r t a i n i s sue being of such o v e r r i d i n g importance as to n e c e s s i t a t e an o v e r r u l i n g o f the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e or t o the general understanding tha t the s ta tu s quo i s , i n t o t o , no longer acceptab le and should t he r e f o r e be changed. i ) Though,indeed, the most important one at p re sen t , p o l l u t i o n i n the Great Lakes i s j u s t one of severa l endeavours i n which the Commission i s i n v o l v e d . Some other gurrent p r o j e c t s of con s i de rab le importance to U.S.-Canadian boundary r e l a t i o n s concern the "Ga r r i s on 34 D i v e r s i o n " and the s ta tu s of Po i n t Roberts on the P a c i f i c Coast. Both of these i s sues are geog raph i ca l l y un re la ted to the Great Lakes, the former i n v o l v i n g North Dakota and Manitoba, the l a t t e r ' concerning B r i t i s h Columbia and the S tate of Washington; and whi le ' . the former a l s o pe r t a i n s t o water q u a l i t y , though w i t h a somewhat d i f f e r e n t emphasis than i n the case o f the Great Lakes, the l a t t e r - Po i n t Roberts - i s t o t a l l y un re la ted t h e r e t o , being s o l e l y a boundary - 124 -concern. T h i s , along w i t h the Commission 's past r e c o r d , shows t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n to being g iven and p rope r l y d i spo s i ng of a wide v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t mat te r s , i t has, w i th regard to i t s p r o j e c t s , h a b i t u a l l y mainta ined a p o s i t i o n o f independent adv i so r y n e u t r a l i t y : The Commission has, on one hand, never sought to c a t e r to any governmental concepts or any p o l i t i c a l p o l i c i e s of the day; ye t i t has always been a p p r e c i a t i v e o f the f a c t t h a t i t was, e s p e c i a l l y i n so f a r as the now predominant f unc t i on s under A r t i c l e IX of the T reaty are concerned, conceived as an adv i so r y c ounc i l to the two Governments, not as a t o t a l l y independent o r g an i z a t i on sui g e n e r i s , a d i s t i n c t i o n r e l e van t to the tenor o f the repor t s and, subsequent ly , t o the Government's r e a c t i o n t h e r e t o ; and i t has thus f a r not become so i n vo l ved w i th any one of i t s p r o j e c t s as to be e i t h e r i d e n t i f i e d by re fe rence to i t or w i th a c o n t r o v e r s i a l op in i on appurtenant t h e r e t o . The c l o s e s t i t has come to being so i n vo l ved has been the Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n i s sue and the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement. But even here the Commission's r o l e remains e s s e n t i a l l y an - a l b e i t somewhat augmented - adv i so r y one, the Commission having been given n e i t h e r p o l i c y f o rmu la t i ng nor enforcement powers. A l so the Com-mis s ion has been c a r e f u l not to neg lec t i t s o ther concerns because of t h i s , and i t has l i k e w i s e not a gg re s s i ve l y promoted any con-sp i cuous l y extreme p o s i t i o n of i t s own i n t h i s connec t i on , t ha t cou ld have embarrassed or antagonized e i t h e r or both Governments. - 125 -Inc reas ing the d i r e c t involvement o f the Commission w i th the Great Lakes c lean-up g i v i n g i t p o l i c y making or enforcement powers, or Both, appears ne i t he r l i k e l y nor even p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s i r a b l e under present p o l i t i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s . Under ha rd l y a conce ivab le c i rcumstance w i l l p o l i t i c a n s be per-; suaded to surrender any p o l i c y making f u n c t i o n s , the essence o f t h e i r ex i s t ence and power, to a commission, l e t a lone an i n t e r n a t i o n a l one. Nor, indeed, should they do so. From a broad v i ewpo in t , p o l i t i c i a n s , a t l e a s t those i n Canada and the Un i ted S t a t e s , owe t h e i r o f f i c e s to general p o l i c y p r i n c i p l e s which they advance to the p u b l i c and upon which bas i s they are e l e c t e d . L i k e w i s e , they w i l l be accountable to t h e i r e l e c t o r a t e 37 f o r t h e i r a c t i on s a t the p o l l s , i f not o therw i se . I n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions are not so accountab le. (They c o u l d , at be s t , be removed by the p o l i t i c i a n s , whereupon, however, these p o l i t i c i a n s w i l l have u s u a l l y e xe r c i s ed p o l i c y judgment, thus c l o s i n g the c i r c l e , f o r i n such a case the commission w i l l never have had r ea l independent p o l i c y making powers anyway). Turning enforcement powers over to the Commission i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y c o n c e i v a b l e , de sp i t e some o b s t a c l e s , p e r t a i n i n g p r i m a r i l y t o problems i n v o l v i n g s t a t e s ove re i gn t y , t ha t would f i r s t have to be overcome. But i t i s , a t l e a s t at p re sen t , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y not v i a b l e because the Commission l ack s a mon i to r ing and enforcement o r g a n i z a t i o n , i . e . a p o l i c e or q u a s i - p o l i c e f o r c e . Such a f o r ce c o u l d , of cour se , be c o n s t i t u t e d , or a scheme cou ld be i n s t i t u t e d whereby c e r t a i n e x i s t i n g - 126 -forces; would be p laced at the l i m i t e d d i spo sa l o f the Commission. Apart from n e c e s s i t a t i n g cons ide rab le bu reauc ra t i c innovat ions 38 to the opera t ion of the Commission, t h i s s o l u t i o n would o b v i o u s l y demand s u b s t a n t i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l re forms, which are per se not on ly ext remely d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n , but wh ich, even i f they were p o s s i b l e , cou ld on ly be had at the p r i c e of p r o t r a c t e d domestic n e g o t i a t i n g and barga in ing as we l l as s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n each c o u n t r y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e . Such a f a r - r e a c h i n g , time and energy consuming, as we l l as precedent c r e a t i n g rupture of the s t a tu s quo cou ld only be j u s t i f i e d by a matter o f v i t a l and urgent s i g n i f i c a n c e . Th is i s not the case. Other , l e s s r a d i c a l , changes appear p o s s i b l e . But even such models as g ran t ing the Commission c e r t a i n p o l i c y f o rmu la t i ng powers, sub jec t to r e ve r s a l by the re spons i b l e p o l i t i c i a n s w i t h i n a c e r t a i n 39 time l i m i t , would a l t e r the bas i c concept of i t s r o l e . Broadening the cu r ren t general s u r v e i l l a n c e f unc t i on s to i n c l u d e , f o r i n s t a n c e , a u t h o r i t y f o r ex tens i ve mon i to r ing en d e t a i l and f o r app rop r i a te l e ga l a c t i o n , i s not p r a c t i c a b l e wi thout a s i z e a b l e permanent s t a f f , 40 both at headquarters and i n the f i e l d . T h i s , however, cou ld i n h e r e n t l y c rea te a cumbersome bureaucracy which cou ld a f f e c t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the Commission by reducing the f l e x i b i l i t y o f the c u r r e n t l y very small o r g a n i z a t i o n . Moreover, i t i s very doubt-f u l whether the Commission i t s e l f would then be ab le to r e t a i n i t s present s i z e , which has been found to be p r e f e r a b l e to an i nc rea se - 127 -41 rn the number of i t s members, w i thout the undes i r ab le s p l i t t i n g up and appo r t i on ing o f the Commissioners 1 va r ious f unc t i on s and 42 du t i e s amongst themselves wh ich, on grounds of p r i n c i p l e , should remain i n the hands of the Commission i n t o t o . The Commission would, i n these models, a l s o have to undergo c e r t a i n fundamental changes; an important case i n po i n t i s t ha t i t would have to become a l e ga l person w i t h s tand ing i n cour t to sue and be sued. Th i s cou ld have a d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t on i t s o ther a c t i -v i t i e s where i t would cont inue to f u n c t i o n d i r e c t l y i n l i e u of the 43 Governments, a s p l i t here not being p r a c t i c a b l e . i i ) Th i s leads to the most important f a c t o r to be cons idered i n t h i s c on t e x t , the Commission's p o s i t i o n w i th re spect to the two Governments. For one the impress ion cou ld g r adua l l y evo lve t ha t the Commission 's pr imary f u n c t i o n i s the c on t r o l of Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n , or t ha t t h i s i s sue i s s imply t a k i n g up more and more of i t s t ime and resources . The Commission would then i n c r e a s i n g l y be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h i s f unc t i on on l y , and the Governments could g r adua l l y l o se s i g h t o f how otherwise i t s s e r v i c e s cou ld be u t i l i z e d . Thus the Commission should a t a l l t imes seek to prevent i t s e l f from being typecas t by l e t t i n g a matter o f cu r ren t overwhelming importance ove r r i de i t s d i v e r s i t y o f involvement not on ly f o r the present but f o r the fo reseeab le f u tu re as w e l l . Even i f no other problems tha t cou ld mer i t the Commission's a t t e n t i o n were apparent today, a h i t h e r t o unimaginable boundary problem cou ld a r i s e i n the f u t u r e - 128 -(who.,would have p r ed i c t ed an a i r p o l l u t i o n problem f o r thje Detro i t -¥ indsor -Sarn i ;a area i n 1909?), demanding the exper ience and e x p e r t i s e of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. A l l the models touched upon here would probably a l s o r e s u l t i n a g rea te r degree o f independence of the Commission from the two Governments and a corresponding weakening of i t s adv i so ry r o l e than i s the case a t p resent . The Commission cou ld e v e n t u a l l y be compelled to openly s i de wi th one Government i n a p e r t i n e n t c o n t r o -versy over an i s sue of fundamental importance to both s i de s . Th i s cou ld lead to embarrassment and a hardening o f p o s i t i o n s r a the r than the s o l u t i o n , o r p revent ion of d i s pu te s . The Commission must cont inue to be i d e n t i f i e d as a body of neu t ra l e x p e r t s , and i t must keep s t r i k i n g a tender balance between i n t e r n a l independence and ex te rna l s e r v i c e to the Governments. I f i t stepped onto tooqnany governmental toes i t s s e r v i c e s cou ld g r a d u a l l y be deemed uncomfort-ab le and thus d i spensab le by p o l i t i c i a n s f e a r i n g embarrassment o r exces s i ve i n t e r f e r e n c e w i th t h e i r p o l i c i e s and p lans . That would s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduce i t s u t i l i t y compared to the s ta tus quo. I t must be remembered tha t the Commission was o r i g i n a l l y not set up as a pressure group; i t s main f u n c t i o n today i s adv i s i n g the Govern-ments. A u t h o r i z i n g the Commission to i n i t i a t e and c a r r y out s tud ie s as i t deems app rop r i a te does not appear recommendable i n 1 light o f p o s s i b l e d u p l i c a t i o n wi th other governmental s tud ie s or c o n f l i c t - 129 -w i th na t i ona l p o l i c i e s and p r i o r i t i e s ; but i t does appear p r a c t i -c a b l e , and should be s e r i o u s l y c on s i de red , to g ive the Commission the general power to conduct p r e l i m i n a r y probes i n t o a matter to see i f a thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n would be i n o r d e r . ^ I t must be emphasized, however, t ha t these comments should not be understood e i t h e r as,an endorsement of the s ta tu s quo, so f a r as the f unc t i on s of the Commission w i th regard to Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n c on t r o l are concerned, o r as the negat ion of the concept o f Great Lakes water q u a l i t y management by means of an i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . They should merely prov ide conv inc ing arguments i n favour o f not water ing down the p o t e n t i a l of the Commission to deal w i th a v a r i e t y o f important i s sues by i n v o l v i n g i t too deeply w i th Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n . As ide from minor improvements to the present s i t u a t i o n i t would, f o r i n s t a n c e , not a t a l l be i n conce i vab l e to augment the r o l e o f the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board i n order to enable i t t o assume the f unc t i on s o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l Great Lakes water q u a l i t y management agency w i th the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission 45 a c t i n g as a k ind o f a p p e l l a t e t r i b u n a l t h e r e t o . Th i s should be cons idered i n depth e l sewhere, but a few t e n t a t i v e suggest ions do not appear i napp rop r i a te here. To prevent an over load o f o r gan i z a t i on s address ing themselves to the same problem, t ha t of Great Lakes water q u a l i t y , the a l ready e x i s t i n g water q u a l i t y board shou ld , i f a t a l l p o s s i b l e , be g iven - 130 -the necessary a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers r a the r than a new agency be c reated to deal w i th the matter . That the Board i s l e s s i l l s u i t e d f o r such a r o l e than the Commission would be appears to be suggested by the f a c t t ha t the Board i s composed o f i n s t r u c t e d delegates from the f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and s t a t e r i p a r i a n j u r i s -d i c t i o n s . L im i ted p o l i c y f o rmu la t i on would appear to be more i f e a s i b l e here , as would the p r o v i s i on s o f superv i so ry and enforcement pe r sonne l , which cou ld be r e c r u i t e d from the r e spec t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s under l e s s compl icated c i rcumstances than would have to be .the case w i th the Commission. On the whole the necessary l e g i s l a t i v e reforms would appear to be l e s s f a r - r e a c h i n g and more r e a d i l y a t t a i n a b l e f o r such a mod i f i ed Board. I n s t i t u t i n g the Commission as a type o f superv i so ry or a p p e l l a t e (or both) t r i b u n a l , whatever the c o n f i g u r a t i o n might demand, would prov ide f o r an a d d i t i o n a l , though l i m i t e d , c on t r o l over the a c t i v i t i e s o f the enhanced Board, wh i l e r e t a i n i n g - w i th t h i s mere overseer r o l e -the Commission's neu t ra l Independence. T h i s , i n l i g h t of a l l t ha t has been s t a ted would - at f i r s t g l ance , appear to be a c cep tab l e , perhaps even d e s i r a b l e . d) In summary, the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission should not become s u b s t a n t i a l l y more d i r e c t l y and deeply i nvo l ved i n the Great Lakes c lean-up than i t c u r r e n t l y i s . App rec i ab l y more than would be gained a t one end o f the s c a l e thereby cou ld be l o s t a t the o the r . Some a l t e r a t i o n s concern ing the Commission 's f unc t i on s c o u l d , however, be made. Thus, f o r i n s t a n c e , the f e a s i b i l i t y of us ing the Commission - 131 -as a superv i so ry o r an a p p e l l a t e t r i b u n a l (or both) over a remodel led Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board to which would be ass igned the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Great Lakes, so f a r as t h e i r water q u a l i t y was concerned, should be i n v e s t i g a t e d . 3. The cu r r en t t rend toward what i s most commonly desc r ibed as p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n governmental dec i s ion-mak ing has, hard ly s u r p r i s i n g l y , not stopped shor t of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. Opinions i n support o f t h i s idea abound, not on ly w i th regard to na tu ra l resource or environmental dec i s ion-mak ing processes i n 46 g e n e r a l , but a l s o w i th s p e c i f i c re fe rence to the work o f the Com-47 miss ion i n t h i s f i e l d . a) I t i s f i t t i n g here to examine b r i e f l y the conceptual aspects of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Th is d i s cu s s i on w i l l be l i m i t e d to the re ference f u n c t i o n o f the Commission pursuant to A r t i c l e IX of the Boundary Waters T r ea t y ; such a l i m i t a t i o n appears j u s t i f i e d because the bulk of the Commission's present work c o n s i s t s of re ferences under A r t i c l e IX, i n c l u d i n g i t s major endeavour, Great Lakes water q u a l i t y , which i s predominant i n t h i s t h e s i s . ' P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' i s not (yet) a term of a r t . I t i s c u r r e n t l y app l i ed to a range of a c t i v i t i e s , from pass ing i n fo rmat ion on to the p u b l i c to d i r e c t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the ac tua l d e c i s i o n o f i s s ue s . The term w i l l be used here to denote any app rec i ab le - 132 -degree o f p u b l i c involvement w i th the mentioned a c t i v i t i e s , o f the Commission. I t w i l l be d i s t i n g u i s h e d between pass i ve p a r t i c i p a t i o n , by which i s meant a l i n e o f communication to the r e cep t i v e p u b l i c , i . e . the p u b l i c i s g iven i n f o r m a t i o n , and a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n , which r e f e r s to any t a n g i b l e input from the p u b l i c to the Commission and which i nc ludes the 'mere 1 tender ing o f adv ice as we l l as the more deeply i n vo l ved d e c i s i o n o f any i s s ue . What i s a s t on i s h i n g to someone becoming i n i t i a l l y i n vo l ved w i th the ideas concerning p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s the apparent l ack o f a conv inc ing fundamental or t h e o r e t i c a l base from which a coherent 48 concept cou ld be developed. While some cogent thoughts have been advanced as to why p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n has become such an appea l ing 49 i s s ue a t t h i s t i m e , though con s i de rab le e d i t i n g o f ideas s t i l l needs to be done, the few attempts at e x p l a i n i n g why there should be p u b l i c 50 p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f i r s t p lace are markedly l e s s than pe r sua s i ve . To c i t e an example, i t i s s t a t e d , not s u b s t a n t i a t e d , that the o f f i c i a l dec is ion-makers are opera t ing from an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e equ i va l en t of 51 the p r o f e s s o r i a l i v o r y tower. Often enough i t appears to be s imply assumed, or taken f o r g ranted, tha t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the governmental dec i s ion-mak ing process i s d e s i r a b l e and, indeed, even 52 necessary as an adjunct to the democrat i c , system of government. In t h i s f i e l d cons ide rab le t h e o r e t i c a l as we l l as emp i r i c a l research 53 needs ye t to be done. - 133 -b) S t i l l , i f . t h e general concept o f ' p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' as. o u t l i n e d above i s accepted, i t must then be r e l a t e d to the p e r t i n e n t a c t i v i t i e s of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. Desp i te some gradual d i f f e r e n c e s the proponents of t h i s concept appear to agree tha t i n democracies the general p u b l i c should be permit ted to a c t i v e l y take pa r t i n governmental d e c i s i o n m a k i n g processes because i t i s the qu intessence o f t h i s form o f government.that the peop le ' s w i l l be done. Th is i d e a , so i t seems, i s made e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to the work of the Commission. I t s advocates i n t h i s ca se , however, f a i l to d i s t i n g u i s h between governmental dec i s i on s and the Commission 's a c t i v i t i e s . As has been po inted out i n the preceding chapter the Commission i s p r i m a r i l y an adv i so ry c ounc i l t o the two Governments; i t s r epor t s and recommendations do not rep lace the r e l e van t dec i s i on s which must cont inue to be taken by the Governments. The conc lu s i on to be der i ved therefrom would appear to be t ha t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n take p lace p r i m a r i l y a t the post-Commiss ion-report/pre-Government-dec i s i on s tage , o r because the terms of the re ferences g iven to the Commission a l ready represent a s e l e c t i o n and l i m i t i n g o f d e c i s i o n opt ions by the Governments, i n the p re - re fe rence phase. I t would be u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y l e g a l i s t i c , however, to te rminate t h i s d i s cu s s i on here, f o r a lthough the Commission does not render a f i n a l d e c i s i o n , i t can - and does - s t i l l have a s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e through i t s r e p o r t s , over what dec i s i on s w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be made by the Governments i n the re fe rence i s s ue s . Th i s has been amply - 134 -demonstrated by the 1970. Lower Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n repo r t and the Great Lakes- Water Q u a l i t y Agreement. Though i n law i t i s not p r i v i l e g e d over any person or o ther o r g a n i z a t i o n making submiss ions to the Governments, who remain u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e , the Commission 's op in ions do have a f a c t u a l advantage over others because these op in ions are exp re s s l y requested by the Governments and because the Commission i s a l s o given the resources necessary f o r thorough and comprehensive exper t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the r e s p e c t i v e sub jec t mat te r s . Thus the quest ion o f p u b l i c involvement w i t h the Commission 's work mer i t s f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The Commission was designed to serve and a s s i s t the two Govern-ments i n ma in ta in ing good r e l a t i o n s between the two neighbour ing c o u n t r i e s , Canada and the Un i ted S t a t e s . I t i s , s t r i c t l y speak ing, t he r e f o r e up to the Governments to determine the extent to which the Commission i s to be open to the p u b l i c . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s to them tha t any fundamental c r i t i c i s m concern ing the Commission's r e l a t i o n -sh ip wi th the p u b l i c should be p r i m a r i l y addressed. On the other hand n e i t h e r the Governments nor the Commission can ignore the con s ide rab le inc rease over the l a s t few years i n general p u b l i c awareness o f and i n t e r e s t i n the Commission and i t s work, which has expanded i n magnitude and impact. Th is a l s o p laces c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s on the Government's p o s i t i o n s i n t h i s mat te r . For i n s t a n c e , i s o l a t i n g the Commission from the p u b l i c , were tha t to be deemed d e s i r a b l e , would, p r i m a r i l y f o r p o l i t i c a l reasons, not - 135 -54 b.e p o s s i b l e . Ce r t a i n general patterns,, which can be looked upon as broad g u i d e l i n e s , have evolved i n t h i s f i e l d , and can ha rd l y be c i rcumvented. That the two Governments have taken cognizance 55 the reo f i s demonstrated i n the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement. c) T h i s , t hen , i n l i g h t of what has been e s t a b l i s h e d above, i s the framework w i t h i n which any p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the a c t i v i t i e s o f the I n t e rna t i ona l J o i n t Commission can on ly occur . Given the Commission 's prime f unc t i on as an i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i spu te prevent ion or set t lement agency i t cou ld become invo l ved i n s e n s i t i v e , i.e^. c o n f i d e n t i a l (quas i - ) d i p l oma t i c nego t i a t i on s or o ther forms o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n t a c t s , wh ich , by t h e i r very na tu re , would n e c e s s a r i l y 56 prec lude any t a n g i b l e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The degree and extent o f the general p u b l i c ' s involvement w i th the remain ing , usual a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out by the Commission pursuant to A r t i c l e IX o f the Treaty can best be determined by con s i de r i n g what the Commission can ga in from the p u b l i c , and v i c e ve r sa . i ) The Commission compiles d a t a , eva luates i t and, upon the bas i s o f the then emerging ev idence, makes i t s recommendations, a l l of which i s subsequently conveyed to the Governments. The f i r s t of these three phases i s c a r r i e d out under the auspices o f s c i e n t i s t s and there i s but l i t t l e members o f the general p u b l i c cou ld c o n t r i b u t e t he re to excep t , perhaps, a general f i r s t impress ion o f m a j o r i t y op in ions and p u b l i c p r i o r i t i e s : w i t h regard to a c e r t a i n i s s u e ; t h i s might i n f l u e n c e - 136 -the s e t t i n g up o f the data gather ing programme. 'Another p o s s i b l e , though minor c o n t r i b u t i o n from the p u b l i c realm, cou ld be the occas iona l observat ion which cou ld be of some importance to the researchers or which cou ld even lead to s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the general data gather ing programme. The second phase, data ev -a l u a t i o n , i s :a pu re l y s c i e n t i f i c task toward the accomplishment of which no va luab le c o n t r i b u t i o n from the p u b l i c s e c t o r can be env isaged. The t h i r d s tage, a t which the Commission formulates i t s r epo r t w i th the recommendations, i s the one o f the three to which members o f the p u b l i c who would be a f f e c t e d by any government r e a c t i o n the re to cou ld probably c o n t r i b u t e the most. They cou ld r e l a t e the h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l and o f t en s t e r i l e research r e s u l t s to t h e i r own d a i l y r ou t i ne s and g ive t h e i r op in ions on how po s s i b l e recommendations would a f f e c t them, as i n d i v i d u a l s or as a community. Th is i n fo rma-t i o n would add an important dimension to the data from which the Commission would e v e n t u a l l y dec ide on the app rop r i a te recommendations 57 to be made; i t cou ld even lead to con s ide rab le s h i f t s i n emphasis w i th respect to the r e s u l t s o f the research a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s thus apparent t ha t i n order to f u l f i l i t s mandate the Commission w i l l g ene ra l l y need to a s c e r t a i n the view o f the r e s p e c t i v e l e g i t i m a t e l y i n t e r e s t e d p u b l i c before submit t ing any repor t s to the Governments. Whether or not the p u b l i c should a l ready be consu l ted p r i o r to the implementation o f the f i r s t , the data g a the r i n g , phase cannot be d e f i n i t i v e l y determined at t h i s t ime. Laudable though - 137 -any inc reased input to t l ie Commission may appear, I t has ye t to Be e s t a b l i s h e d whether the marginal Bene f i t s to Be expected i n such cases of l i m i t e d i n fo rmat ion va lue m e r i t the ex t r a e f f o r t 58 needed t h e r e f o r e . A c o s t - B e n e f i t a n a l y s i s i s i n t h i s context By no means a p re tex t f o r not:? at tempt ing the utmost i n order to get as c l e a r a p i c t u r e as i s a t a l l p o s s i B l e ; t h i s i s t r ue e s p e c i a l l y i n times of economic i n s t a B i l i t y , when Budgetary r e s t r a i n t s are uB iqu i tou s . In a d d i t i o n to the f a c t t ha t the Commission has no d e c i s i o n -making a u t h o r i t y , another reason f o r not deeming p u B l i c p a r t i c i p a t i i n the f o rmu la t i on o f the Commission 's r epor t s app rop r i a te i s t h a t through t h e i r re fe rences the Governments ask f o r the s uB s t an t i a ted op in ions o f a panel o f i m p a r t i a l e x p e r t s , the repo r t s Being p re -dominantly t e c h n i c a l and s c i e n t i f i c . Vox popu l i should Be more a c cu r a t e l y expressed By o ther means and more d i r e c t l y conveyed to the dec i s ion-mak ing l e v e l . In any case the Commission should endeavour to i n d i c a t e i n i t s r epo r t s the a s c e r t a i n a B l e op in ions o f the concerned p u B l i c i n the r e spec t i v e mat te r s . I t should Be understood, though,that the opnions g iven to the Commission need not Be i n d i c a t i v e of the p r e -va l en t opinion on t ha t i s s ue . The advocates of the p u B l i c on those occas ions are o f t en ded i c a t ed , we l l - educa ted and we l l - i n f o rmed persons who, however, do not always possess the mandate to speak on Beha l f of the m a j o r i t y of those p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d By any - 138 -p e r t i n e n t government actions.. Anyone wi sh ing or c a l l e d upon to s t a t e an independent op i n i on o r make a personal va lue judgment must f i r s t , a t l e a s t r u d i m e n t a r i l y , grasp the s c i e n t i f i c or t e c h n i c a l d a t a , comprehend the a l t e r n a t i v e s , and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s , weigh them and then dec ide . Such a process many cannot f o l l o w and others w i l l not be bothered w i th a f t e r a day ' s work, or because of o ther preferences f o r t h e i r l e i s u r e t ime. I t would appear, though, t h a t g iven the proper i n fo rmat ion the p ropo r t i on of i n t e r e s t e d persons cou ld inc rease s u b s t a n t i a l l y . Th i s leads i n t o the area of pass ive p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , o r what the p u b l i c can gain from the Commission. i i ) I t i s , f i r s t of a l l , very important t ha t the general p u b l i c be f a m i l i a r w i th the r o l e o f the Commission i n Canadian-U.S. r e l a t i o n s , i t s d u t i e s , i t s procedures , and i t s . l i m i t a t i o n s . M i sconcept ions r e s u l t i n g from a lack of these bas ic f a c t s can , f o r example l ead to u n r e a l i s t i c e xpec t a t i o n s , or the p repa ra t i on and p re sen ta t i on to the Commission o f i r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , a l l o f which can cause time-consuming and c o s t l y delays i n the Commission's work as w e l l as p o t e n t i a l d isappointments among the i n t e r e s t e d p u b l i c , a l l o f which i s e n t i r e l y unnecessary. S i m i l a r l y , the more c l e a r l y the Commission 's independence from the Governments i s understood the more cooperat ion and the l e s s c o n f r o n t a t i o n may be presumed. There are no reasons apparent t ha t cou ld support any p o l i c y opposed to making the compiled d a t a , i t s e v a l u a t i on and the Com-m i s s i o n ' s r epo r t s a v a i l a b l e to as many people as p o s s i b l e a t the - 139 -e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e po in t i n t ime. Indeed, as the f i n d i n g s o f the Commission 1s boards: o f ten c o n s t i t u t e the most comprehensive, i f not the o n l y , sources of i n fo rmat ion a v a i l a b l e to those des i rous of making s ub s t an t i a ted rep re sen ta t i on s to the Governments p r i o r to t h e i r render ing t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , i t i s impera t i ve t ha t such 59 i n fo rmat i on be w ide l y d i s t r i b u t e d . A p p r o p r i a t e l y , i t deserves to be mentioned here t h a t a p o l i c y o f openness on the par t o f the Commission can serve to enhance p u b l i c fin f a i t h i n i t s - a c t i v i t i e s ; but t h i s should not be exaggerated. The Commission's r epu ta t i on r e s t s fundamental ly on the q u a l i t y of i t s work, p r i m a r i l y i t s r e p o r t s , and to a s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s e r ex tent fil on the amount o f i n fo rmat ion i t re leases to the p u b l i c . I t s c r e d i b i l i t y i n the eyes o f the Governments i s of g r ea te r pr imary importance than the p u b l i c ' s f a i t h i n i t i s , though t h i s should remain a hypo the t i ca l d i s t i n c t i o n . d) Re lated to what has been s t a ted aboye, the Commission 's record of i t s , r e l a t i o n s h i p w i th the p u b l i c i s , on ba lance, f a i r l y good. Though ma in ta in i ng a low p r o f i l e over the f i r s t decades of i t s e x i s t e n c e , i t d i d a f f o r d those who cou ld be a f f e c t e d by i t s repor t s CO o p p o r t u n i t i e s to be heard. I t s f i r s t Rules o f Procedure adopted |n 19.12, conta ined p r o v i s i on s f o r hearings to be he ld at the request of anyone i n t e r e s t e d i n the sub jec t mat te r . Th is was i n s t i t u t e d 64 at a time when such, a procedure was by no means commonplace. The hear ings are u s u a l l y p u b l i c . - 140 -In recent y e a r s , however, owing main ly to the growing i n t e r e s t i n the Commission and the i n c r ea s i n g use of i t s s e r v i c e s by the Governments, t h i s mode o f l i m i t e d a c t i v e p u b l i c involvement .which was not complimented by any app rec i ab le degree of pass ive 65 p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , has g ene r a l l y been cons idered to be inadequate. The hearings themselves were c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being unnece s sa r i l y formal and subsequently too i n t i m i d a t i n g to e l i c i t as g reat a response 66 from the p u b l i c as might be po s s i b l e i n a l e s s formal atmosphere. The Commission has not ye t a l t e r e d i t s formal hear ing procedures to any great e x t e n t , but i t has a l ready begun examining supplementary or a l t e r n a t i v e ways o f augmenting p u b l i c i npu t . Great Lakes Tomorrow;'. a b i n a t i o n a l p r i v a t e o r g an i z a t i on ded icated to the enhancement of the Great Lakes environment has been au tho r i zed to ca r r y out a p r o j e c t designed to r a i s e p u b l i c awareness of and i n t e r e s t i n the Commission 's 67 i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n from land use a c t i v i t i e s . The programme i s centered around a s e r i e s of p u b l i c workshops designed to inform i n t e r e s t e d c i t i z e n s and t r a i n them to comprehend and con-68 t r i b u t e to the p e r t i n e n t p u b l i c hear ings planned by the Commission. The Commission i s a l s o s e r i o u s l y con s i de r i n g i n s t i t u t i n g C i t i z e n ' s Adv i so ry Boards to a s s i s t i t s va r ious boards i n d i s cha rg i ng t h e i r 69 du t i e s to the best p o s s i b l e ex ten t . These programmes seem p r a c t i c a b l e and deserve to be supported. Whether they can a c t u a l l y lead to s u b s t a n t i a l improvements w i l l need to be. determined a f t e r i n i t i a l exper iences permit f i r s t e v a l u a t i on s . - 141 -Several other p a r t i c i p a t i o n programmes have been in t roduced 70 i n the l i t e r a t u r e , but they need not be examined here. They a l l me r i t c on s i de r a t i on inasmuch as they can be implemented w i t h i n the framework desc r ibed above; t h i s can be determined wi thout d i f f i c u l t y . On the bas i s of the e x i s t i n g evidence a statement o f u t i l i t y , or preference of one scheme over another i s not po s s i b l e (at t h i s t i m e ) . Meanwhile the Commission's t a c i t p o l i c y of recent times to improve pass ive p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n 7 1 should be cont inued w i t h 72 v i gou r . A good example i s the 1970 lower lakes p o l l u t i o n r e p o r t . Th is document conta in s a l l the necessary i n fo rmat ion on the s u b j e c t , presented i n an i n t e l l i g i b l e and i n t e r e s t i n g s t y l e that r equ i r e s on ly a minimum of t e c h n i c a l or s c i e n t i f i c e x p e r t i s e to be understood. Another example of the Commission's new approach, i . e . making most o f i t s p u b l i c a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e to the general p u b l i c r a the r than merely to the Governments and other concerned i n s t i t u t i o n s or persons, and l a y i n g them out i n a popu la r , g ene r a l l y i n f o rmat i ve and e a s i l y comprehensible f a s h i o n , i s the second Annual Report f o r 1975. Though these p u b l i c a t i o n s have not r e v o l u t i o n i z e d the extent of the p u b l i c ' s knowledge o f the Commission and i t s work, i t can be assumed tha t they w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to the gradual but d e f i n i t e development of a thorough and accurate general p u b l i c impress ion t he reo f . C l o se r a t t e n t i o n than h i t h e r t o must a l s o be pa id by the Com-, mis s ion to the mass media which are by and l a r ge i n t e r e s t e d i n and - 142 -not unsympathetic to i t , but which, a re , at t imes , not e n t i r e l y accurate i n t h e i r coverage. These i n a ccu r ac i e s are o f t en minute, but they can s u f f i c e to implant a wrong impress ion i n t o the minds 73 o f those not f a m i l i a r w i t h the sub ject i n the f i r s t p l a ce . e) I t c an , i n summing up, be s a i d t ha t the g e n e r a l l y l audab le a s p i r a t i o n s o f i n t e r e s t e d members o f the p u b l i c to assume a more a c t i v e r o l e i n the events w i th which the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Com-mis s ion i s concerned pursuant to A r t i c l e IX o f the Treaty o f 1909, should p r i m a r i l y be d i r e c t e d toward those i n t e r e s t e d members of the p u b l i c ob t a i n i n g i n fo rmat ion from or making t h e i r op in ions known to the two Governments (or bo th ) , e i t h e r before a matter i s r e f e r r e d to the Commission or before any a c t i o n i s taken subsequent to a repor t submitted by the Commission. The Commission i t s e l f has no dec i s ion-mak ing powers, which l i m i t s p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n to that e x t en t . Having r ep re sen t a t i v e s of the p u b l i c a s s i s t i n the formu-l a t i o n of the repo r t s to the Governments i s not p r a c t i c a b l e because the l a t t e r , i n r e f e r r i n g an i s sue t o the Commission, are des i rous of p e r t i n e n t exper t o p i n i o n ; Though the Commission should a l s o attempt to assess and convey p u b l i c op in i on on a g iven matter to the Govern-ments i n t h e i r repor t s wherever t h i s can be j u s t i f i e d , there are o t h e r , pr imary avenues open f o r the p u b l i c to make t h e i r views known; these can be s a i d to run p a r a l l e l t o , not through the repor t s o f the 74 I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. I t should be the constant endeavour o f the Commission to - 143 -I l l u m i n a t e i t s e l f and e l u c i d a t e i t s acts..to the general p u b l i c , un less i t s s e r v i c e s are c a l l e d upon i n a s e n s i t i v e i n t e r n a t i o n a l problem demanding c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . - 144 -CONCLUDING REMARKS The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission has, s i n ce i t s c r e a t i o n been given many d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Over the years i t has, through the q u a l i t y of i t s Report s , i t s non -pa r t i s an sh ip and i t s a b i l i t y to copy w i th a l a rge v a r i e t y o f t a s k s , b u i l t up and c u l t i -vated a high r epu ta t i on as an e x p e r t , i m p a r t i a l body, which has, i n t u r n , enhanced i t s c r e d i b i l i t y and thereby i t s u se fu l ne s s , e s p e c i a l l y 75 to the two Governments i t was p r ima r l y set up to a s s i s t . The 7fi Commission has been desc r ibed as " t he best of i t s k ind anywhere " ; i t was and s t i l l i s seen as a model f o r o ther comparable i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s 7 7 . Desp i te the respect i t has earned, however, i t s 78 success must not be exaggerated. I t has achieved on l y l i m i t e d success i n severa l o f i t s endeavours; most important of a l l , i t has not been able to comprehensively abate p o l l u t i o n to the extent t h a t the Commission i t s e l f has deemed u r gen t l y necessary. In the preceding pages the development of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission has been t r a c e d , from i t s " p r e - n a t a l " stage to i t s o p t i o n s , and p ro spec t s , f o r the f u t u r e . The prime focus has been on the Commission 's involvement wi th the p o l l u t i o n of the Great Lakes, which culminated i n the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, w i t hou t , however, l o s i n g s i g h t of i t s other, a c t i v i t i e s , a l l of which c o n t r i b u t e to i t s o v e r a l l r o l e o f p revent ing or s e t t l i n g U.S.-Canadian boundary and other d i s pu te s . The v a r i e t y of f unc t i on s - 145 -i t has Keen given make i t a unique o r g a n i z a t i o n , ' e l e y a t i n g i t from i t s over th ree hundred more o r l e s s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d coun te r -p a r t s , over which i t has inherent as we l l as acqu i red u t i l i t y advantages. . The Boundary Waters T reaty has shown i t s e l f to Be an unusua l l y f l e x i b l e , instrument f o r the r e g u l a t i o n o f U.S.-Canadian Boundary 79 a f f a i r s . I t s l i m i t s s t i l l do not appear to have Been reached. The Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement has ye t to prove i t s e l f . E a r l y i n d i c a t i o n s are t h a t , de sp i te some i n i t i a l d i sappo intments , i t w i l l , i n t ime , Be an equa l l y v a l u a B l e , a l B e i t more s p e c i a l i z e d t o o l . The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission has a r r i v e d at another c ro s s road . Should i t Become more d i r e c t l y and more deeply i nvo l ved w i th Great Lakes water q u a l i t y , or should i t remain an adv i so ry panel to the two Governments i n t h i s matter as w e l l ? This t h e s i s has, i n t e r a l i a , endeavoured to po in t out the inherent hazards o f the former opt ion to the o p t i m i z a t i o n of the Commission's u t i l i t y to U.S.-Canadian Boundary r e l a t i o n s as a whole. The Commission must c on so l i d a te what i t has so f a r achieved wh i l e a t the same t ime r e -maining s u f f i c i e n t l y open i n i t s f unc t i on s to deal w i th f u t u r e , 80 h i t h e r t o perhaps unimaginaBle proBlems. The very nature o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission s t r o n g l y suggests t ha t i t s operat ions Be examined i n such a way as to condense - 146 -the views taken from both, s i des of the boundary i n t o one whole p i c t u r e . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , va r i ou s c o n s t r a i n t s , not the l e a s t of which were d i c t a t e d by quests f o r c onc i s i o n and c l a r i t y , have compelled an i n v e s t i g a t i o n concentrated main ly on the view from the Canadian s i d e . American views were, neve r t he l e s s , taken i n t o c on s i de r a t i on wherever i t was deemed ind i spensab le to do so. During the course of research conducted in connect ion w i t h t h i s t h e s i s a v a r i e t y o f quest ions were encountered the p u r s u i t of which was not po s s i b l e w i t h i n t h i s con tex t . These i s sues range 81 from an examinat ion o f the Rules o f Procedure ( e s p e c i a l l y Rule 12 -II), problems of s tanding ( e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of the recent 82 Bu rne l l case ) and the re-opening o f the Commission 's orders ( A r t i c l e I I I , IV and VI I I of the Boundary Waters T reaty ) to some form of j u d i c i a l rev iew, over p o s s i b l e r e v i s i o n of funding procedures to the l a r ge and hard ly exp lored f i e l d o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , to name but a few. They would prov ide rewarding f i e l d s of endeavour to the i n t e r e s t e d re sea rcher . - 147 -APPENDIX I TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN RELATING TO BOUNDARY WATERS, AND QUESTIONS ARISING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA The Un i ted States of America and His Majes ty . the King o f the Un i ted Kingdom of Great B r i t a i n and I re l and and;of the B r i t i s h Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of I n d i a , being e q u a l l y des i rous to prevent d i sputes r ega rd ing the use of boundary waters and t o s e t t l e a l l quest ions which are now pending between the Un i ted S tates and the Dominion of Canada i n v o l v i n g the r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s or i n t e r e s t s of e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to the o ther or to the i nhab i t an t s of the o t he r , along t h e i r common f r o n t i e r , and to make p r o v i s i o n f o r the adjustment and set t lement o f a l l such quest ions as may h e r e a f t e r 1 a r i s e , have r e so l ved to conclude a t r e a t y i n fu r the rance o f these ends, and f o r t ha t purpose have appointed as t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p l e n i p o t e n t i a r i e s : • The P re s ident of the Un i ted States o f Amer ica, E l i h u Root, Sec re ta ry o f S t a te o f the Un i ted S t a t e s ; and His B r i t a n n i c Majes ty , the Right Honourable James Bryce, O.M., h i s Ambassador Ex t r ao rd i na r y and P l e n i p o t e n t i a r y a t Washington; Who, a f t e r having communicated to one another t h e i r f u l l powers, found i n good and due form, have agreed upon the f o l l o w i n g a r t i c l e s : PRELIMINARY ARTICLE For the purpose of t h i s t r e a t y boundary waters are de f i ned as the waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and r i v e r s and con-nec t i ng waterways, or the po r t i on s t h e r e o f , along which the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary between the Un i ted States and the Dominion o f Canada passes, i n c l u d i n g a l l bays, arms and i n l e t s t h e r e o f , but not i n c l u d i n g t r i b u t a r y waters which i n t h e i r na tu ra l channels would f l ow i n t o such l a k e s , r i v e r s , and waterways, o r waters f l ow ing from such l a k e s , r i v e r s , and waterways, o r the waters o f r i v e r s f l ow ing across the boundary. ARTICLE I The High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s agree t h a t the nav i ga t i on o f a l l n a v i -gable boundary waters s h a l l f o reve r cont inue f r ee and open f o r the purposes ,of commerce to the i n hab i t an t s and to the s h i p s , v e s s e l s , and boats o f both coun t r i e s e q u a l l y , s u b j e c t , however, to any laws and r e gu l a t i o n s of e i t h e r count r y , w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y , not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th such p r i v i l e g e o f f r ee nav i ga t i on and app l y i ng e q u a l l y and w i thout d i s c r i m i n a t i o n - 148 -to the i n h a b i t a n t s , s h i p s , v e s s e l s , and boats of both c o u n t r i e s . I t i s f u r t h e r agreed tha t so long as t h i s t r e a t y s h a l l remain i n f o r c e , t h i s same r i g h t o f nav i ga t i on s h a l l extend to the waters o f Lake Michigan and to a l l cana l s connect ing boundary water s , and now e x i s t i n g or which may he rea f t e r be cons t ruc ted on e i t h e r s i de of the l i n e . E i t h e r o f the High Con t rac t i ng P a r t i e s may adopt r u l e s and r e gu l a t i o n s governing the use of such cana l s w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y and may charge t o l l s f o r the use t h e r e o f , but a l l such r u l e s and r e gu l a t i o n s and a l l t o l l s charged s h a l l apply a l i k e to the sub jec t s or c i t i z e n s of the High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s and the s h i p s , ves se l s and boats of both o f the High Con t rac t i ng P a r t i e s , and they s h a l l be p laced on terms o f e q u a l i t y i n the use t he reo f . ARTICLE II Each of the High Con t r ac t i ng P a r t i e s reserves to i t s e l f or to the severa l S ta te Governments on the one s ide and the Dominion or P r o v i n c i a l Governments on the other as the case may be, sub jec t to any t r e a t y p r o v i s i on s now e x i s t i n g w i t h respect t h e r e t o , the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n and c o n t r o l over the use and d i v e r s i o n , whether temporary or permanent, o f a l l waters on i t s own s i de o f the l i n e which i n t h e i r na tu ra l channels.would f l ow across the boundary o r i n t o boundary water s ; but i t i s agreed tha t any i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h or d i v e r s i o n from t h e i r na tu ra l channel of such waters o f e i t h e r s i de o f the boundary, r e s u l t i n g i n any i n j u r y on the other s i de o f the boundary, s h a l l g ive r i s e to the same r i g h t s and e n t i t l e the i n j u r e d p a r t i e s to the same l e ga l remedies as i f such i n j u r y took p lace i n the country where such d i v e r s i o n or i n t e r f e r e n c e occu r s ; but t h i s p r o v i s i o n s h a l l not apply to cases a l ready e x i s t i n g o r to cases exp re s s l y covered by s p e c i a l agreement between the p a r t i e s hereto. I t i s understood, however, t ha t n e i t h e r o f the High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s , intends by the fo rego ing p r o v i s i o n to surrender any r i g h t , which i t may have, to ob jec t to any i n t e r f e r e n c e w i th or d i v e r s i on s o f waters on the other s i de o f the boundary the e f f e c t o f which would be p roduc t i ve of ma te r i a l i n j u r y to the nav i ga t i on i n t e r e s t s on i t s own s i de of the boundary. ARTICLE I I I I t i s agreed t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n to the uses, o b s t r u c t i o n s , and d i v e r s i on s he re to fo re permi t ted o r he r ea f t e r prov ided f o r by s p e c i a l agreement between the P a r t i e s he re to , no f u r t h e r or o ther uses or ob s t r u c t i o n s or d i v e r s i o n s , whether temporary or permanent, o f boundary waters on e i t h e r s ide of the l i n e , a f f e c t i n g the na tu ra l l e v e l or f l ow or boundary waters on the other s i de o f the l i n e , s h a l l be made except by a u t h o r i t y o f the Un i ted States o r the Dominion of Canada w i t h i n t h e i r r e s pec t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s and w i th the app rova l , as h e r e i n a f t e r p rov i ded , o f a j o i n t commission, to be known as the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. - 149 -The fo rego ing p r o v i s i on s are not intended to limit o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h the e x i s t i n g r i g h t s o f the Government o f the Un i ted S tates on the one s ide and the Government o f the Dominion o f Canada on the o t h e r , to undertake and ca r r y on governmental works i n boundary waters f o r the deepening of channe l s , the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f breakwaters, the improve-ment o f harbours, and other governmental works f o r the benefit o f commerce and n a v i g a t i o n , prov ided tha t such works are who l l y on i t s own s ide o f the l i n e and do not m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t the l e v e l or f l ow of the boundary waters on the o t h e r , nor are such p r o v i s i on s intended to i n t e r f e r e w i th the o rd i na r y use o f such waters f o r domestic and s a n i t a r y purposes. ARTICLE IV The High Con t rac t i ng P a r t i e s agree t h a t , except i n cases prov ided f o r by s p e c i a l agreement between them, they w i l l not permit the con-s t r u c t i o n or maintenance on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s ides o f the boundary o f any remedial or p r o t e c t i v e works or any dams or o ther ob s t r uc t i on s i n waters f l ow ing from boundary waters or i n waters a t a lower l e v e l than the boundary i n r i v e r s f l ow ing across the boundary, the e f f e c t o f which i s to r a i s e the na tu ra l l e v e l of waters on the o ther s i de o f the boundary unless the c o n s t r u c t i o n o r maintenance the reo f i s approved by the a f o r e s a i d I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission. I t i s f u r t h e r agreed t ha t the waters here in de f i ned as boundary waters and waters f l ow ing across the boundary s h a l l not be p o l l u t e d on e i t h e r s i de to the i n j u r y o f hea l th o r p roper ty on the o t h e r . ARTICLE V The High Cont rac ing P a r t i e s agree t ha t i t i s expedient to l i m i t the d i v e r s i o n o f waters from the Niagara R i ve r so t h a t the l e v e l o f Lake E r i e and the f low o f the stream s h a l l not be app rec i ab l y a f f e c t e d . I t i s the de s i r e of both p a r t i e s to accompl ish t h i s o b j e c t w i th the l e a s t po s s i b l e i n j u r y to investments which have a l ready been made i n the con-s t r u c t i o n o f power p l an t s on the Un i ted S tates s i de o f the r i v e r under grants o f a u t h o r i t y from the State o f New York, and on the Canadian s i de o f the r i v e r under l i c e n c e s au tho r i zed by the Dominion o f Canada and the Prov ince o f On ta r i o . So long as t h i s t r e a t y s h a l l remain i n f o r c e , no d i v e r s i o n o f the waters o f the Niagara R i ve r above the F a l l s from the na tu ra l course and stream the reo f s h a l l be permi t ted except f o r the purposes and to the ex tent h e r e i n a f t e r p rov ided. The Un i ted States may au tho r i ze and permit the d i v e r s i o n w i t h i n the S ta te o f New York o f the waters o f s a i d r i v e r above the F a l l s o f N i aga ra , f o r power purposes, not exceeding i n the aggregate a d a i l y d i v e r s i o n at the r a t e o f twenty thousand cub ic f e e t o f water per second. - 150 -The Un i ted Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the Prov ince o f O n t a r i o , may au tho r i ze and permit the d i v e r s i o n w i t h i n the Prov ince o f Ontar io o f the waters o f s a i d r i v e r above the F a l l s of N iaga ra , f o r power purposes, not exceeding i n the aggregate a d a i l y d i v e r s i o n a t the r a te of t h i r t y - s i x thousand cub ic f e e t of water per second. The p r o h i b i t i o n s o f t h i s a r t i c l e s h a l l not apply to the d i v e r s i o n o f water f o r s a n i t a r y or domestic purposes, or f o r the s e r v i c e of cana l s f o r the purposes o f n a v i g a t i o n . ARTICLE VI The High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s agree tha t the S t . Mary and M i l k R iver s and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s ( i n the S tate of Montana and the Prov inces o f A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan) are to be t r e a t e d as one stream f o r the pu r -poses o f i r r i g a t i o n and power, and the waters the reo f s h a l l be apport ioned equa l l y between the two c o u n t r i e s , but i n making such equal apportionment more than h a l f may be taken from one r i v e r and l e s s than h a l f from the o ther by e i t h e r country so as to a f f o r d a more b e n e f i c i a l , use to each. I t i s f u r t h e r agreed tha t i n the d i v i s i o n of such waters dur ing the i r r i g a t i o n season, between the 1st o f A p r i l and the 31st of October, i n c l u s i v e , a nnua l l y , the Un i ted S tates i s e n t i t l e d to a p r i o r approp-r i a t i o n of 500 cub ic f e e t per second of the waters o f the M i l k R i v e r , or so much of such amount as c o n s t i t u t e s t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f i t s na tu ra l f l o w , and tha t Canada i s e n t i t l e d to a p r i o r app rop r i a t i on o f 500 cub i c f e e t per second of the f l ow of St . Ma r y 1 R i ve r , or so much of such amount as c o n s t i t u t e s t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f i t s na tu ra l f l ow. The channel o f the M i l k R i ve r i n Canada may be used at the convenience o f the Un i ted States f o r the conveyance, wh i l e pass ing through Canadian " t e r r i t o r y , o f waters d i v e r t e d from the S t . Mary R i ve r . The p r o v i s i o n s of A r t i c l e II o f t h i s t r e a t y s h a l l apply to any i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g to p roper ty i n Canada from the conveyance o f such waters through the M i l k R i v e r . The measurement and apportionment of the water to be used by each country s h a l l from time to t ime be made j o i n t l y by the p rope r l y c o n s t i t u t e d rec lamat ion o f f i c e r s o f the Un i ted S tates and the p rope r l y c o n s t i t u t e d i r r i g a t i o n o f f i c e r s o f His Majesty under the d i r e c t i o n o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. ARTICLE VII The High. Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s agree to e s t a b l i s h and mainta in an I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission o f the Un i ted S tates and Canada composed of s i x commiss ioners, three on the pa r t o f the Un i ted S tates appointed by the P re s ident t h e r e o f , and three on the pa r t o f the Un i ted Kingdom appointed by H i s Majesty on the recommendation of the Governor i n Counci l o f the Dominion of Canada. - 151 -ARTICLE VI I I Th i s I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n over and s h a l l pass upon a l l cases i n v o l v i n g the use o r o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n o f waters w i th respect to which under A r t i c l e s I I I and IV o f t h i s Treaty the approval o f t h i s Commission i s r e q u i r e d , and i n pass ing upon such cases the Commission s h a l l be governed by the f o l l o w i n g r u l e s or p r i n c i p l e s which are adopted by the High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s f o r t h i s purpose: The High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s s h a l l have, each on i t s own s ide o f the boundary, equa l r and s i m i l a r r i g h t s i n the use of the waters here inbefore def ined as boundary waters . The f o l l o w i n g order o f precedence s h a l l be observed among the var ious uses enumerated h e r e i n a f t e r f o r these wate r s , and no use s h a l l be permi t ted which tends m a t e r i a l l y to c o n f l i c t w i t h o r r e s t r a i n any o ther use which i s g iven preference over i t i n t h i s order of precedence: (1) Uses f o r domestic and s a n i t a r y purposes; (2) Uses f o r n a v i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the s e r v i c e o f c a n a l s , f o r the purposes of n a v i g a t i o n ; (3) Uses f o r power and f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes; The fo rego ing p r o v i s i o n s s h a l l not apply to or d i s t u r b any e x i s t i n g uses o f boundary waters on e i t h e r s i de o f the boundary. The requirement f o r an equal d i v i s i o n may i n the d i s c r e t i o n o f the Commission be suspended i n cases of temporary d i v e r s i o n , along boundary waters a t po in t s where such equal d i v i s i o n cannot be made advantageously on account o f l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s , and where such d i v e r s i o n does not d im-i n i s h elsewhere the amount a v a i l a b l e f o r use on the other s i d e . The Commission i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n may make i t s approval i n any case c o n d i t i o n a l upon the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f remedial or p r o t e c t i v e works to compensate so f a r as p o s s i b l e f o r the p a r t i c u l a r use or d i v e r s i o n proposed, and i n such cases may r equ i r e t ha t s u i t a b l e and adequate p r o v i s i o n , approved by the Commission, be made f o r the p r o t e c t i o n and indemnity aga in s t i n j u r y of any i n t e r e s t s on e i t h e r s i de o f the boundary. In cases i n v o l v i n g the e l e v a t i o n o f the na tu ra l l e v e l o f waters on e i t h e r s i de o f the l i n e as a r e s u l t of the c o n s t r u c t i o n or maintenance on the other s i de of remedial or p r o t e c t i v e works or dams or o the r ob s t r u c t i on s i n boundary waters or i n waters f l ow ing therefrom or i n waters below the boundary i n r i v e r s f l ow ing across the boundary, the Commission s h a l l r e q u i r e , as a c o n d i t i o n o f i t s approval t he reo f , t ha t s u i t a b l e arid adequate p r o v i s i o n , approved by i t , be made f o r the p ro -t e c t i o n and indemnity o f a l l i n t e r e s t s on the other s i de of the l i n e which, may be i n j u r e d thereby. - 152 -The m a j o r i t y o f the Commissioners s h a l l have power to render a d e c i s i o n . In case the Commission i s even ly d i v i ded upon any ques t ion or matter presented to i t f o r d e c i s i o n , separate repor t s s h a l l be made by the Commissioners on each s i de to t h e i r own Govern-ment. The High Con t r ac t i ng P a r t i e s s h a l l thereupon endeavour to agree upon an adjustment of the ques t ion or matter of d i f f e r e n c e , and i f an agreement i s reached between them, i t s h a l l be reduced to w r i t i n g i n the form of a p r o t o c o l , and s h a l l be communicated to the Commissioners, who s h a l l take such f u r t h e r proceedings as may be necessary to ca r r y out such agreement. ARTICLE IX The High Con t r ac t i ng P a r t i e s f u r t h e r agree t h a t any other quest ions or matters o f d i f f e r e n c e a r i s i n g between them i n v o l v i n g the r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s o r i n t e r e s t s o f e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to the o the r o r to the i nhab i t an t s of the o t he r , along the common f r o n t i e r between the Un i ted S tates and the Dominion of Canada, s h a l l be r e f e r r e d from time to time to the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission f o r examination and r e p o r t , whenever e i t h e r the Government o f the Un i ted S tates of the Government o f the Dominion o f Canada s h a l l request t ha t such quest ions o r matters o f d i f f e r e n c e be so r e f e r r e d . The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission i s au tho r i zed i n each case so r e f e r r e d t o examine i n t o and repor t upon the f a c t s and c i rcumstances of the p a r t i c u l a r quest ions and matters r e f e r r e d , together w i th such conc lu s ions and recommendations as may be a p p r o p r i a t e , s u b j e c t , however, to any r e s t r i c t i o n s or except ions which may be imposed w i th re spect t he re to by the terms o f the r e fe rence . Such repor t s o f the Commission s h a l l not be regarded as de c i s i o n s o f the quest ions or matters so submitted e i t h e r on the f a c t s o f the law, and s h a l l i n no way have the cha rac te r o f an a r b i t r a l award. The Commission s h a l l make a j o i n t r epo r t to both Governments i n a l l cases i n which a l l or a m a j o r i t y of the Commissioners agree, and i n cases o f disagreement the m i n o r i t y may make a j o i n t repor t to both Governments, or separate repor t s to t h e i r r e s pec t i v e Governments. In case the Commission i s evenly d i v i d e d upon any ques t ion or matter r e f e r r e d to i t f o r report ' , separate repor t s s h a l l be made by the Commissioners on each s ide to t h e i r own Government. ARTICLE X Any questions, or matters of d i f f e r e n c e a r i s i n g between the High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s i n v o l v i n g the r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s , or i n t e r e s t s of the Un i ted States o r . o f the Dominion of Canada e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to each o ther or to t h e i r r e spec t i ve i nhab i t an t s may be r e f e r r e d f o r - 153 -d e c i s i o n to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission by . the ' consent o f the two P a r t i e s , i t being understood t ha t on the par t of the Un i ted S tates any such a c t i o n w i l l be by and w i th the adv ice and consent o f the Senate, and on the part o f His Ma je s t y ' s Government w i t h the consent o f the Governor General i n C o u n c i l . In each case so r e f e r r e d , the s a i d Com-mis s ion i s au tho r i zed to examine i n t o and repo r t upon the f a c t s and c i r -cumstances o f the p a r t i c u l a r quest ions and matters r e f e r r e d , together w i t h such conc lu s ions and recommendations as may be a p p r o p r i a t e , s u b j e c t , however, to any r e s t r i c t i o n s or except ions which may be imposed w i th respect the re to by the terms o f the r e fe rence . A m a j o r i t y o f the s a i d Commission s h a l l have power to render a dec i s i o n or f i n d i n g upon any of the quest ions or matters so r e f e r r e d . I f the s a i d Commission i s equa l l y d i v i d e d o r otherwise unable to render a d e c i s i o n or f i n d i n g as to any quest ions o r matters so r e f -e r r e d , i t s h a l l be the duty o f the Commissioners to make a j o i n t repor t to both Governments, or separate repor t s to t h e i r r e spec t i ve Governments, showing the d i f f e r e n t conc lus ions a r r i v e d at w i th regard to the matters o r quest ions so r e f e r r e d , which quest ions o r matters s h a l l thereupon be r e f e r r e d f o r dec i s i on by the High Con t rac t i ng P a r t i e s to an umpire chosen i n accordance w i t h the procedure p r e s c r i bed i n the f o u r t h , f i f t h and s i x t h paragraphs of A r t i c l e XLV o f the Hague Convention f o r the p a c i f i c se t t lement of i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i s p u t e s , dated October 18, 1907. Such umpire s h a l l have power to render a f i n a l d e c i s i o n w i th respect to those matters and quest ions so r e f e r r e d on which the Commission f a i l e d to agree. ARTICLE XI V A d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l of a l l d ec i s i on s rendered and j o i n t r epo r t s made by the Commission s h a l l be t r an sm i t ted to and f i l e d w i t h the Secretary o f S ta te o f the Un i ted S tates and the Governor General o f the Dominion o f Canada, and to them s h a l l be addressed a l l communications of the Commission. ARTICLE XII The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l meet and organ ize a t Washington promptly a f t e r the members t he reo f are appo in ted , and when organ ized the Commission may f i x such times and p laces f o r i t s meetings as may be necessary, sub jec t a t a l l t imes to s p e c i a l c a l l or d i r e c t i o n by the two Governments. Each Commissioner upon the f i r s t j o i n t meeting o f the Commission a f t e r h i s appointment, s h a l l , before proceeding w i th the work o f the Commission, make and subscr ibe a solemn d e c l a r a t i o n i n w r i t i n g t ha t he w i l l f a i t h f u l l y and i m p a r t i a l l y perform the du t i e s imposed upon him under t h i s t r e a t y , and such d e c l a r a t i o n s h a l l be entered on the records o f the proceedings of the Commission. - 154 -The Un i ted States and Canadian sec t i on s o f the Commission may each appoint a s e c r e t a r y , and these s h a l l ac t as j o i n t s e c r e t a r i e s o f the Commission at i t s j o i n t s e s s i on s , and the Commission may employ engineers and c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n t s from time to t ime as i t may deem a d v i s a b l e . The s a l a r i e s and personal expenses o f the Commission and o f the s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l be pa id by t h e i r r e s pec t i v e Governments, and a l l reasonable and necessary j o i n t expenses o f the Commission, i n c u r r e d by i t , s h a l l be pa id i n equal mo ie t ie s by the High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s . The Commission s h a l l have power to admin i s te r oaths to w i t ne s se s , and to take evidence on oath whenever deemed necessary i n any p ro -ceed ing , or i n q u i r y , o r matter w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s t r e a t y , and a l l p a r t i e s i n t e r e s t e d t h e r e i n s h a l l be g iven convenient oppor tun i ty to be heard, and the High Con t r ac t i ng P a r t i e s agree to adopt such l e g i s l a t i o n as may be app rop r i a te and necessary to g ive the Commission the powers above mentioned on each s i de of the boundary, and to prov ide f o r the i s sue o f subpoenas and f o r compel l ing the attendance of witnesses i n proceedings before the Commission. The Commission may adopt such r u l e s o f procedure as s h a l l be i n accordance w i th j u s t i c e and e q u i t y , and may make such examination i n person and through agents or employees as may be deemed a d v i s a b l e . In a l l cases where s p e c i a l agreements between the High Con t r ac t i n g P a r t i e s hereto are r e f e r r e d to i n the fo rego ing a r t i c l e , such agreements are understood and intended to i n c l ude not on l y d i r e c t agreements between the High Con t r ac t i ng P a r t i e s , but a l s o any mutual arrangements between the Un i ted S tates and the Dominion o f Canada expressed by concurrent or r e c i p r o c a l l e g i s l a t i o n on the par t o f Congress and the Par l iament of the Dominion. The present t r e a t y s h a l l be r a t i f i e d by the P re s ident o f the Un i ted S tates o f Amer ica, by and w i th the adv ice and consent o f the Senate t h e r e o f , and by His B r i t a n n i c Majesty. The r a t i f i c a t i o n s s h a l l be ex -changed at Washington as soon as po s s i b l e and the t r e a t y s h a l l take e f f e c t on the date o f the exchange o f i t s r a t i f i c a t i o n s . I t s h a l l remain i n f o r ce f o r f i v e y e a r s , da t i n g from the day of exchange o f r a t i f i c a t i o n s , and t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l terminated by twelve months 1 w r i t t e n n o t i c e g iven by e i t h e r High Con t rac t i ng Par ty to the o the r . In f a i t h whereof the r e spec t i v e p l e n i p o t e n t i a r i e s have s igned t h i s t r e a t y i n d u p l i c a t e and have hereunto a f f i x e d t h e i r s e a l s . Done at Washington the 11th day of January, i n the year of our Lord one thousand n ine hundred and n i ne . ARTICLE X I I I ARTICLE XIV (Signed) E l i h u Root (Signed) James Bryce [ Sea l ] [ Sea l ] - 155 -AND WHEREAS the Senate o f the Un i ted States by t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n o f March 3, 1909, ( two- th i rd s o f the Senators present concu r r i ng t h e r e i n ) d i d adv i se and consent to the r a t i f i c a t i o n of the s a i d Treaty w i th the f o l l o w i n g understand ing, to w i t : "Resolved f u r t h e r , as a pa r t o f t h i s r a t i f i c a t i o n , That the Un i ted States approves t h i s t r e a t y w i th the understanding t ha t noth ing i n t h i s t r e a t y s h a l l be construed as a f f e c t i n g , or chang ing, any e x i s t i n g t e r r i t o r i a l or r i p a r i a n r i g h t s i n the water , or r i g h t s o f the owners o f lands under water , on e i t h e r s i de of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary a t the rap id s of the S t . Mary ' s r i v e r a t Sau l t S te . Ma r i e , i n the use o f the waters f l ow ing overmuch l a n d s , sub jec t to the requirements o f nav i ga t i on i n boundary waters and of nav i ga t i on c a n a l s , and wi thout p re jud i ce to the e x i s t i n g r i g h t of the Un i ted S tates and Canada, each to use the waters o f the S t . Mary ' s r i v e r , w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y , and f u r t h e r , that noth ing i n t h i s t r e a t y s h a l l be construed to i n t e r f e r e w i th the drainage o f wet swamp and overf lowed lands i n t o streams f l o w i n g i n t o boundary water s , and t ha t t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l be mentioned i n the r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s t r e a t y as conveying the t rue meaning o f the t r e a t y , and w i l l , i n e f f e c t , form par t o f the t r e a t y ; " AND WHEREAS the s a i d understanding has been accepted by the Government o f Great B r i t a i n , and the r a t i f i c a t i o n s o f the two Governments of the s a i d t r e a t y were exchanged i n the C i t y o f Washington, on the 5th day o f May, one thousand n ine hundred and t e n ; NOW, THEREFORE, be i t known tha t I, W i l l i a m Howard T a f t , P re s i den t of the Un i ted States of Amer ica, have caused the s a i d t r e a t y and the s a i d understand ing, as forming a pa r t t h e r e o f , to be made p u b l i c , to the end t ha t the same and every a r t i c l e and c lause the reo f may be observed and f u l f i l l e d w i th good f a i t h by the Un i ted S tates and the c i t i z e n s t he reo f . In test imony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Un i ted States to be a f f i x e d . DONE at the C i t y of Washington t h i s t h i r t e e n t h day o f May i n the year o f our Lord one thousand nine hundred and t e n , and of the Independence of the Un i ted States of America the one hundred and t h i r t y f o u r t h . [ s e a l ] Wm. H. T a f t By The P r e s i d e n t : P.C. Knox Secretary o f S t a t e . - 156 -PROTOCOL OF EXCHANGE On proceeding to the exchange of the r a t i f i c a t i o n s of the t r e a t y s igned at Washington on January 11, 1909, between the Un i ted S tates and Great B r i t a i n , r e l a t i n g to boundary waters and quest ions a r i s i n g along the boundary between the Un i ted S tates and the Dominion o f Canada, the undersigned p l e n i p o t e n t i a r i e s , duly au tho r i zed the re to by t h e i r r e s pec t i v e Governments, hereby dec la re t ha t noth ing i n t h i s t r e a t y s h a l l be construed as a f f e c t i n g , or chang ing, any e x i s t i n g t e r r i t o r i a l or r i p a r i a n r i g h t s i n the water , or r i g h t s of the owners o f lands under water , on e i t h e r s i de of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary a t the rap id s o f the St . Mary ' s R i ve r a t Sau l t S te . Ma r i e , i n the use o f the waters f l ow ing over such l and s , sub jec t to the requirements o f nav i ga t i on i n boundary waters and o f nav i ga t i on c a n a l s , and wi thout p r e j ud i ce to the e x i s t i n g r i g h t o f the United S tates and Canada, each to use the waters of the St . Mary ' s R i v e r , w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y , and f u r t h e r , t ha t noth ing i n t h i s t r e a t y s h a l l be construed to i n t e r f e r e w i t h the drainage o f wet, swamp, and overf lowed lands i n t o streams f l ow ing i n t o boundary water s , and a l s o t ha t t h i s d e c l a r a t i o n s h a l l be deemed to have equal f o r ce and e f f e c t as the t r e a t y i t s e l f and to form an i n t e g r a l pa r t t h e r e t o . The exchange of r a t i f i c a t i o n s then took p lace i n the usual form. In witness whereof, they have s igned the present P ro toco l o f Exchange and have a f f i x e d t h e i r sea l s t h e r e t o . DONE at Washington t h i s 5th day of May, one thousand n ine hundred and t en . Ph i l ande r C. Knox [ Sea l ] James Bryce [ S ea l ] - 157 -APPENDIX 11 INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, by v i r t u e of the p r o v i s i on s o f A r t i c l e XII o f the Treaty between the Un i ted States o f America and His Majesty the K ing , dated the 11th day of January, 1909, hereby r e -vokes the Rules of Procedure which i t adopted on the 2nd day o f February, 1912, as subsequently amended, and, i n t h e i r p lace and s t ead , adopts the f o l l o w i n g Rules o f Procedure: Par t I - General D e f i n i t i o n s 1. (1) In the c on s t r u c t i o n o f these r u l e s , unless the context o t h e r -wise r e q u i r e s , words import ing the s i n g u l a r number s h a l l i n c l ude the p l u r a l and words import ing^the p l u r a l number s h a l l i n c l ude the s i n g u l a r , and: (2) " a p p l i c a n t " means the Government o r person on whose beha l f an a p p l i c a t i o n i s presented to the Commission i n accordance w i t h Rule 12; (3) "Government" means the Government o f Canada or the Government o f the Un i ted S tates o f Amer ica; (4) "per son " i nc ludes P rov i nce , S t a t e , department o r agency o f a Prov ince or S t a t e , m u n i c i p a l i t y , i n d i v i d u a l , p a r t n e r s h i p , c o rpo r a t i on and a s s o c i a t i o n , but does not i n c l ude the Government o f Canada or the Government of the Un i ted States o f Amer ica; (5) " o a t h " i nc ludes a f f i r m a t i o n ; (6) " r e f e r e n c e " means the document by which a quest ion or matter of d i f f e r e n c e i s r e f e r r e d to the Commission pursuant to A r t i c l e IX o f the T r e a t y ; (7) " the T rea t y " means the Treaty between the Un i ted States o f America and His Majesty the K ing , dated the 11th day of January, 1909; (8) "Canadian s e c t i o n " c on s i s t s o f the commissioners appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation o f the Governor i n Counc i l o f Canada; - 158 -(9). "Un i t ed States s e c t i o n " c on s i s t s o f the commissioners appointed by the P re s ident o f the United S ta te s . Chairmen 2. (1) The commissioners- o f the Un i ted States s ec t i on of the Commission s h a l l appoint one of t h e i r number as chairman, to be known as the Chairman o f the Un i ted States Sec t ion o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, and he s h a l l ac t as chairman at a l l meetings o f the Commission held i n the Un i ted S tates and i n respect to a l l matters r equ i red to be done i n the Un i ted States by the chairman o f the Commission. (2) The commissioners o f the Canadian s e c t i o n o f the Commission s h a l l appoint one o f t h e i r number as chairman to be known as the Chairman o f the Canadian s e c t i o n o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, and he s h a l l act as chairman at a l l meetings of the Commission he ld i n Canada and i n re spect to a l l matters r equ i red to be done i n Canada by the C h a i r -man o f the Commission. (3) In case i t s h a l l be imp rac t i c ab l e f o r the chairman of e i t h e r s e c t i o n to ac t i n any mat te r , the commissioner of such s e c t i o n who i s s e n i o r i n o rder o f appointment s h a l l ac t i n h i s s t ead . Permanent O f f i c e s 3. The permanent o f f i c e s of the Commission s h a l l be at Washington, i n the D i s t r i c t o f Columbia, and at Ottawa, i n the Prov ince of O n t a r i o , and sub jec t to the d i r e c t i o n s o f the r e s p e c t i v e chairmen a c t i n g f o r t h e i r r e spec t i ve s e c t i o n s , the s e c r e t a r i e s of the United S tates and Canadian s e c t i on s o f the Commission s h a l l have f u l l charge and con t r o l o f s a i d o f f i c e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Dut ies o f S e c r e t a r i e s 4. (1) The s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l ac t as j o i n t s e c r e t a r i e s at a l l meetings and hear ings o f the Commission. The s e c re t a r y o f the s e c t i o n o f the Commission o f the country i n which a meeting or hear ing i s he ld s h a l l prepare a record thereo f and each s e c re t a r y s h a l l preserve an au then t i c copy of the same i n the permanent o f f i c e s of the Commission. (2) Each s e c r e t a r y s h a l l r e ce i ve and f i l e a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s , re fe rences and o the r papers p rope r l y presented to the Commission i n any proceeding i n s t i t u t e d before i t and s h a l l number i n numerical o rder a l l such a p p l i c a t i o n s and r e f e r e n c e s ; the number g iven to an a p p l i c a t i o n or re fe rence s h a l l be the pr imary f i l e number f o r a l l p a p e r s / r e l a t i n g to such a p p l i c a t i o n or r e f e rence . (3) Each s e c re t a r y s h a l l forward to the o ther f o r f i l i n g i n the o f f i c e o f the other cop ies o f a l l o f f i c i a l l e t t e r s , documents, records or o the r papers r e ce i ved by him or f i l e d i n h i s o f f i c e , p e r t a i n i n g to any proceeding before the Commission, to the end tha t there s h a l l be on f i l e i n each o f f i c e e i t h e r the o r i g i n a l o r a copy o f a l l o f f i c i a l ' l e t t e r s - 159 -and o ther papers r e l a t i n g to the s a i d proceeding. (4) Each s e c r e t a r y s h a l l a l s o forward to the o ther f o r f i l i n g i n the o f f i c e o f the o ther copies o f any l e t t e r s , documents or o ther papers r ece i ved by him or f i l e d i n h i s o f f i c e which are deemed by him to be o f i n t e r e s t to the Commission. Meetings 5. (1) Subject a t a l l t imes to s p e c i a l c a l l o r d i r e c t i o n by the two Governments, meetings o f the Commission s h a l l be held at such times and p laces i n the Un i ted S tates and Canada as the Commission or the Chairmen may determine and i n any event s h a l l be held each year at Washington i n A p r i l and at Ottawa i n October, beginning o r d i n a r i l y on the f i r s t Tuesday o f the s a i d months. (2) I f the Commission determines t ha t a meeting s h a l l be open to the p u b l i c , i t s h a l l g ive such advance no t i ce s to t h i s e f f e c t as i t cons iders app rop r i a te i n the c i rcumstances . Se rv i ce of Documents 6. (1) Where the s e c re t a r y i s r equ i r ed by these r u l e s to g ive no t i ce to any person, t h i s s h a l l be done by d e l i v e r i n g o r m a i l i n g such n o t i c e to the person at the address f o r s e r v i c e tha t the s a i d person has f u rn i shed to the Commission, or i f no such address has been f u r n i s h e d , at the dwe l l i n g house or usual p lace o f abode o r usual p lace o f business o f such person. (2) Where the s e c re t a r y i s r equ i red by these ru l e s to g i ve no t i ce to a Government, t h i s s h a l l be done by d e l i v e r i n g or m a i l i n g such no t i c e to the Sec re ta ry of S ta te f o r Ex te rna l A f f a i r s o f Canada or to the Secreta ry o f S ta te of the Un i ted States o f Amer ica, as the case may be. (3) Se rv i ce o f any document pursuant to Rule 22 s h a l l be by d e l i v e r i n g a copy the reo f to the person named t h e r e i n , o r by l e a v i n g the same at the dwe l l i n g house o r usual p lace of abode o r usual p lace o f business o f such person. The person se r v i ng the n o t i c e or request s h a l l f u r n i s h an a f f i d a v i t to the s ec re ta r y s t a t i n g the time and p lace o f such s e r v i c e . Conduct o f Hearings 7. Hearings may be conducted, test imony rece i ved and arguments thereon heard by the whole Commission or by one o r more Commissioners from each s e c t i o n o f the Commission, des ignated f o r t ha t purpose by the r e spec t i ve s ec t i on s or the Chairmen the reo f . - 160 -Dec i s i on by the Whole Commission 8. The whole Commission s h a l l cons ider and determine any matter or quest ion which the Treaty or any other Treaty or i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement, e i t h e r i n terms or by i m p l i c a t i o n , r equ i re s or makes i t the duty of the Commission to determine. For the purposes of t h i s r u l e and Rule 7, " the whole Commission" means a l l o f the commissioners appointed pursuant to A r t i c l e VII o f the Treaty whose terms o f o f f i c e have not exp i red and who are not prevented by se r ious i l l n e s s or o ther c i rcumstances beyond t h e i r c on t r o l from c a r r y i n g out t h e i r f unc t i on s as commissioners. In no event s h a l l a d e c i s i o n be made wi thout the concurrence o f at l e a s t four commissioners. Suspension or Amendment o f Rules 9. The Commission may suspend, r e p e a l , or amend a l l or any of the Rules o f Procedure at any t i m e , w i th the concurrence o f at l e a s t f ou r commissioners. Both Governments s h a l l be informed f o r t h w i t h o f any such a c t i o n . General Rule 10. The Commission may, at any t ime , adopt any procedure which i t deems expedient and necessary to c a r r y out the t r u e i n t e n t and meaning o f the T rea ty . A v a i l a b i l i t y o f Records 11. (1) The f o l l o w i n g items i n the o f f i c i a l records o f the Commission s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n fo rmat ion at the permanent o f f i c e s of the Commission: A p p l i c a t i o n s References P u b l i c Not i ce s Press Releases Statements i n Response Statements i n Reply Records o f hea r ing s , i n c l u d i n g e x h i b i t s f i l e d B r i e f s and formal Statements submitted a t hearings o r at o ther t imes (2) Dec i s ions rendered and orders i s sued by the Commission and formal op in ions o f any o f the Commissioners w i th r e l a t i o n t h e r e t o , s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e s i m i l a r l y f o r p u b l i c i n fo rmat ion a f t e r d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l s o f the dec i s i on s o r orders have been t r an sm i t t ed to and f i l e d w i th the Governments pursuant to A r t i c l e XI of the T rea ty . (3) Copies o f repor t s submitted to one o r both of the Governments pursuant to the Treaty s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e s i m i l a r l y f o r p u b l i c i n fo rma-t i o n only w i th the consent o f the Government or Governments to whom the repor t s are addressed. - 161 -(4) Repor t s , l e t t e r s , memoranda and other communications addressed to the Commission, by boards o r committees c reated by o r a t the request of the Commission, are p r i v i l e g e d and s h a l l become a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n fo rmat ion on ly i n accordance w i th a d e c i s i o n o f the Commission to tha t e f f e c t . (5) Except as prov ided i n the preceding paragraphs o f t h i s r u l e , records of d e l i b e r a t i o n s , and documents, l e t t e r s , memoranda and communications o f every nature and k ind i n the o f f i c i a l records o f the Commission, whether addressed to or by the Commission, commis-s i o n e r s , s e c r e t a r i e s , adv i se r s or any of them, are p r i v i l e g e d and s h a l l become a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n fo rmat ion on ly i n accordance w i th a d e c i s i o n o f the Commission to t ha t e f f e c t . (6) A copy o f any document, r e p o r t , record or o ther paper which under t h i s r u l e i s a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n fo rmat ion may be f u rn i s hed to any person upon payment o f any cos t i nvo l ved i n i t s r ep roduc t i on . Pa r t II - A p p l i c a t i o n s P re sen ta t i on to Commission 12. (1) Where one o r the other of the Governments on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e seeks the approval o f the Commission f o r the use, o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n o f waters w i th respect to which under A r t i c l e s I I I or IV of the T reaty the approval of the Commission i s r e q u i r e d , i t s h a l l present to the Commission an a p p l i c a t i o n s e t t i n g f o r t h as f u l l y as may be necessary f o r the i n fo rmat ion of the Commission the f a c t s upon which the a p p l i c a t i o n i s based and the nature o f the o rder o f approval d e s i r e d . (2) Where a person seeks the approval o f the Commission f o r the use, o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n o f waters w i th respect to which under A r t i c l e s I I I o r IV of the .Treaty the approval o f the Commission i s r e q u i r e d , he s h a l l prepare an a p p l i c a t i o n to the Commission and forward i t to the Government w i t h i n whose j u r i s d i c t i o n such use, o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n i s to be made, w i th the request t ha t the s a i d a p p l i c a t i o n be t r an sm i t t ed to the Commission. I f such Government t ransmi t s the a p p l i c a t i o n to the Commission w i th a request t ha t i t take app rop r i a te a c t i o n the reon , the same s h a l l be f i l e d by the Commission i n the same manner as an a p p l i c a t i o n presented i n accordance w i th paragraph (1) of t h i s r u l e . T ran sm i t t a l of the a p p l i c a t i o n to the Commission s h a l l not be construed as a u t h o r i z -a t i o n by the Government o f the use, o b s t r u c t i o n o r d i v e r s i o n proposed by the a p p l i c a n t . A l l a p p l i c a t i o n s by persons s h a l l conform, as to t h e i r con ten t s , to the requirements of paragraph (1) o f t h i s r u l e . (3) Where the Commission has i s sued an Order approving a p a r t i -c u l a r use, o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n , i n which i t has s p e c i f i c a l l y r e -t a i ned j u r i s d i c t i o n over the sub jec t matter o f an a p p l i c a t i o n and has reserved the r i g h t to make f u r t h e r orders r e l a t i n g t h e r e t o , any Government - 162 -or person e n t i t l e d to request the i s suance o f such f u r t h e r o rder may present to the Commission a reques t , s e t t i n g f o r t h the f a c t s upon which i t i s based and the nature of the f u r t h e r order d e s i r e d . On r e c e i p t o f the reques t , the Commission s h a l l proceed i n accordance w i th the terms o f the Order i n which the Commission s p e c i f i c a l l y r e t a i ned j u r i s d i c t i o n . In each case the s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l n o t i f y both Governments and i n v i t e t h e i r comments before the request i s complied w i t h . Copies Required 13. (1) Subject to paragraph (3) o f t h i s r u l e , two d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l s and f i f t y cop ies of the a p p l i c a t i o n and o f any supplemental a p p l i c a t i o n , statement i n response, supplemental statement i n response, statement i n r e p l y and supplemental statement i n r e p l y s h a l l be d e l i v e r e d to e i t h e r s e c r e t a r y . On r e c e i p t o f such documents, the sec re ta r y s h a l l f o r t h w i t h send one d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l and t w e n t y - f i v e cop ies to the o ther s e c r e t a r y . (2) Subject to paragraph (3) o f t h i s r u l e , two cop ies o f such drawings, p r o f i l e s , p lans of survey, maps and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s as may be nlecessary to i l l u s t r a t e c l e a r l y the matter of the a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be d e l i v e r e d to e i t h e r s e c re t a r y and he s h a l l send one copy f o r t h w i t h to the o ther s e c r e t a r y . (3) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g paragraphs (1) and (2) o f t h i s r u l e , such a d d i t i o n a l cop ies o f the documents mentioned t h e r e i n as may be requested by the Commission s h a l l be prov ided f o r t h w i t h . A u t h o r i z a t i o n by Government 14. (1) Where the use, o b s t r u c t i o n o r d i v e r s i o n of waters f o r which the Commission's approval i s sought has been au tho r i zed by o r on beha l f o f a Government or by o r on beha l f o f a S ta te or Prov ince or o ther competent a u t h o r i t y , two copies o f such a u t h o r i z a t i o n and of any plans approved i n c i d e n t a l t he re to s h a l l accompany the a p p l i c a t i o n when i t i s presented to the Commission i n accordance w i th Rule 12. (2) Where such a use, o b s t r u c t i o n o r d i v e r s i o n 'of waters i s au tho r i zed by o r on beha l f of a Government or by or on beha l f o f a S tate o r Prov ince o r o ther competent a u t h o r i t y a f t e r an a p p l i c a t i o n has been presented to the Commission i n accordance w i th Rule 12, the a p p l i c a n t s h a l l d e l i v e r f o r t h w i t h to the Commission two copies of such a u t h o r i z a t i o n and o f any plans approved i n c i d e n t a l t he r e t o . Not i ce o f P u b l i c a t i o n 15. (1) As soon as p r a c t i c a b l e a f t e r an a p p l i c a t i o n i s presented or t r an sm i t t ed i n accordance w i th Rule 12, the s e c re t a r y of the s e c t i o n o f the Commission appointed by the o ther Government.;shall send a copy of the a p p l i c a t i o n .to such Government. - 163 -(2) Except as otherwise prov ided pursuant to Rule 19, the s e c r e t a r i e s , as soon as p r a c t i c a b l e a f t e r the a p p l i c a t i o n i s r e c e i v e d , s h a l l cause a n o t i c e to be pub l i shed i n The Canada Gazette and the Federal Reg i s t e r and once each week f o r three succes s i ve weeks i n two newspapers, pub l i shed one i n each country and c i r c u l a t e d i n or near the l o c a l i t i e s wh ich , i n the op in ion o f the Commission, are most l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d by the proposed use, o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n . Subject to paragraph (3) of t h i s r u l e , the n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e t ha t the a p p l i c a t i o n has been r e c e i v e d , the nature and l o c a l i t y o f the proposed use, o b s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n , the time w i t h i n which any person i n t e r e s t e d may present a statement i n response to the Commission and tha t the Commission w i l l hold a hear ing or hear ings a t which a l l persons i n t e r e s t e d are e n t i t l e d to be heard w i t h respect t h e r e t o . (3) I f the Commission so d i r e c t s , the n o t i c e r e f e r r e d to i n paragraph (2) o f t h i s r u l e , a p p r o p r i a t e l y m o d i f i e d , may be combined w i th the no t i ce o f hear ing r e f e r r e d to i n Rule 23 and pub l i shed a c c o r d i n g l y . Statement i n Response 16. (1) Except as otherwise prov ided pursuant to Rule 19, a Government and any i n t e r e s t e d person, o ther than the a p p l i c a n t , may present a statement i n response to the Commission w i t h i n t h i r t y days a f t e r the f i l i n g o f an a p p l i c a t i o n . A statement i n response s h a l l set f o r t h f a c t s and arguments bear ing on the sub jec t matter of the a p p l i c a t i o n and tend ing to oppose or support the a p p l i c a t i o n , i n whole or i n p a r t . I f i t i s d e s i r e d t h a t c o n d i t i o n a l approval be g ranted, the statement i n response should set f o r t h the p a r t i c u l a r c ond i t i o n or c ond i t i o n s d e s i r e d . An address f o r s e r v i c e of documents should be i nc l uded i n the statement i n response. (2) When a statement i n response has been f i l e d , the s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l send a copy f o r t h w i t h to the a p p l i c a n t and t o each Government except the Government which presented the s a i d statement i n response. I f so d i r e c t e d by the Commission, the s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l in form those who have presented statements i n response, of the nature o f the t o t a l response. Statement i n Reply 17. (1) Except as otherwise prov ided pursuant to Rule 19, the a p p l i c a n t and, i f he i s a person, the Government which t r an sm i t t ed the a p p l i c a t i o n on h i s b e h a l f , one or both may present a statement or statements i n r e p l y to the Commission w i t h i n t h i r t y days a f t e r the time prov ided f o r p resent ing statements i n response. A statement i n r e p l y s h a l l set f o r t h f a c t s and arguments bear ing upon the a l l e g a t i o n s and arguments conta ined i n the statement i n response. - 164 -(2) When a statement i n r e p l y has been f i l e d , the s e c r e t a r y s h a l l send a copy f o r t h w i t h to each Government except the Government which presented the s a i d statement i n r e p l y , and to a l l persons who presented statements i n response. Supplemental o r Amended A p p l i c a t i o n s and Statements 18. (1) I f i t appears to the Commission tha t e i t h e r an a p p l i c a t i o n , a statement i n response, o r a statement i n r e p l y i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y d e f i n i t e and complete, the Commission may r equ i r e a more d e f i n i t e and complete a p p l i c a t i o n , statement i n response o r statement i n r e p l y , as the case may be, to be presented. (2) Where s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e requ i re s i t , the Commission w i t h the concurrence o f at l e a s t f ou r Commissioners may a l l o w the amendment o f any a p p l i c a t i o n , statement i n response, statement i n r e p l y and any document or e x h i b i t which has been presented to the Commission. Reducing or Extending Time and Dispens ing w i th Statements 19. In any case where the Commission cons ider s t ha t such a c t i o n would be i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and not p r e j u d i c i a l to the r i g h t o f i n t e r e s t e d persons to be heard i n accordance w i th A r t i c l e XII of the T rea t y , the Commission may reduce o r extend the t ime f o r the p re sen ta t i on o f any paper, o r the doing of any a c t r equ i red by these r u l e s or may dispense w i t h the p re sen ta t i on o f such statements i n response and statements i n r e p l y . I n te re s ted Persons and Counsel 20. Governments and persons i n t e r e s t e d i n the sub jec t matter o f an a p p l i c a t i o n , whether i n favour o f or opposed to i t , are e n t i t l e d to be heard i n person or by counsel a t any hear ing the reo f he ld by the Commission. Con su l t a t i on 21. The Commission may meet or con su l t w i th the a p p l i c a n t , the Govern-ments and o the r persons o r t h e i r counsel a t any time regard ing the p lan of hea r i n g , the mode of conduct ing/the i n q u i r y , the admi t t i ng o f proof o f c e r t a i n f a c t s o r f o r any other purpose. Attendance of Witnesses and Product ion of Documents 22. (1) Requests f o r the attendance and examinat ion of witnesses and f o r the product ion and i n s p e c t i o n o f books, papers, and documents may be i s sued over the s i gna tu re of the s e c re t a r y of the s e c t i o n of the Commission o f the country i n which the wi tnesses r e s i d e o r the books, papers or documents may be, when so au tho r i zed by the Chairman of t ha t s e c t i o n . (2) A l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r subpoena or other process to compel the attendance of witnesses or the p roduct ion of books, papers and documents before the Commission s h a l l be made to the proper cour t s o f e i t h e r coun t r y , as the case may be, upon the order o f the Commission. -165 -Hearings 23. (1) The t ime and p lace o f the hear ing o r hear ings o f an a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be f i x e d by the Chairmen of the two s e c t i o n s . (2) The s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l f o r t h w i t h g ive w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f the time and p lace o f the hear ing or hear ings to the a p p l i c a n t , the Governments, and a l l persons who have presented statements i n response to the Commission. Except as otherwise prov ided by the Commission, the s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l a l s o cause such n o t i c e to be pub l i shed i n the Canada Gazette and the Federal Reg i s t e r and once each week f o r three success i ve weeks i n two newspapers, pub l i shed one i n each country and c i r c u l a t e d i n or near the l o c a l i t i e s which, i n the op in ion of the Commission, are most l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d by the proposed use, ob s t r u c t i o n or d i v e r s i o n of water . (3) A l l hearings s h a l l be open to the p u b l i c . (4) The a p p l i c a n t , the Governments and persons i n t e r e s t e d are e n t i t l e d to present o ra l and documentary evidence and argument t ha t i s r e l e van t and mate r i a l to any i s sue that i s before the Commission i n connect ion wi th the a p p l i c a t i o n . (5) The p r e s i d i n g chairman may r equ i r e t ha t evidence be under oath . (6) Witnesses may be examined and cross-examined by the Commissioners and by counsel f o r the a p p l i c a n t , the Governments and the Commission. With the consent o f the p r e s i d i n g chairman, counsel f o r a person o the r than the a p p l i c a n t may a l s o examine or cross-examine w i tnes se s . (7) The Commission may r equ i r e f u r t h e r evidence t o be g iven and may r equ i r ed p r i n t e d b r i e f s to be submitted at or subsequent to the hear ing . (8) The Commissioners s h a l l be f r e e to determine the p robat i ve value o f the ev idence submitted to i t . (9) A verbat im t r a n s c r i p t of the proceedings a t the hear ing s h a l l be prepared. (10) The hear ing o f the a p p l i c a t i o n , when once begun, s h a l l proceed at the t imes and p laces determined by the Chairmen of the two sec t i on s to ensure the g rea te s t p r a c t i c a b l e c o n t i n u i t y and d i spa t ch o f proceedings . . Expenses o f Proceedings 24. (1) The expenses of those p a r t i c i p a t i n g in .any proceeding under Par t II of these r u l e s s h a l l be borne by the p a r t i c i p a n t . (2) The Commission, a f t e r due no t i c e to the p a r t i c i p a n t or p a r t i -c i pan t s concerned, may requ i re t ha t any unusual cos t or expense to the - 166 -Commission s h a l l be pa id by the person on whose beha l f or a t whose request such unusual cos t or expense has been or w i l l be i n c u r r e d . Government B r i e f Re Navigable Waters 25. When i n the op in i on of the Commission i t i s d e s i r a b l e t ha t a d e c i s i o n should be rendered which a f f e c t s nav igab le waters i n a manner or to an extent d i f f e r e n t from tha t contemplated by the a p p l i c a t i o n and plans presented to the Commission, the Commission w i l l , before making a f i n a l d e c i s i o n , submit to the Government p resent ing o r t r a n s m i t t i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n a d r a f t o f the d e c i s i o n , and such Govern-ment may t ran smi t t b t h e Commission a b r i e f or memorandum thereon which w i l l r e ce i ve due con s i de r a t i on by the Commission before i t s d e c i s i o n i s made f i n a l . Pa r t I I I - References P re sen ta t i on to Commission 26. (1) Where a ques t ion or matter o f d i f f e r e n c e a r i s i n g between the two Governments i n v o l v i n g the r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s , o r i n t e r e s t s o f e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to the o ther or to the i n hab i t an t s of the o the r along the common f r o n t i e r between the Un i ted S tates of America and Canada i s to be r e f e r r e d to the Commission under A r t i c l e IX of the T rea t y , the method of b r i n g i n g such quest ion or matter to the a t t e n t i o n of the Commission and invok ing i t s a c t i o n o r d i n a r i l y w i l l be as set f o r t h i n t h i s r u l e . (2) Where both Governments have agreed t o r e f e r such a ques t i on or matter to the Commission, each Government w i l l present to the Commission, a t the permanent o f f i c e i n i t s count r y , a re fe rence i n s i m i l a r o r i d e n t i c a l terms s e t t i n g f o r t h as f u l l y as may be necessary f o r the i n fo rmat ion o f the Commission the quest ion or matter which i t i s to examine i n t o and repo r t upon and any r e s t r i c t i o n s or except ions which may be imposed upon the Commission wi th respect t h e r e t o . (3) Where one o f the Governments, on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , has decided to r e f e r such a quest ion or matter to the Commission, i t w i l l present a re fe rence to the Commission at the permanent o f f i c e i n i t s count ry . A l l such re fe rences should conform, as to t h e i r con -t e n t s , , ^ the requirements of paragraph (2) o f t h i s r u l e . (4) Such drawings, plans o f survey and maps as may be necessary to i l l u s t r a t e c l e a r l y the quest ion o r matter r e f e r r e d should accompany the re ference when i t i s presented to the Commission. Not i ce and P u b l i c a t i o n 27. (1) The s e c re t a r y to whom a re fe rence i s presented s h a l l r e c e i v e and f i l e the same and s h a l l send a copy f o r t h w i t h to the o ther s e c re t a r y - 167 -f o r f i l i n g i n the o f f i c e of the l a t t e r . I f the re ference i s presented by one Government o n l y , the other s e c re t a r y s h a l l send a copy f o r t h w i t h to h i s Government. (2) Subject to any r e s t r i c t i o n s or except ions which may be imposed upon the Commission by the terms o f the r e f e r e n c e , and unless o t h e r -wise prov ided by the Commission, the s e c r e t a r i e s , as soon as p r a c t i c a b l e a f t e r the re ference i s r e c e i v e d , s h a l l cause a no t i ce to be pub l i shed i n the Canada Gaze t te , the Federal Reg i s t e r and i n two newspapers, pub l i shed one i n each country and c i r c u l a t e d i n o r near the l o c a l i t i e s wh ich, i n the op in ion o f the Commission, are most l i k e l y to be i n t e r e s t e d i n the sub jec t matter o f the re fe rence . The no t i c e s h a l l de s c r i be the sub jec t matter o f the re ference i n general terms, i n v i t e i n t e r e s t e d persons to inform the Commission o f the nature o f t h e i r i n t e r e s t and s t a t e tha t the Commission w i l l p rov ide convenient oppo r tun i t y f o r i n t e r e s t e d persons to be heard w i th re spect t h e r e t o . Adv i so ry Boards 28. (1) The Commission may appoint a board or boards, composed o f q u a l i f i e d persons , to conduct on i t s beha l f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and s t ud i e s tha t may be necessary or d e s i r a b l e and to r epo r t to the Commission regard ing any quest ions o r matters i n vo l ved i n the sub ject matter o f the r e f e rence . (2) Such board o r d i n a r i l y w i l l have an equal number o f members from each country . (3) The Commission o r d i n a r i l y w i l l make cop ies o f the main or f i n a l repor t o f such board o r a d i g e s t t he reo f a v a i l a b l e f o r examinat ion by the Governments and i n t e r e s t e d persons p r i o r to ho ld ing the f i n a l hear ing or hearings r e f e r r e d to i n Rule 29. Hearings 29. (1) A hear ing or hear ings may be he ld whenever i n the op i n i on o f the Commission such a c t i o n would be h e l p f u l to the Commission i n complying wi th the terms o f a r e f e r ence . Subject to any r e s t r i c t i o n s or except ions which may be imposed by the terms of the r e f e r ence , a f i n a l hear ing o r hear ings s h a l l be he ld before the Commission r epo r t s to Governments i n accordance wi th the terms o f the r e fe rence . (2) The t i m e , p lace and purpose o f the hear ing o r hear ings on a re ference s h a l l be f i x e d by the Chairmen of the two s e c t i o n s . (3) The s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l f o r t h w i t h g ive w r i t t e n no t i c e o f the t i m e , p lace and purpose o f the hear ing o r hear ings to each Govern-ment and to persons who have adv i sed the Commission o f t h e i r i n t e r e s t . Unless otherwise d i r e c t e d by the Commission, the s e c r e t a r i e s s h a l l - 168 -a l s o cause such no t i c e to be pub l i shed i n the Canada Gaze t te , the Federal Reg i s t e r and once each week f o r three success i ve weeks i n two newspapers, pub l i shed one, i n each country and c i r c u l a t e d i n or near the l o c a l i t i e s wh ich , i n the op in ion o f the Commission, are most l i k e l y to be i n t e r e s t e d i n the sub jec t matter of the r e f e rence . (4) A l l hear ings s h a l l be open to the p u b l i c , unless otherwise determined by the Commission. (5) At a hea r i n g , the Governments and persons i n t e r e s t e d are e n t i t l e d to p re sen t , i n person or by c oun se l , o r a l and documentary evidence and argument tha t i s r e l e van t and mate r i a l to any matter that i s w i t h i n the pub l i shed purpose of the hea r i ng . (6) The p r e s i d i n g chairman may r equ i r e tha t evidence be under oath . . (7) Witnesses may be examined and cross-examined by the Commissioners and by counsel f o r the Governments and the Commission. With the consent of the p r e s i d i n g chairman, counsel f o r any i n t e r e s t e d person may a l s o examine o r cross-examine w i tnes ses . (8) The Commission may r equ i r e f u r t h e r evidence to be g iven and may requ i re p r i n t e d b r i e f s to be submitted at or subsequent to the hear ing . (9) A verbat im t r a n s c r i p t of the proceedings a t the hear ing s h a l l be prepared. Proceedings Under A r t i c l e X 30. When a ques t ion or matter o f d i f f e r e n c e a r i s i n g between the two Governments i n v o l v i n g the r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s or i n t e r e s t s of e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n to the other or to t h e i r r e s pec t i v e i nhab i t an t s has been o r i s t o be r e f e r r e d to the Commission f o r d e c i s i o n under A r t i c l e X o f the T r ea t y , the Commission a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n wi th the s a i d Govern-ments, w i l l adopt such r u l e s o f procedures as may be app rop r i a te to the quest ion o f matter r e f e r r e d or to be r e f e r r e d . Adopted: December 2, 1964. - 169 -APPENDIX I I I AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY Ottawa, A p r i l 15, 1972 In f o r ce A p r i l 15, 1972 The Government o f Canada and the Government o f the Un i ted States o f Amer ica, ' Determined to r e s to re and enhance water q u a l i t y i n the Great Lakes System; S e r i o u s l y concerned about the grave d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f water q u a l i t y on each s ide o f the boundary to an extent t ha t i s caus ing i n j u r y to hea l th and proper ty on the o the r s i d e , as desc r ibed i n the 1970 Report of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission on P o l l u t i o n of Lake E r i e , Lake Ontar io and the I n t e r na t i ona l Sec t ion o f the S t . Lawrence R i v e r ; Intent upon prevent ing f u r t h e r p o l l u t i o n o f the Great Lakes System owing to con t i nu i ng popu la t i on growth, resource development and i n -c rea s i ng use of wa te r ; Rea f f i rm ing i n a s p i r i t o f f r i e n d s h i p and cooperat ion the r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s of both coun t r i e s under the Boundary Waters Treaty s igned on January 11, 1909, and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n not to p o l l u t e * boundary wa te r s ; Recogniz ing the r i g h t s of each country i n the use of i t s Great Lakes wate r s ; S a t i s f i e d t ha t the 1970 repor t of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission prov ides a sound bas i s f o r new and more e f f e c t i v e coopera t i ve a c t i on s to r e s to re and enhance water q u a l i t y i n the Great Lakes System; Convinced tha t the best means to achieve improved water q u a l i t y i n the Great Lakes System i s through the adopt ion o f common o b j e c t i v e s , the development and implementation o f coopera t i ve programs and other measures, and the assignment o f s p e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and f unc t i on s to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission; Have agreed as f o l l o w s : - 170 -ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS As used i n t h i s Agreement: "Boundary Waters o f the Great Lakes System" or "boundary water s " means boundary wate r s , as def ined i n the Boundary Waters T r ea t y , that are w i t h i n the Great Lakes System; "Boundary Waters T rea t y " means the Treaty between the Un i ted States and Great B r i t a i n R e l a t i n g to Boundary Waters, and Questions A r i s i n g Between the United States and Canada, s igned a t Washington on January 11, 1909; "Compatible r e g u l a t i o n s " means r e gu l a t i o n s no l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e than agreed p r i n c i p l e s ; "Great Lakes System" means a l l of the streams, r i v e r s , lakes and other bodies of water that are w i t h i n the drainage bas in of the S t . Lawrence R i ve r a t or upstream from the po in t a t which t h i s r i v e r becomes the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary between Canada and the Uni ted S t a t e s ; "Harmful q u a n t i t y " means any quan t i t y o f a substance t ha t i f d i s -charged i n t o r e c e i v i n g waters would be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th the achievement o f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s ; "Hazardous p o l l u t i n g substance" means any element or compound i d e n t i f i e d by the P a r t i e s wh i ch , when d i scharged i n any q u a n t i t y i n t o or upon r e c e i v i n g waters or a d j o i n i n g s h o r e l i n e s , presents an imminent and s u b s t a n t i a l danger to p u b l i c hea l th or w e l f a r e ; f o r t h i s purpose, " p u b l i c hea l th o r w e l f a r e " encompasses a l l f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the hea l th and we l f a re o f man i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to human h e a l t h , and the conservat ion and p r o t e c t i o n o f f i s h , s h e l l f i s h , w i l d l i f e , p u b l i c and p r i v a t e p r ope r t y , shore-l i n e s and beaches; " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission" or "Commission" means the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission e s t a b l i s h e d by the Boundary Waters T r ea t y ; "Phosphorus" means the element phosphorus present as a c o n s t i t u e n t o f var ious o rgan ic complexes and compounds; " S p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e " means the l e v e l o f a substance or phy s i ca l e f f e c t t ha t the P a r t i e s agree, a f t e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , to recogn ize as a maximum or minimum de s i r ed l i m i t f o r a def ined body o f water or po r t i on t h e r e o f , t a k i n g i n t o account the bene-f i c i a l uses of the water t ha t the p a r t i e s de s i r e to secure and p r o t e c t ; - 171 -( j ) " S t a t e and P r o v i n c i a l Governments" means the Governments o f the S t a t e s ' o f I l l i n o i s , I nd iana, M i ch i gan , Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsy l van ia , and Wiscons in , and the Government o f the Prov ince of O n t a r i o ; (k) " T r i b u t a r y waters o f the Great Lakes System" or " t r i b u t a r y water s " means a l l the waters of the Great Lakes System.that are not boundary wate r s ; (1) "Water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s " means the general water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s adopted pursuant to A r t i c l e II of t h i s Agreement and the s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s adopted pursuant to A r t i c l e I I I o f t h i s Agreement. ARTICLE II GENERAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES The f o l l o w i n g general water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s f o r the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System are adopted. These waters should be: (a) Free from substances tha t enter the waters as a r e s u l t o f human a c t i v i t y and t ha t w i l l s e t t l e to form put rescent o r otherwise o b j e c t i o n a b l e s ludge d e p o s i t s , o r t h a t w i l l adver se l y a f f e c t aqua t i c l i f e or w a t e r f o w l ; (b) Free from f l o a t i n g d e b r i s , o i l , scum and o ther f l o a t i n g m a t e r i a l s en te r i n g the waters as a r e s u l t o f human a c t i v i t y i n amounts s u f f i c i e n t to be u n s i g h t l y or d e l e t e r i o u s ; (c) Free from m a t e r i a l s e n t e r i n g the waters as a r e s u l t o f human a c t i v i t y producing c o l o u r , odour or o ther c ond i t i o n s i n such a degree as to c rea te a nu i sance; (d) Free from substances en t e r i n g the waters as a r e s u l t o f human a c t i v i t y i n concent ra t i on s tha t are t o x i c or harmful to human, animal or aqua t i c l i f e ; (e) Free from n u t r i e n t s en te r i n g the waters as a r e s u l t of human a c t i v i t y i n concent ra t i on s tha t c rea te nuisance growths of aqua t i c weeds and a l gae . ARTICLE I I I SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 1. The s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s f o r the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System set f o r t h i n Annex 1 are adopted. - 172 -2. The s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s may be mod i f i ed and a d d i t i o n a l s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s f o r the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System or f o r p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i on s the reo f may be adopted by the P a r t i e s i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i on s of A r t i c l e s IX and XII o f t h i s Agreement. 3. The s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s adopted pursuant to t h i s A r t i c l e represent the minimum de s i r ed l e v e l s o f water q u a l i t y i n the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System and are not intended to prec lude the es tab l i shment o f more s t r i n g e n t requirements. Notwithstand ing the adopt ion o f s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t -i v e s , a l l reasonable and p r a c t i c a b l e measures w i l l be taken to ma inta in the l e v e l s o f water q u a l i t y e x i s t i n g a t the date o f en t ry i n t o f o r ce of t h i s Agreement i n those areas o f the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System where such l e v e l s exceed the s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . ARTICLE IV STANDARDS AND OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Water q u a l i t y standards and other r e gu l a t o r y requirements of the P a r t i e s s h a l l be c on s i s t en t w i th the achievement of the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . The P a r t i e s s h a l l use t h e i r best e f f o r t s to ensure t ha t water q u a l i t y standards and other r e gu l a t o r y requirements of the S tate and P r o v i n c i a l Governments s h a l l s i m i l a r l y be c o n s i s t e n t w i th the achievement o f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . ARTICLE V PROGRAMS AND OTHER MEASURES Programs and other measures d i r e c t e d toward the achievement o f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s s h a l l be developed and implemented as soon as p r a c t i c a b l e i n accordance w i th l e g i s l a t i o n i n the two c o u n t r i e s . Unless otherwise agreed, such programs and other measures s h a l l be e i t h e r completed or i n process o f implementation by December 31, 1975. They s h a l l i n c l ude the f o l l o w i n g : (a) P o l l u t i o n from Mun ic ipa l Sources. Programs f o r the abatement and con t r o l o f d i scharges o f mun ic ipa l sewage i n t o the Great Lakes System i n c l u d i n g : ( i ) c o n s t r u c t i o n and opera t ion i n a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s having sewer systems of waste treatment f a c i l i t i e s p r ov i d i n g l e v e l s of t reatment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the achievement o f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , t a k i n g i n t o account the e f f e c t s o f waste from other sources ; - 173 -( i i ) p r o v i s i o n of f i n a n c i a l resources to a s s i s t prompt c on s t r u c t i o n of needed f a c i l i t i e s ; i i i ) e s tab l i shment o f requirements f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n and ope ra t i ng standards f o r f a c i l i t i e s ; ( i v ) measures to f i n d p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n s -for reducing p o l l u t i o n from over f lows o f combined storm and s a n i t a r y sewers; (v) mon i t o r i n g , s u r v e i l l a n c e and enforcement a c t i v i t i e s necessary to ensure compliance w i th the fo rego ing programs and measures. P o l l u t i o n from I n d u s t r i a l Sources. Programs f o r the abatement and con t r o l o f p o l l u t i o n from i n d u s t r i a l sources , i n c l u d i n g : ( i ) e s tab l i shment o f waste treatment or con t r o l requirements f o r a l l i n d u s t r i a l p l an t s d i s cha rg i ng waste i n t o the Great Lakes System, to prov ide l e v e l s o f treatment o r r educ t i on o f inputs o f substances and e f f e c t s c on s i s t en t w i th the achievement o f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , t a k i n g i n t o account the e f f e c t s of waste from other sources ; ( i i ) requirements f o r the s u b s t a n t i a l e l i m i n a t i o n o f d i scharges i n t o the Great Lakes System of mercury and o ther t o x i c heavy meta l s ; i i i ) requirements f o r the s u b s t a n t i a l e l i m i n a t i o n o f d i scharges i n t o the Great Lakes System of t o x i c p e r s i s t e n t o rgan ic contaminants; ( i v ) requirements f o r the con t r o l o f thermal d i s cha rges ; (v) measures to c on t r o l the d i scharge o f r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s i n t o the Great Lakes System; ( v i ) mon i t o r i n g , s u r v e i l l a n c e and enforcement a c t i v i t i e s necessary to ensure compliance w i th the fo rego ing r e q u i r e -ments and measures. E u t r o p h i c a t i o n . Measures f o r the c on t r o l o f inputs of phosphorus and o the r n u t r i e n t s i n c l u d i n g programs to reduce phosphorus input s i n accordance w i th the p r o v i s i on s o f Annex 2. P o l l u t i o n from A g r i c u l t u r a l , Fo re s t r y and Other Land Use A c t i v i t i e s . Measures f o r the abatement and con t r o l o f p o l l u t i o n from a g r i c u l t u r a l , f o r e s t r y and other land use a c t i v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g : - 174 -( i ) measures f o r the c on t r o l o f pest c on t r o l products w i th a view to l i m i t i n g inputs i n t o the Great Lakes System, i n c l u d i n g r egu l a t i on s to ensure t ha t pest c on t r o l products judged to have long term d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s on the q u a l i t y of water or i t s b i o t i c components s h a l l be used on ly as au tho r i zed by the re spons i b l e r e gu l a t o r y agenc ies , and t ha t pest c on t r o l products s h a l l not be app l i ed d i r e c t l y to water except i n accordance w i t h the requirements o f the r e spon s i b l e r egu l a to r y agenc ie s ; ( i i ) measures f o r the abatement and con t r o l o f p o l l u t i o n from animal husbandry ope r a t i on s , i n c l u d i n g encouragement to app rop r i a te r e gu l a t o r y agencies to adopt r e gu l a t i on s governing s i t e s e l e c t i o n and d i spo sa l of l i q u i d and s o l i d wastes i n order to minimize the l o s s o f p o l l u t a n t s to r e c e i v i n g wa te r s ; ( i i i ) measures governing the d i spo sa l of s o l i d wastes and con-t r i b u t i n g to the achievement of the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , i n c l u d i n g encouragement to appropr ia te r e gu l a t o r y agencies to ensure proper l o c a t i o n o f land f i l l and land dumping s i t e s and r e gu l a t i on s governing the d i spo sa l on land o f hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances; ( i v ) adv i so ry programs and measures t h a t serve to abate and con t r o l inputs o f n u t r i e n t s and sediments i n t o r e c e i v i n g waters from a g r i c u l t u r a l , f o r e s t r y and o ther land use a c t i v i t i e s . (e) P o l l u t i o n from Sh ipping A c t i v i t i e s . Measures f o r the abatement and con t r o l of p o l l u t i o n from sh ipp ing sources , i n c l u d i n g : ( i ) programs and compat ib le r e gu l a t i on s f o r vesse l des i gn , con -s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n , to prevent d i scharge o f harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f o i l and hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, i n accordance w i th the p r i n c i p l e s set f o r t h i n Annex 3; ( i i ) compat ib le r egu l a t i on s f o r the c o n t r o l of vesse l waste d i scharges i n accordance w i th the p r i n c i p l e s set f o r t h i n Annex 4 ; ( i i i ) such compat ib le r e gu l a t i on s to abate and con t r o l p o l l u t i o n from sh ipp ing sources as may be deemed d e s i r a b l e i n the l i g h t of s t ud i e s to be undertaken i n accordance w i th the terms of re fe rence set f o r t h i n Annex 5; ( i v ) programs f o r the safe and e f f i c i e n t handl ing o f sh ipboard generated wastes, i n c l u d i n g o i l , hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, garbage, waste water and sewage, and t h e i r subsequent d i s p o s a l , i n c l u d i n g any necessary compat ib le r e gu l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g to the t ype , q u a n t i t y and c apac i t y of shore recep t i on f a c i l i t i e s ; - 175 -(v) e s t ab l i s hment .o f a coord inated system f o r the s u r v e i l l a n c e and enforcement o f r e gu l a t i on s dea l i n g w i th the abatement and con t r o l of p o l l u t i o n from sh ipp ing a c t i v i t i e s . ( f ) P o l l u t i o n from Dredging A c t i v i t i e s . Measures f o r the abatement and con t r o l of p o l l u t i o n from dredging a c t i v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g the development o f c r i t e r i a f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p o l l u t e d dredged s p o i l and compat ib le programs f o r d i sposa l of p o l l u t e d dredged s p o i l , which s h a l l be cons idered i n the l i g h t of the rev iew prov ided f o r i n Annex 6; pending the development o f compat ib le c r i t e r i a and programs, dredging operat ions s h a l l be conducted i n a manner t ha t w i l l minimize adverse e f f e c t s on the environment. (g) P o l l u t i o n from Onshore and Offshore F a c i l i t i e s . Measures f o r the abatement and con t r o l of p o l l u t i o n from onshore and o f f s ho re f a c i l i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g programs and compat ib le r e gu l a t i on s f o r the prevent ion o f d i scharges o f harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f o i l and hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, i n accordance w i th the p r i n c i p l e s set f o r t h i n Annex 7. (h) Contingency P l a n . Maintenance o f a j o i n t cont ingency p lan f o r use i n the event o f a d i scharge or the imminent t h r e a t o f a d i scharge o f o i l o r hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, i n accordance w i t h the p rov i s i on s of Annex 8. ( i ) Hazardous P o l l u t i n g Substances. Con su l t a t i on w i t h i n one year from the date o f en t ry i n t o f o r ce o f t h i s Agreement f o r the purpose o f developing an Annex i d e n t i f y i n g hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances; the P a r t i e s s h a l l f u r t h e r con su l t from time to t ime f o r the purpose o f i d e n t i f y i n g harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f these substances and o f rev iewing the d e f i n i t i o n of "harmful quan t i t y o f o i l " set f o r t h i n Annexes 3 and 7. 2. The P a r t i e s s h a l l develop and implement such a d d i t i o n a l programs as they j o i n t l y decide are necessary and d e s i r a b l e f o r the achievement o f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . 3. The Programs and other measures prov ided f o r i n t h i s A r t i c l e s h a l l be designed to abate and con t r o l p o l l u t i o n of t r i b u t a r y waters where necessary or d e s i r a b l e f o r the achievement of the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s f o r the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System. ARTICLE VI POWERS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION 1. The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l a s s i s t i n the imp le -mentation of t h i s Agreement. A c co rd i n g l y , the Commission i s hereby g i v e n , pursuant to A r t i c l e IX o f the Boundary Waters T rea t y , the f o l l o w i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s : - 176 -(a) C o l l a t i o n , a n a l y s i s and d i s seminat ion o f data and i n fo rmat i on s upp l i ed by the P a r t i e s and S tate and P r o v i n c i a l Governments r e l a t i n g to the q u a l i t y of the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System and to p o l l u t i o n tha t enters the boundary waters from t r i b u t a r y water s ; (h) C o l l e c t i o n , a na l y s i s and d i s semina t i on o f data and i n fo rmat ion concern ing the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s and the opera t ion and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the programs and o ther measures e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant to t h i s Agreement; (c) Tendering o f adv ice and recommendations to the P a r t i e s and to the S ta te and P r o v i n c i a l Governments on problems o f the q u a l i t y o f the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System, i n c l u d i n g s p e c i f i c recommendations concern ing the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , l e g i s l a t i o n , standards and o ther r e gu l a t o r y requ i rements , programs and o ther measures, and intergovernmental agreements r e l a t i n g to the q u a l i t y of these wate r s ; (d) P r o v i s i o n of a s s i s t ance i n the coo rd i na t i on o f the j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s envisaged by t h i s Agreement, i n c l u d i n g such matters as cont ingency p lann ing and c o n s u l t a t i o n on s p e c i a l s i t u a t i o n s ; (e) P r o v i s i o n o f a s s i s t ance i n the coo rd i na t i on of Great Lakes water q u a l i t y r e sea r ch , i n c l u d i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e s f o r research a c t i v i t i e s , tender ing o f adv ice and recommendations con-ce rn ing research to the p a r t i e s and to the State and P r o v i n c i a l Governments and d i s seminat ion o f i n fo rmat ion concern ing research to i n t e r e s t e d persons and agenc ie s ; ( f ) I n ve s t i g a t i on s o f such sub jec t s r e l a t e d to Great Lakes water q u a l i t y as the P a r t i e s may from time to time r e f e r to i t . At the t ime o f s i gnatu re o f t h i s Agreement, the P a r t i e s are reques t ing the Commission to enqu i re i n t o and r epo r t to them upon: ( i ) p o l l u t i o n o f the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System from a g r i c u l t u r a l , f o r e s t r y and o the r land use a c t i v i t i e s , i n accordance w i th the terms o f re fe rence attached to t h i s Agreement; ( i i ) a c t i on s needed to preserve and enhance the q u a l i t y o f the waters o f Lake Huron and Lake Super io r i n accordance w i t h . the terms of re fe rence at tached to t h i s Agreement. 2. In the d i scharge o f i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under t h i s Agreement, the Commission may e x e r c i s e a l l of the powers con fe r red upon i t by the Boundary Waters T reaty and by any l e g i s l a t i o n passed pursuant t h e r e t o , i n c l u d i n g the power to conduct p u b l i c hear ings and to compel the t e s t i -mony o f witnesses and the product ion o f documents. - 1 7 7 -3. The Commission s h a l l make a repo r t to the P a r t i e s and to the State and P r o v i n c i a l Governments no l e s s f r e q u e n t l y ' t h a n annua l l y concerning progress toward the achievement of the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . Th i s r epo r t s h a l l i n c l ude an assessment o f the e f f e c t -iveness of the programs and other measures undertaken pursuant to t h i s Agreement, and adv ice and recommendations. The Commission may at any time make s p e c i a l repor t s to the P a r t i e s , to the S ta te and P r o v i n c i a l Governments and to the p u b l i c concern ing any problem of water q u a l i t y i n the Great Lakes System. 4. The Commission may i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n pub l i s h any r e p o r t , s t a t e -ment or o the r document prepared by i t i n the d i scharge of i t s f unc t i on s under t h i s Agreement. 5. The Commission s h a l l have a u t h o r i t y to v e r i f y independent ly the data and other i n fo rmat ion submitted by the P a r t i e s and by the State and P r o v i n c i a l Governments through such t e s t s o r o the r means as appear app rop r i a te to i t , c on s i s t en t w i th the Boundary Waters Treaty and w i t h a p p l i c a b l e l e g i s l a t i o n . ARTICLE VII JOINT INSTITUTIONS 1. The I n te rna t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l e s t a b l i s h a Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board to a s s i s t i t i n the exe r c i s e o f the powers and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ass igned to i t under t h i s Agreement. Such Board s h a l l be composed o f an equal number o f members from Canada and the Uni ted S t a t e s , i n c l u d i n g representa t ion - from the P a r t i e s and from each o f the S ta te and P r o v i n c i a l Governments. The Commission s h a l l a l s o e s t a b l i s h a Research Adv i so ry Board i n accordance w i th the terms o f re fe rence at tached to t h i s Agreement. The members of the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board and the Research Adv i so ry Board s h a l l be appointed by the Commission a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i th the appropr i a te government o r governments concerned. In a d d i t i o n , the Commission s h a l l have the a u t h o r i t y to e s t a b l i s h as i t may deem approp r i a te such subord inate bodies as may be requ i red to undertake s p e c i f i c t a s k s , as we l l as a r eg i ona l o f f i c e , which may be l o ca ted i n the bas in o f the Great Lakes System, to a s s i s t i t i n the d i scharge o f i t s f unc t i on s under t h i s Agreement. The Commission s h a l l a l s o con su l t the P a r t i e s about the s i t e and s t a f f i n g o f any reg iona l o f f i c e t ha t might be e s t a b l i s h e d . 2. The Commission s h a l l submit an annual budget of a n t i c i p a t e d expenses to be i n cu r r ed i n c a r r y i n g out i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under t h i s Agree-ment to the P a r t i e s f o r app rova l . Each Par ty s h a l l seek funds to pay one -ha l f o f the annual budget so approved, but n e i t h e r Par ty s h a l l be under an o b l i g a t i o n to pay a l a r g e r amount than the other toward t h i s budget. - 173 -ARTICLE VI I I SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION 1. The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l be g iven a t i t s request any data or o ther i n fo rmat ion r e l a t i n g to the q u a l i t y o f the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System i n accordance w i th p r o -cedures to be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n th ree months o f the ent ry i n t o fo rce o f t h i s Agreement o r as soon t h e r e a f t e r as p o s s i b l e , by the Commission i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i th the P a r t i e s and w i th the S tate and P r o v i n c i a l Governments. 2. The Commission s h a l l make a v a i l a b l e to the P a r t i e s and to the State and P r o v i n c i a l Governments upon request a l l data or o ther i n fo rmat ion f u rn i shed to i t i n accordance wi th t h i s A r t i c l e . 3. Each Par ty s h a l l make a v a i l a b l e to the other a t i t s request any data or o ther i n fo rmat i on i n i t s c on t r o l r e l a t i n g to the q u a l i t y of the waters o f the Great Lakes System. 4. Notwithstanding any o the r p r o v i s i on s of t h i s Agreement, the Commission s h a l l not r e l ea se wi thout the consent o f the owner any i n fo rmat ion i d e n t i f i e d as p r o p r i e t a r y i n fo rmat i on under the law o f the p lace where such i n fo rmat ion has been a cqu i r ed . ARTICLE IX CONSULTATION AND REVIEW 1. Fo l l ow ing the r e c e i p t of each repo r t submitted to the P a r t i e s by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i n accordance w i th paragraph 3 o f A r t i c l e VI of t h i s Agreement, the P a r t i e s s h a l l con su l t on the recom-mendations conta ined i n such repor t and s h a l l cons ide r such a c t i o n as may be a p p r o p r i a t e , i n c l u d i n g : (a) The m o d i f i c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s and the adopt ion o f new o b j e c t i v e s ; (b) The m o d i f i c a t i o n o r improvement o f programs and j o i n t measures; (c) The amendment o f t h i s Agreement or any annex t h e r e t o . A d d i t i o n a l c o n s u l t a t i o n s may be held at the request of e i t h e r Par ty on any matter a r i s i n g out o f the implementation o f t h i s Agreement. 2. When a Par ty becomes aware o f a s p e c i a l p o l l u t i o n problem t h a t i s of j o i n t concern and r equ i r e s an immediate response, i t s h a l l n o t i f y and con su l t w i th the other Par ty f o r t h w i t h about, app rop r i a te remedial a c t i o n . - 179 -3. The P a r t i e s s h a l l conduct a comprehensive review o f the opera t i on and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h i s Agreement dur ing the f i f t h year a f t e r i t s coming i n t o f o r c e . T h e r e a f t e r , f u r t h e r comprehensive reviews s h a l l be conducted upon the request of e i t h e r Pa r t y . ARTICLE X IMPLEMENTATION 1. The o b l i g a t i o n s undertaken i n t h i s Agreement s h a l l be sub jec t to the app rop r i a t i on of funds i n accordance w i th the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l procedures of the P a r t i e s . 2. The P a r t i e s commit themselves to seek: (a) The app r op r i a t i o n of the funds r equ i red to implement t h i s Agreement, i n c l u d i n g the funds needed to develop and implement the programs and other measures prov ided f o r i n A r t i c l e V, and the funds r equ i red by the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission to ca r r y out i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s e f f e c t i v e l y ; (b) The enactment o f any a d d i t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n - t h a t may be necessary i n order to implement the programs and other measures prov ided f o r i n A r t i c l e V; (c) The cooperat ion o f the State and P r o v i n c i a l Governments i n a l l matters r e l a t i n g to t h i s Agreement. ARTICLE XI EXISTING RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS Nothing i n t h i s Agreement s h a l l be deemed to d im in i sh the r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s of the P a r t i e s as set f o r t h i n the Boundary Waters T rea ty . ARTICLE XII AMENDMENT This Agreement and the Annexes the re to may be amended by agreement of the P a r t i e s . The Annexes may a l s o be amended as prov ided t h e r e i n , sub ject to the requirement t ha t such amendments s h a l l be w i t h i n the scope of t h i s Agreement. - 180 -ARTICLE X I I I ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TERMINATION This Agreement s h a l l enter i n t o f o r ce upon s i gnatu re by the duly au tho r i zed r ep re sen ta t i ve s o f the P a r t i e s , and s h a l l remain i n f o rce f o r a pe r i od of f i v e years and t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l te rminated upon twelve months' n o t i c e g iven i n w r i t i n g by one o f the P a r t i e s to. the o the r . IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Representat i ves of the two Governments have s igned t h i s Agreement. DONE i n two copies a t Ottawa t h i s f i f t e e n t h day o f A p r i l 1972 i n Eng l i s h and^French, each ve r s i on being e q u a l l y a u t h e n t i c . EN FOI DE QUOI l e s representants des deux Gouvernements ont s igne l e present Accord. FAIT en double exempla ires a Ottawa l e quinzi^me j o u r d ' a v r i l 1972 en eng l a i s e t en f r a n c a i s , l e s deux tex te s f a i s a n t 6galement f o i . P.E. Trudeau M i t c h e l l Sharp For the Government o f Canada Pour l e Gouvernement du Canada R ichard Nixon W i l l i a m Rogers For the Government o f the Un i ted States of America Pour l e Gouvernement des E t a t s -Un i s d 'Amerique - 181 -ANNEX I SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES S p e c i f i c Ob j e c t i v e s . The s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System are as f o l l o w s : (a) M i c r ob i o l o g y . The geometric mean o f not l e s s than f i v e samples taken over not more than a t h i r t y - d a y pe r i od should not exceed 1,000/100 m i l l i l i t r e s t o t a l c o l i f o r m s , nor 200/100 m i l l i l i t r e s f e c a l c o l i f o r m s . Water used f o r body contact r e c r e a t i o n , a c t i v i t i e s , should be s u b s t a n t i a l l y f r ee from b a c t e r i a , f u n g i , or v i r u se s tha t may produce e n t e r i c d i s o rde r s or eye, ea r , nose, t h r oa t and s k i n i n f e c t i o n s or o ther human d i seases and i n f e c t i o n s . (b) D i s so l ved Oxygen. In the Connecting Channels and i n the upper waters of the l a k e s , the d i s s o l v e d oxygen l e v e l should not be l e s s than 6.0 m i l l i g r ams per l i t r e at any t ime ; i n hypo l imnet ic water s , i t should be not l e s s than necessary f o r the support of f i s h i i f e , p a r t i c u l a r l y c o l d water s pec i e s . (c) To ta l D i s so l ved S o l i d s . In Lake E r i e , Lake Ontar io and the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Sec t ion of the S t . Lawrence R i v e r , the l e v e l o f t o t a l d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s should not exceed 200 m i l l i g r ams per l i t r e . In the S t . C l a i r R i v e r , Lake S t . C l a i r , the D e t r o i t R i ve r and the Niagara R i v e r , the l e v e l should be c o n s i s t e n t w i th ma in ta in i ng the l e v e l s of t o t a l d i s s o l v ed s o l i d s i n Lake E r i e and Lake Ontar io at not to exceed 200 m i l l i g r a m s per l i t r e . In the remaining boundary water s , pending f u r t h e r s tudy, the l e v e l of t o t a l d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s should not exceed present l e v e l s . (d) Taste and Odour. Phenols and o ther o b j e c t i o n a b l e t a s t e and odour producing substances should be s u b s t a n t i a l l y absent. (e) pH. Values should not be ou t s i de the range of 6.7 to 8.5 ( f ) Iron (Fe) . Levels should not exceed 0.3 m i l l i g r ams per l i t r e . (g) Phosphorus.(P). Concentrat ions should be l i m i t e d to the extent necessary to prevent nuisance growths of a l gae , weeds and s l imes t ha t are or may become i n j u r i o u s to any b e n e f i c i a l water use. (h) R a d i o a c t i v i t y . R a d i o a c t i v i t y should be kept at the lowest p r a c t i c a b l e l e v e l s and i n any event should be c o n t r o l l e d to tfie ex tent necessary to prevent harmful e f f e c t s of h e a l t h . - 182 -2. I n ter im Ob je c t i v e s . U n t i l o b j e c t i v e s f o r p a r t i c u l a r substances and e f f e c t s i n the c l a s se s desc r ibed i n t h i s paragraph are f u r t h e r r e f i n e d , the o b j e c t i v e s f o r them are as f o l l o w s : (a) Temperature. There should be no change tha t would adver se l y a f f e c t any l o c a l or general use of these waters . (p.) Mercury and Other Tox i c Heavy Me ta l s . . The aquat i c e n v i r o n -ment should be f r ee from substance a t t r i b u t a b l e to m u n i c i p a l , i n d u s t r i a l or other d i scharges i n concent ra t i ons t ha t are t o x i c or harmful to human, animal or aqua t i c l i f e . (c) P e r s i s t e n t Organic Contaminants. P e r s i s t e n t pest c o n t r o l products and other p e r s i s t e n t o rgan ic contaminants t ha t are t o x i c or harmful to human, animal or aquat i c l i f e should be s u b s t a n t i a l l y absent i n the waters . (d) S e t t l e a b l e and Suspended M a t e r i a l s . Waters should be f r e e from substances a t t r i b u t a b l e to m u n i c i p a l , i n d u s t r i a l o r o ther d i scharges tha t w i l l s e t t l e to form put rescent o r o therwi se o b j e c t i o n a b l e s ludge d e p o s i t s , o r t ha t w i l l a d -ve r s e l y a f f e c t aquat i c l i f e or wa te r f ow l . (e) O i l , Petrochemica l s and Immiscible Substances. Waters should be f r e e from f l o a t i n g d e b r i s , o i l , scum and o ther f l o a t i n g m a t e r i a l s a t t r i b u t a b l e to m u n i c i p a l , i n d u s t r i a l o r other d i scharges i n amounts s u f f i c i e n t to be un s i g h t l y or d e l e t e r i o u s . 3. Non-degradat ion. Notwi ths tand ing the adopt ion o f s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , a l l reasonable and p r a c t i c a b l e measures s h a l l be taken i n accordance w i th paragraph 4 of A r t i c l e I I I o f the Agreement to ma inta in the l e v e l s of water q u a l i t y e x i s t i n g at the date o f en t r y i n t o f o r ce o f the:Agreement i n those areas o f the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System where such l e v e l s exceed the s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . 4. Sampling Data. The P a r t i e s agree tha t the determinat ion o f c o m p l i -ance wi th s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s s h a l l be based on s t a t i s t i c a l l y v a l i d sampling da ta . 5. M ix ing Zones. The re spons i b l e r e gu l a t o r y agencies may des ignate r e s t r i c t e d mix ing zones i n the v i c i n i t y o f o u t f a l l s w i t h i n which the s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s s h a l l not app ly . M ix ing zones s h a l l not be cons idered a s u b s t i t u t e f o r adequate treatment or c o n t r o l of d i scharges at t h e i r source. 6. L o c a l i z e d Areas. There w i l l be o ther r e s t r i c t e d , l o c a l i z e d a rea s , such as harbours, where e x i s t i n g c ond i t i o n s such as land - 183 -drainage and land use w i l l prevent the o b j e c t i v e s from being met at l e a s t over the short te rm; such a reas , however, should be i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y and as e a r l y as p o s s i b l e by the r e spon s i b l e r e gu l a t o r y agencies and should be kept to a minimum. P o l l u t i o n from such areas s h a l l .not c o n t r i b u t e to the v i o l a t i o n of the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s i n the waters of the other P a r t y . The I n t e r -na t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l be n o t i f i e d of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f such l o c a l i z e d a rea s , i n accordance w i t h A r t i c l e V I I I . 7. C o n s u l t a t i o n . The P a r t i e s agree to c on su l t w i t h i n one year from the date of en t ry i n t o f o r ce of the Agreement, f o r the purpose of c o n s i d e r i n g : (a) S p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s f o r the f o l l o w i n g substances: Ammonia A r sen i c Bar i urn Cadmi urn Ch l o r i de Chromium Copper Cyanide F l uo r i de Lead Mercury N i c ke l O i l Organic chemicals Phenols Selenium Sulphate Z inc (b) Ref ined o b j e c t i v e s f o r r a d i o a c t i v i t y and temperature; f o r r a d i o a c t i v i t y the o b j e c t i v e s h a l l be cons idered i n the l i g h t of the recommendations o f the I n t e r na t i ona l Commission on Rad ia t i on P r o t e c t i o n . 8. Amendment. (a) The o b j e c t i v e s adopted here in s h a l l be kept under rev iew and may be amended by mutual agreement of the P a r t i e s . (b) Whenever the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, a c t i n g pursuant to A r t i c l e VI of the Agreement, s h a l l recommend the es tab l i shment o f new o r mod i f i ed s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , t h i s Annex s h a l l be amended i n accordance w i t h such recommendation on the r e c e i p t by the Commission o f a l e t t e r from each Par ty i n d i c a t i n g i t s agreement w i th the recommendation. ANNEX 2 CONTROL OF PHOSPHORUS 1. Programs. Programs s h a l l be developed and implemented to reduce inputs of phosphorus to the Great Lakes System. These programs s h a l l i n c l u d e : - 184 -(a) Cons t ruc t i on and opera t i on of waste treatment f a c i l i t i e s to remove phosphorus from munic ipa l sewage; (b) Regulatory measures to r equ i r e i n d u s t r i a l d i s charger s to remove phosphorus from wastes to be d i scharged i n t o the Great Lakes System; (c) Regulatory and adv i so ry measures to con t r o l inputs o f phosphorus through reduc t i on of waste d i scharges a t t r i b u t a b l e to animal husbandry ope ra t i on s . In a d d i t i o n , programs may i nc lude r e gu l a t i on s l i m i t i n g o r e l i m i n a t i n g phosphorus from detergents s o l d f o r use w i t h i n the bas in of the Great Lakes System. 2. E f f l u e n t Requirements. The phosphorus concent ra t i on s i n e f f l u e n t from munic ipa l waste treatment p l an t s d i s cha rg ing i n excess o f one m i l l i o n g a l l o n s per day, and from sma l l e r p l an t s as r equ i red by regu-l a t o r y agenc ie s , s h a l l not exceed a d a i l y average of one m i l l i g r a m per l i t r e i n t o Lake E r i e , Lake Ontar io and the I n t e r na t i ona l Sec t ion o f the S t . Lawrence R i v e r . 3. I n d u s t r i a l D i scharges. Waste treatment or c on t r o l requirements f o r a l l i n d u s t r i a l p l an t s d i s cha rg i ng wastes i n t o the Great Lakes System s h a l l be designed to achieve maximum p r a c t i c a b l e r educ t i on of phosphorus d i scharges to Lake E r i e , Lake Ontar io and the I n t e r na t i ona l Sec t ion o f the St . Lawrence R i v e r . 4. Reductions f o r Lower Lakes. These programs are designed to a t t a i n reduct ions i n gross inputs o f phosphorus to Lake E r i e and Lake Ontar io o f the q u a n t i t i e s i n d i c a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s f o r the years i n d i c a t e d . - 185 -TABLE 1 ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS AND REDUCTIONS IN LOADINGS TO LAKE ERIE I nc lud ing Lake St . C l a i r and the S t . C l a i r and D e t r o i t R i ve r s UNITED STATES (SHORT TONS PER YEAR) 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 BASELOAD 25,800 26,400 27,000 27,600 28,300 28,800 REDUCTION 100 5,200 9,800 15,100 16,000 17,300 RESIDUAL LOAD 25,700 21 ,200 17,200 12,500 12,300 11,500 CANADA BASELOAD 3,300 3,300 3,400 3,500 3,500 3,600 REDUCTION 100 100 600 1,400 1,400 1,400 RESIDUAL LOAD 3,200 3,200 2,800 2,100 2,100 2,200 INPUT FROM LAKE HURON 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,400 2,400 2,400 TOTALS BASELOAD 31,400 32,000 32,700 33,500 34,200 34,800 REDUCTION 200 5,300 10,400 16,500 17,400 18,700 RESIDUAL LOAD 31,200 26,700 22,300 17,000 16,800 16,100 - 186 -TABLE 2 ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS AND REDUCTIONS IN LOADINGS TO LAKE ONTARIO. ( i n c l u d i n g the Niagara R i ve r ) (SHORT TONS PER YEAR) 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 UNITED STATES BASELOAD 6,900 7,000 7,200 7,400 7,600 7,700 REDUCTION - 500 . 500 2,100 3,800 5,100 RESIDUAL LOAD 6,900 6,500 6,700 5,300 3,800 2,600 CANADA BASELOAD REDUCTION RESIDUAL LOAD INPUT FROM LAKE TOTALS BASELOAD REDUCTION RESIDUAL LOAD 6,700 6,900 400 400 6,300 6,500 E 4,800 4,800 18,400 18,700 400 900 18,000 17,800 7,000 7,000 1,800 1,800 5,200 5,200 4,800 4,800 19,000 19,200 2,300 3,900 16,700 15,300 7,100 7,200 1,800 4,600 5,300 2,600 4,800 4,800 19,500 19,700 5,600 9,700 13,900 10,000 - 187 -5. Re se rva t i on . The amounts shown as " r e s i d u a l l oad s " i n Tables 1 and 2 above do not c o n s t i t u t e a l l o c a t i o n s to the two c o u n t r i e s , but represent a n t i c i p a t e d r e s u l t s of mun ic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l waste reduc t i on and detergent phosphorus con t r o l programs. 6. Refinement of Data. The r e s i d u a l loads are based upon best a v a i l a b l e da ta . The P a r t i e s , i n cooperat ion w i th the S tate and P r o v i n c i a l Governments and w i th the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, s h a l l cont inue to r e f i n e these est imates to ensure a comparable data base. These est imates are sub jec t to r e v i s i o n upon agreement by the P a r t i e s to r e f l e c t f u tu re ref inement o f the da ta . 7. Ob jec t i ve o f Programs. The o b j e c t i v e o f the fo rego ing program i s to minimize eu t r oph i c a t i o n problems i n the Great Lakes System. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d tha t succes s fu l implementation o f these programs w i l l accompl ish the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s , which are of c r i t i c a l impor t -ance to the success of the j o i n t undertak ing to preserve and enhance the q u a l i t y o f the waters o f the Great Lakes System: (a) Re s to ra t i on of year - round aerob ic c ond i t i o n s i n the bottom waters o f the c e n t r a l bas in o f Lake E r i e ; (b) Reduction i n present l e v e l s of a l g a l growth i n Lake E r i e ; (c) Reduction i n present l e v e l s of algal growth i n Lake O n t a r i o , i n c l u d i n g the I n t e r na t i ona l Sect ion o f the S t . Lawrence R i v e r ; (d) S t a b i l i z a t i o n o f Lake Super io r and Lake Huron i n t h e i r present o l i g o t r o p h i c s t a t e . I t i s never the le s s recogn ized that a d d i t i o n a l measures and programs may be r equ i r ed to minimize e u t r o p h i c a t i o n problems i n the f u t u r e . A v a i l a b l e evidence suggests t ha t reduct ions i n phosphorus load ings to achieve a net d i scharge to Lake E r i e i n the range of 8000 to 11,000 tons per year may be r equ i r ed to b r i ng about mesotrophic c ond i t i o n s i n t h i s l a k e . 8. Reductions f o r Upper Lakes. The P a r t i e s , i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the S ta te and P r o v i n c i a l Governments and w i th the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, s h a l l w i t h i n one year from the ent ry i n t o f o r ce o f the Agreement determine the gross reduct ions i n inputs of phosphorus t h a t they agree to seek f o r Lake Super io r and Lake Huron ( i n c l u d i n g the St . Marys R i v e r ) . Rending such agreement, such l i m i t a t i o n s on mun ic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l phosphorus d i scharges as may be r equ i r ed by r e gu l a t o r y agencies to meet l oad ing o b j e c t i v e s or to prevent and con t r o l e u t r o p h i -c a t i o n problems i n Lake Super io r and: Lake Huron s h a l l app ly . Any more comprehensive f i n d i n g s r e s u l t i n g from the study by the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission of water q u a l i t y i n these lakes s h a l l be taken i n t o account as soon as a v a i l a b l e . - 188 -9. Commission Recommendations. The P a r t i e s s h a l l take i n t o account , as soon as a v a i l a b l e , the recommendations o f the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission made pursuant to i t s study o f p o l l u t i o n from a g r i c u l t u r a l , f o r e s t r y and other land use a c t i v i t i e s , i n order to develop and imp le -ment appropr i a te programs f o r c on t r o l o f inputs of phosphorus from these sources. 10. Mon i t o r i ng . The P a r t i e s , i n cooperat ion w i t h the S tate and P r o v i n c i a l Governments and w i th the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, s h a l l cont inue to monitor the extent o f e u t r o p h i c a t i o n i n the Great Lakes System and the progress being made i n reduc ing o r p revent ing i t . They s h a l l c on su l t p e r i o d i c a l l y t o exchange the r e s u l t s o f research and to pursue proposa ls f o r a d d i t i o n a l programs to c on t r o l e u t r o p h i c a t i o n . 11. Submission of I n fo rmat ion. The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l be g iven i n fo rmat ion at l e a s t a nnua l l y , i n accordance w i t h procedures e s t a b l i s h e d by the Commission i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i th the P a r t i e s and w i th the S tate and P r o v i n c i a l Governments, concern ing : (a) Tota l reduct ion i n gross inputs o f phosphorus achieved as a r e s u l t of the programs implemented pursuant t o t h i s Annex; (b) A n t i c i p a t e d reduct ions i n gross inputs of phosphorus f o r the succeeding twelve months. 12. Review and M o d i f i c a t i o n . In connect ion w i th the f i r s t comprehensive j o i n t rev iew o f the opera t ion and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the Agreement con-ducted i n accordance w i t h paragraph 3 o f A r t i c l e IX t h e r e o f , the e f f e c t s o f phosphorus c on t r o l programs on the Great Lakes System s h a l l be reviewed and f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the programs undertaken pursuant to t h i s Annex .shal l be cons idered. ANNEX 3 VESSEL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. D e f i n i t i o n s . As used i n t h i s Annex: (a) "D i scharge " means the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f o i l and hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, i n c l u d i n g o i l y b i l g e - w a t e r , i n t o r e c e i v i n g waters and i n c l u d e s , but i s not l i m i t e d t o , any s p i l l i n g , l e a k i n g , pumping, pou r i ng , e m i t t i n g or dumping; i t does not i nc lude unavoidable d i r e c t d i scharges of o i l from a p roper l y f u n c t i o n i n g vesse l eng ine; - 189 -(b) "Harmful quan t i t y of o i l " means any quan t i t y of o i l t h a t , i f d i scharged i n t o r e c e i v i n g wa te r s , would produce a f i l m or sheen upon, or d i s c o l o r a t i o n o f , the su r face o f the water or a d j o i n i n g s h o r e l i n e , o r t ha t would cause a sludge or emulsion to be depos i ted beneath the su r face of the water o r upon the a d j o i n i n g s h o r e l i n e ; (c) " O i l y wastes" means o i l and mixtures c on ta i n i n g o i l such as o i l y b a l l a s t , tank washing and b i l g e s l o p s ; (d) "Tanker" means any vesse l designed f o r the c a r r i a g e o f o i l or l i q u i d chemicals i n bu l k ; (e) "VesselV means any s h i p , barge or o ther f l o a t i n g c r a f t , whether o r not s e l f - p r o p e l l e d . 2. O i l . As used i n t h i s Annex, " o i l " r e f e r s to o i l o f any k ind or i n any form, i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d to petro leum, f ue l o i l , o i l s l udge, o i l r e f u s e , and o i l mixed w i t h wastes but does not i n c l ude con s t i t uen t s o f dredged s p o i l . 3. General P r i n c i p l e s . Compatible r e gu l a t i on s s h a l l be adopted f o r the prevent ion o f d i scharges i n t o the Great Lakes System of harmful q u a n t i t i e s of o i l and hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances from ve s se l s i n accordance w i t h the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : (a) Discharges of harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f o i l or hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances s h a l l be p r o h i b i t e d and made sub jec t to app rop r i a te p e n a l t i e s ; (b) As soon as any person i n charge has knowledge o f any d i scharge o f harmful q u a n t i t i e s of o i l or hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, immediate no t i c e o f such d i scharge s h a l l be g iven to the app rop r i a te agency i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n where the d i scharge o ccu r s ; f a i l u r e to g i ve t h i s n o t i c e s h a l l be made sub jec t to app rop r i a te p e n a l t i e s . 4. Programs. The programs and measures to be adopted f o r the prevent ion of d i scharges o f harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f o i l s h a l l i n c l ude the f o l l o w i n g : (a) Compatible r e gu l a t i o n s f o r design and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f ves se l s based on the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : ( i ) each tanker s h a l l have a s u i t a b l e means of c on t a i n i n g on board cargo o i l s p i l l s caused by l oad ing or t r a n s f e r o p e r a t i o n s ; ( i i ) each vesse l s h a l l have .a s u i t a b l e means of con ta i n i n g on board f ue l o i l s p i l l s caused by l oad ing o r t r a n s f e r o p e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g those from tank vents and ove r -f l ow p i pe s ; - 190 -( i i i ) each vesse l s h a l l have a c a p a b i l i t y of r e t a i n i n g on board o i l y wastes accumulated dur ing vesse l o p e r a t i o n ; ( i v ) each vesse l s h a l l be capable o f o f f - l o a d i n g con-t a i n e d o i l y wastes to a shore f a c i l i t y . (b) Compatible r e gu l a t i on s f o r vesse l opera t ing procedures based on the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : ( i ) tankers s h a l l be prov ided w i th a means f o r r a p i d l y and s a f e l y s topp ing the f l ow of cargo o i l dur ing t r a n s f e r operat ions i n the event o f an emergency; ( i i ) s u i t a b l e deck l i g h t i n g s h a l l be prov ided to i l l u m i n a t e a l l cargo and f ue l handl ing areas i f the t r a n s f e r occurs a t n i g h t ; ( i i i ) hose assembl ies used aboard ves se l s f o r o i l t r a n s f e r s h a l l be s u i t a b l y des igned, marked and i n spec ted to minimize the p o s s i b i l i t y of f a i l u r e ; ( i v ) o i l t r a n s f e r , l oad ing and o f f - l o a d i n g systems s h a l l be designed to minimize the p o s s i b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e . (c) Programs to t r a i n merchant vesse l personnel i n a l l f unc t i on s i n vo l ved i n the use, hand l ing and stowage o f o i l and i n procedures f o r abatement of o i l p o l l u t i o n . 5. A d d i t i o n a l measures. The programs and measures to be adopted f o r the prevent ion o f d i scharges o f hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances s h a l l use as a guide the Code f o r the Cons t ruc t i on and Equipment of Ships Ca r r y i ng Dangerous Chemicals i n Bulk of the Intergovernmental Mar i t ime C o n s u l t a t i v e Organ i za t i on (IMCO). Such programs and measures s h a l l i nc lude des ign and c on s t r u c t i o n f e a t u r e s , ope ra t i ng procedures, and merchant vesse l personnel q u a l i f i c a t i o n standards w i t h re spec t to handl ing hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances and p o l l u t i o n abatement. In a d d i t i o n , the programs s h a l l e s t a b l i s h compat ib le r e g u l a t i o n s f o r : (a) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and p l a ca rd i n g of ves se l s c a r r y i n g hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances as we l l as con ta ine r s and packages c on ta i n i n g hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances when c a r r i e d by v e s s e l s ; (b) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n vesse l mani fest s o f a l l hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances c a r r i e d ; (c) Procedures f o r n o t i f i c a t i o n to r e spons i b l e a u t h o r i t i e s o f a l l hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances c a r r i e d . . - 191 -ANNEX 4 VESSEL WASTES 1. D e f i n i t i o n s . As used i n t h i s Annex: (a) "Garbage" means s o l i d g a l l e y waste, paper, rags , p l a s t i c s , g l a s s , m e t a l , b o t t l e s , c r o cke r y , junk and s i m i l a r r e f u s e ; (b) "Sewage" means human or animal waste generated on board sh ip and i nc ludes wastes from water c l o s e t s , u r i n a l s or ho sp i t a l f a c i l i t i e s handl ing f e c a l m a t e r i a l ; (c) " V e s s e l " means any s h i p , barge, o r o the r f l o a t i n g c r a f t , whether or not s e l f - p r o p e l l e d ; (d) "Waste water " means water i n combination w i th o ther sub-s tances , i n c l u d i n g b a l l a s t water and water used f o r washing cargo ho ld s , but exc lud ing water i n combinat ion w i t h o i l , hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances or sewage. 2. Compatible Regu la t i on s . The P a r t i e s s h a l l adopt w i t h i n one year from the ent ry i n t o f o r c e o f the Agreement r e gu l a t i o n s governing the d i sposa l of vesse l waste i n the waters of the Great Lakes System in accordance wi th p r i n c i p l e s at l e a s t as s t r i n g e n t as the f o l l o w i n g : (a) Garbage s h a l l not be d i scharged by a vesse l i n t o these water s ; (b) Waste water s h a l l not be d ischarged by a vesse l i n t o these waters i n amounts o r i n concent ra t i ons t ha t w i l l be d e l e t e r i o u s ; (c) Every ves se l opera t ing i n these waters: w i th an i n s t a l l e d t o i l e t f a c i l i t y s h a l l be equipped w i th a dev ice o r dev ices to conta in the v e s s e l ' s sewage, o r to i n c i n e r a t e i t , or to t r e a t i t to an adequate degree. 3. C r i t i c a l Use Areas. C r i t i c a l use areas of the Great Lakes System may be des ignated where the d i scharge o f waste water or sewage s h a l l be l i m i t e d o r p r o h i b i t e d . 4. Containment Dev ices . Regu lat ions may be e s t a b l i s h e d r e q u i r i n g a dev ice or dev ices to con ta in the sewage of p leasure c r a f t or other c l a s se s o f ve s se l s opera t ing i n the Great Lakes System or des ignated areas t he reo f . 192 ^ ANNEX 5 STUDIES OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPPING SOURCES 1. S tud ie s . The P a r t i e s agree tha t s t ud i e s of p o l l u t i o n problems i n the Great Lakes System tha t a r i s e i n r e l a t i o n to sh ipp ing a c t i v i t i e s s h a l l be undertaken f o r the purpose o f s t rengthen ing t h e i r programs and o ther measures f o r the abatement and c o n t r o l o f p o l l u t i o n from sh ipp ing sources. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the coo rd i na t i on o f these s t ud i e s i s ass igned to the Un i ted S tates Coast Guard and the Canadian M i n i s t r y o f T ranspor t . I n i t i a l l y , these s tud ie s s h a l l i nc lude the f o l l o w i n g s u b j e c t s : (a) Nay i ga t i ona l Equipment. Determinat ion o f minimum sa fe standards r e spec t i n g the f i t t i n g , maintenance, t e s t i n g and use of nav i g a t i ona l equipment f o r both normal and i c e ope ra t i on s . (b) T r a f f i c Routes f o r Nav i ga t i ona l Purposes. Review o f the e x i s t i n g i n fo rma l system of t r a f f i c routes and dete rminat ion o f t h e i r adequacy and e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; determinat ion of the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l t r a f f i c r o u t e s ; review o f t r a c k w id th s , s h i f t i n g o f t r a c k s , l i m i t e d t r a c k s , r u l e s of pa s s i ng , speeds, and s i m i l a r matters f o r normal and i c e o p e r a t i o n s ; and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p r i o r i t i e s f o r needed remedial measures. (c) T r a f f i c C o n t r o l . Review o f e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c c on t r o l systems and determinat ion of t h e i r adequacy and e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; determinat ion o f the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l t r a f f i c c on t r o l systems; rev iew of operat ions w i th respect to open wate r s , harbours, and channels under normal and i c e c o n d i t i o n s ; and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p r i o r i t i e s f o r needed remedial measures. (d) Manning o f Ve s se l s . Review o f e x i s t i n g Un i ted S tates and Canadian competency standards to determine acceptab le minimum s tandards ; review o f e x i s t i n g f o r e i g n competency standards to determine whether they are adequate and e f f e c t i v e and equ i v a l en t to the Un i ted States: and Canadian minimum s tandards ; d e t e r -minat ion o f the need f o r c e r t i f i c a t e d p i l o t s and o ther o f f i c e r s and f o r improvement o f e x i s t i n g p i l o t c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , f o r s p e c i a l manning r egu l a t i on s f o r towing v e s s e l s , f o r separate manning standards f o r i c e ope r a t i on s , and f o r separate manning standards f o r ve s se l s c a r r y i n g o i l and hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances in- per iods of adverse weather or i n areas of high t r a f f i c den s i t y . (e) A ids to Nav igat ion Systems. Review o f the adequacy and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f e x i s t i n g a id s to nav i ga t i on systems; d e t e r -minat ion o f the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l a id s to n a v i g a t i o n ; and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p r i o r i t i e s f o r needed remedial measures. - 193 -( f ) Waste Water. Review of problems a r i s i n g from the d i scharge o f waste wate r s , and recommendations f o r reduc ing the d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s o f such d i s charges . (g) Sewage Treatment Systems f o r Ve s se l s . Review of c u r r en t research and development 'of systems f o r the treatment o f vesse l sewage. (h) Loading and Unloading o f Gra in and Ore. Review o f p o l l u t i o n problems a r i s i n g from these ope ra t i on s . 2. C o n s u l t a t i o n . Representat ives of the Un i ted States Coast Guard and Canadian M i n i s t r y o f Transport together w i th r ep re sen ta t i ve s o f o ther concerned agencies s h a l l meet p e r i o d i c a l l y i n order t o : (a) I d e n t i f y problems r e q u i r i n g f u r t h e r s tudy; (b) Appo r t i o n , as between Canada and the Un i ted S t a t e s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r var ious aspects o f the s t u d i e s ; (c ) Prov ide con t i nu i ng interchange o f i n fo rmat ion w i th re spect to ongoing and proposed p r o j e c t s ; (d) Exchange r e s u l t s o f completed p r o j e c t s . 3. A d d i t i o n a l S tud ies and R e s u l t s . The Un i ted S tates Coast Guard and the Canadian M i n i s t r y o f Transport s h a l l inform the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission o f any a d d i t i o n a l sub jec t s t ha t are being s tud ied and o f the r e s u l t s o f a l l s t ud i e s undertaken pursuant to t h i s Annex as they become a v a i l a b l e . ANNEX 6 IDENTIFICATION AND DISPOSAL OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL 1. D e f i n i t i o n s . As used i n t h i s Annex: (a) "Dredged s p o i l " means the s o l i d m a t e r i a l s removed from the bottom o f water bodies g ene r a l l y f o r the purpose o f improving waterways f o r n a v i g a t i o n ; these m a t e r i a l s may i nc l ude mud, s i l t , c l a y , sand, rock and other s o l i d m a t e r i a l s t ha t have been depos i ted from mun ic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l d i scharges and from natura l sources ; (b) "Conf ined a rea " means an area developed f o r the depos i t o f dredge s p o i l t ha t prec ludes the r e tu rn of the dredge s p o i l t o open po r t i on s o f the waterway; the area may be l o c a t e d i n the waterway or on o ther upland s i t e s and may c o n s i s t o f d i k e s , l e vee s , bulkheads, c e l l s o r any o ther type s t r u c t u r e t h a t w i l l r e t a i n the m a t e r i a l ; - 194 -(c) "Open water " means any par t o f the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System other than a con f ined a r e a ; (d) " P o l l u t e d dredged s p o i l " means dredged s p o i l c on t a i n i n g harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f o i l , hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances or o ther d e l e t e r i o u s substances as des ignated by the r e spon s i b l e r e gu l a t o r y agenc ies . 2. Review. Pursuant to arrangements, to be made by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i th the P a r t i e s , a working group s h a l l be e s t a b l i s h e d to undertake a rev iew of e x i s t i n g dredging p r a c t i c e s , programs, laws and r e gu l a t i on s w i t h the o b j e c t i v e of deve lop ing compat ib le c r i t e r i a f o r the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of p o l l u t e d dredged s p o i l and recom-mendations f o r compat ib le programs governing the d i spo sa l o f p o l l u t e d dredged s p o i l i n open water. Th is rev iew s h a l l be computed w i t h i n two years from the date of ent ry i n t o f o r ce o f the Agreement. The working group s h a l l conduct i t s study and formulate i t s recommendations on the bas i s of the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : (a) Dredging a c t i v i t i e s should be conducted i n a manner t ha t w i l l minimize harmful environmental e f f e c t s ; (b) A l l reasonable and p r a c t i c a b l e measures s h a l l be taken to ensure t ha t dredging a c t i v i t i e s do not cause a degradat ion o f water q u a l i t y and bottom sediments; (c) As soon as p r a c t i c a b l e , the d i sposa l o f p o l l u t e d dredged s p o i l i n open water should be c a r r i e d out i n a manner c on s i s t en t w i th the achievement o f the water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s , and should be phased out . 3. Con su l t a t i on s . Upon complet ion of the rev iew prov ided f o r i n paragraph 2 above, the P a r t i e s s h a l l c on su l t pursuant to A r t i c l e IX of the Agreement to cons ide r and ac t upon the recommendations o f the working group. 4. I n ter im A c t i o n s . Pending the development of compat ib le c r i t e r i a and programs: (a) Dredged s p o i l found by the appropr i a te r e gu l a t o r y agencies to be p o l l u t e d s h a l l be d i sposed of i n conf ined areas when they are a v a i l a b l e ; (b) The r e spon s i b l e agencies s h a l l cont inue e f f o r t s to develop s i t e s f o r con f i ned areas . - 195 -ANNEX 7 DISCHARGES FROM ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE FACILITIES 1. D e f i n i t i o n s . As used i n t h i s Annex: (a) "D i scharge " means the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f o i l or hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances i n t o r e c e i v i n g waters and i n c l u d e s , but i s not l i m i t e d t o , any s p i l l i n g , l e a k i n g , pumping, pou r i ng , e m i t t i n g o r dumping; i t does not i n c l ude cont inuous e f f l u e n t d i scharges from munic ipa l or i n d u s t r i a l treatment f a c i l i t i e s ; (b) "Harmful q u a n t i t y o f o i l " means any quan t i t y of o i l t h a t , i f d i scharged i n t o r e c e i v i n g wa te r s , would produce a f i l m o r sheen upon, or d i s c o l o r a t i o n o f the su r face o f the water or a d j o i n i n g s h o r e l i n e , or t ha t would cause a sludge or emulsion to be depos i ted beneath the su r face of the water or upon a d j o i n i n g s h o r e l i n e ; (c) "Of f shore f a c i l i t y " means any f a c i l i t y o f any k ind l o ca ted i n , on o r under any water ; (d) "Onshore f a c i l i t y " means any f a c i l i t y o f any k ind l o c a t e d , i n , on o r under, any land other than submerged l and . 2. F a c i l i t i e s . The term " f a c i l i t y " i nc ludes motor v e h i c l e s , r o l l i n g s t o ck , p i p e l i n e s , and any other f a c i l i t y t ha t i s used o r capable o f being used f o r the purpose o f p r oce s s i n g , producing s t o r i n g , t r a n s f e r r i n g o r t r a n s p o r t i n g o i l o r hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, but exc ludes v e s s e l s . 3. O i l . As used i n t h i s Annex, " o i l " r e f e r s to o i l of any k ind or i n any form, i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d to petro leum, f ue l o i l , o i l s l udge, o i l r e f u s e , and o i l mixed w i t h wastes, but does not i n c l ude c o n s t i t u e n t s of dredged s p o i l . 4. P r i n c i p l e s . Regu lat ions s h a l l be adopted f o r the prevent ion o f d i scharges i n t o the Great Lakes System o f harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f o i l and hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances from onshore and o f f s ho re f a c i l i t i e s i n accordance w i th the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s ; (a) Discharges of harmful q u a n t i t i e s o f o i l or hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances s h a l l be p r o h i b i t e d and made sub jec t to app rop r i a te p e n a l t i e s ; - 196 -(b) As soon as any person i n charge has knowledge o f any d i scharge o f harmful q u a n t i t i e s of o i l or hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances, immediate n o t i c e o f such d i scharge s h a l l be g iven to the app rop r i a te agency i n the j u r i s -d i c t i o n where the d i scharge o c c u r s ; f a i l u r e to g i ve t h i s no t i c e s h a l l be made sub jec t t o app rop r i a te p e n a l t i e s . 5. Programs and Measures. The programs and measures to be adopted s h a l l i nc lude the f o l l o w i n g : (a) Programs, t o rev iew the de s i gn , c o n s t r u c t i o n , and l o c a t i o n o f both e x i s t i n g and new f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e i r adequacy t o prevent the d i scharge o f o i l o r hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances; (b) Programs to rev iew the o p e r a t i o n , maintenance and i n s p e c t i o n procedures o f f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e i r adequacy to prevent the d i scharge o f o i l or hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances; (c) Programs to t r a i n personnel to perform a IT f unc t i on s i n v o l v i n g the use and hand l ing o f o i l and hazardous p o l l u t i n g subs tances ; (d) Programs to ensure t h a t a t each f a c i l i t y p lans and p r o v i s i on s are made f o r appropr i a te equipment f o r the containment and c lean up o f s p i l l s of o i l or hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances; (e) Programs i n c l u d i n g compat ib le r e gu l a t i o n s f o r the i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n and p l a ca rd i n g o f con ta ine r s and v e h i c l e s c a r r y i n g o i l o r hazardous p o l l u t i n g substances. * ANNEX 8 JOINT CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The P l an . The P a r t i e s agree t ha t the " J o i n t U.S.-Canadian O i l and Hazardous M a t e r i a l s P o l l u t i o n Contingency Plan f o r the Great Lakes Region"adopted on June 10, 1971, s h a l l be mainta ined i n f o r c e , as amended from time to t ime . I t s h a l l be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the Un i ted S tates Coast Guard and the Canadian M i n i s t r y of Transport to coord ina te and to ma inta in the p l a n , as so amended, in w r i t t e n form. 2. Purpose. The purpose o f the P lan i s t o prov ide f o r coo rd ina ted and i n t e g r a t ed response to p o l l u t i o n i n c i d e n t s i n the Great Lakes System by r e spon s i b l e f e d e r a l , s t a t e , p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l agenc ies . The Plan supplements the n a t i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l and r e g i ona l p lans o f the P a r t i e s . - 197 -3. P o l l u t i o n I n c i den t s . (a) A p o l l u t i o n i n c i d e n t i s a d i s cha rge , or an imminent t h r e a t o f a d i s cha rge , of o i l or any other substance, of such magnitude or s i g n i f i c a n c e as to r equ i r e immediate response to c o n t a i n , c lean up or d i spose of the m a t e r i a l . (b) The o b j e c t i v e s o f the p lan i n p o l l u t i o n i n c i d e n t s a re : ( i ) t o develop app rop r i a te preparedness measures and e f f e c t i v e systems f o r d i s cove ry and r e p o r t i n g th£ e x i s t ence o f a p o l l u t i o n i n c i d e n t w i t h i n the area covered by the p l a n ; ( i i ) to i n s t i t u t e prompt measures to r e s t r i c t the f u r t h e r spread of the p o l l u t a n t ; ( i i i ) to prov ide adequate equipment to respond to p o l l u t i o n i n c i d e n t s . 4. Funding. Unless otherwise agreed, the costs of operat ions of both P a r t i e s under the Plan, s h a l l be borne by the Par ty i n whose waters the p o l l u t i o n i n c i d e n t occur red . 5. Amendment. The Un i ted States Coast Guard and the Canadian M i n i s t r y o f Transport are empowered t o amend the P lan sub jec t to the requirement that such amendments s h a l l be c on s i s t en t w i th the purpose and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s Annex. - 198 -TEXT OF REFERENCE TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION TO STUDY POLLUTION IN THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM FROM AGRICULTURAL^ FORESTRY AND OTHER LAND USE ACTIVITIES I have the honour to inform you t ha t the Governments o f Canada and the Un i ted S tates o f Amer ica, pursuant to A r t i c l e IX o f the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, have agreed to request the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission to conduct a study o f p o l l u t i o n o f the boundary waters o f the Great Lakes System from a g r i c u l t u r a l , f o r e s t r y and o the r land use a c t i v i t i e s , i n the l i g h t o f the p r o v i s i o n o f A r t i c l e IV o f the Treaty which prov ides tha t the boundary waters and waters f l ow ing across the boundary s h a l l not be p o l l u t e d on e i t h e r s i de to the i n j u r y of hea l th and p roper ty on the o the r s i d e , and i n the l i g h t a l s o o f the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement s igned on t h i s date . The Commission i s requested to enqui re i n t o and repo r t to the two Governments upon the f o l l o w i n g que s t i on s : (1) Are the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System being p o l l u t e d by land dra inage ( i n c l u d i n g ground and su r face runo f f and sediments) from a g r i c u l t u r e , f o r e s t r y , urban and i n d u s t r i a l land development, r e c r e a t i o n a l and park land development, u t i l i t y and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems and na tu ra l sources? (2) I f the answer to the fo rego ing ques t i on i s i n the a f f i r m a t i v e , to what e x t e n t , by what causes, and i n what l o c a l i t i e s i s the p o l l u t i o n t a k i n g p lace? (3) I f the Commission should f i n d that p o l l u t i o n o f the cha r a c te r j u s t r e f e r r e d to i s t a k i n g p l a c e , what remedial measures would, i n i t s judgment, be most p r a c t i c a b l e and what would be the probable cost the reo f ? The Commission i s requested to con s ide r the adequacy o f e x i s t i n g programs and con t r o l measures, and the need f o r improvements t h e r e t o , r e l a t i n g t o : (a) inputs of n u t r i e n t s , pest c on t r o l p roduct s , sediments, and o ther p o l l u t a n t s from the sources r e f e r r e d to above; (b) l and use; (c) . land f i l l s , land dumping, and deep we l l d i spo sa l p r a c t i c e s ; - 199 -(d) con f ined l i v e s t o c k feed ing operat ions and o ther animal husbandry o p e r a t i o n s ; and (e) p o l l u t i o n from other a g r i c u l t u r a l , f o r e s t r y and land use sources. In c a r r y i n g out i t s study the Commission should i d e n t i f y d e f i c i e n c i e s i n technology and recommend ac t i on s f o r t h e i r c o r r e c t i o n s . The Commission should submit i t s r epo r t and recommendations to the two Governments as soon as p o s s i b l e and should submit r epo r t s from time to time on the progress of i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In the conduct o f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and otherwise i n the performan o f i t s du t i e s under t h i s r e f e r ence , the Commission may u t i l i z e the s e r v i c e s of q u a l i f i e d persons and o ther resources made a v a i l a b l e by the concerned agencies i n Canada and the Un i ted States and should as f a r as p o s s i b l e make use o f i n fo rmat ion and t e c h n i c a l data hereto fo re acqu i red o r which may become a v a i l a b l e dur ing the course of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g i n fo rmat ion and data acqu i red by the Commission i n the course of i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and s u r v e i l l a n c e a c t i v i t i e s conducted on the lower Great Lakes and i n the connect ing channels . In conduct ing i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the Commission should u t i l i z e the s e r v i ce s of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l board s t r u c t u r e prov ided f o r i n A r t i c l e VII of the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement. - 200 -TEXT OF REFERENCE TO.THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION TO STUDY POLLUTION PROBLEMS OF LAKE HURON AND LAKE SUPERIOR I have the honour to inform you tha t the Governments of Canada and the Un i ted States of Amer ica, pursuant to A r t i c l e IX o f the Boundary Waters T reaty of 1909, have agreed to request the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission to conduct a study of water q u a l i t y i n Lake Huron and Lake Supe r i o r , i n the l i g h t o f the p r o v i s i o n of A r t i c l e IV of the Treaty which prov ides tha t the boundary waters and waters f l ow i n g across the boundary s h a l l not be p o l l u t e d on e i t h e r s i de to the i n j u r y o f hea l th and property on the o ther s i d e , and i n the l i g h t a l s o of the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement, s igned on t h i s date. Th is re fe rence represents the response of the two Governments to recommend-a t i o n No. 20 o f the Commission i n i t s f i n a l r epo r t dated December 9, 1970, on p o l l u t i o n of Lake E r i e , Lake O n t a r i o , and the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Sec t ion of the S t . Lawrence R i v e r . The Commission i s requested to enqui re i n t o and to r epo r t to the two Governments upon the f o l l o w i n g que s t i on s : (1) Are the waters of Lake Super io r and Lake Huron being p o l l u t e d on e i t h e r s i de o f the boundary to an extent (a) which i s caus ing o r i s l i k e l y to cause i n j u r y to hea l th or p roper ty on the o ther s i de of the boundary; or (b) which i s c au s i ng , o r l i k e l y to cause, a degradat ion of e x i s t i n g l e v e l s o f water q u a l i t y i n these two lakes or i n downstream po r t i on s o f the Great Lakes System? (2) I f the fo rego ing quest ions are answered i n the a f f i r m a t i v e , to what e x t e n t , by what causes, and i n what l o c a l i t i e s i s such p o l l u t i o n t a k i n g p lace? (3) I f the Commission should f i n d t ha t p o l l u t i o n o f the cha rac te r j u s t r e f e r r e d to i s t a k i n g p l a c e , what remedial measures would, i n i t s judgment, be most p r a c t i c a b l e to r e s to re and p r o t e c t the q u a l i t y of the wate r s , and what would be the probable cost ? (4) In the event t ha t the Commission should f i n d t ha t l i t t l e o r no p o l l u t i o n of the cha rac te r r e f e r r e d to i s t a k i ng p lace at the present t ime , what p revent i ve measures would, i n i t s judgment, be most p r a c t i c a b l e to ensure t ha t such p o l l u t i o n does not occur i n the f u tu re and what would be the probable cost ? The Governments would welcome the recommendations of the Commission w i th respect to the general and s p e c i f i c water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s t ha t should be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r these l a k e s , and the programs and measures t ha t are r equ i r ed i n the two coun t r i e s i n o rder to achieve and mainta in these water q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e s . - 201 -The Commission should submit i t s r epo r t and recommendations to the two Governments as soon as po s s i b l e and should submit r epo r t s from time to time on the progress o f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In the conduct o f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the Commission i s requested to i n c l ude con s i de r a t i on of p o l l u t i o n en te r i n g Lake Huron and Lake Super io r from t r i b u t a r y wate r s , i n c l u d i n g Lake M ich igan, which a f f e c t s water q u a l i t y i n the two lakes and to enquire i n t o and repor t on the upstream sources o f such p o l l u t i o n . The Commission may u t i l i z e the s e r v i c e s o f . q u a l i f i e d persons and other resources made a v a i l a b l e by water management agencies i n Canada and the Un i ted States and should as f a r as p o s s i b l e make use o f i n fo rmat ion and t e c h n i c a l data he re to fo re acqu i red or which may become a v a i l a b l e dur ing the course o f i t s i n v e s t i -g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g i n fo rmat ion and data acqu i red by the Commission i n the course o f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and s u r v e i l l a n c e a c t i v i t i e s conducted on the lower Great Lakes and i n the connect ing channels . In conduct ing i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the Commission should u t i l i z e the s e r v i c e s o f the i n t e r n a t i o n a l board s t r u c t u r e prov ided f o r i n A r t i c l e VII o f the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement. - 202 -TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD 1. As used h e r e i n , " r e s ea r ch " i nc ludes development, demonstrat ion and research a c t i v i t i e s , but does not i n c l ude r e gu l a r mon i to r ing and s u r v e i l l a n c e o f water q u a l i t y . 2. The f unc t i on s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the Research Adv i so ry Board r e l a t i n g to research a c t i v i t i e s i n Canada and the Un i ted States concern ing the q u a l i t y of the waters of the Great Lakes System s h a l l be as f o l l o w s : (a) To rev iew at r e gu l a r i n t e r v a l s these research a c t i v i t i e s i n order t o : ( i ) examine the adequacy and r e l i a b i l i t y o f research r e s u l t s , t h e i r d i s s e m i n a t i o n , and the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n ; ( i i ) i d e n t i f y d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e i r scope, and inadequacies i n t h e i r funding and i n complet ion schedu le s ; ( i i i ) i d e n t i f y a d d i t i o n a l research p r o j e c t s t ha t should be undertaken; ( i v ) i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c research programs f o r which i n t e r -na t i ona l cooperat ion w i l l be p r o d u c t i v e ; (b) To prov ide adv ice and c o n s o l i d a t i o n s of s c i e n t i f i c op in i on to the Commission and i t s boards on p a r t i c u l a r problems r e f e r r e d to the Adv i so ry Board by the Commission o r i t s boards; (c) To f a c i l i t a t e both formal and in formal i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperat ion and coo rd i na t i on o f r e s e a r c h ; (d) To make recommendations to the Commission. 3. The Research Adv i so ry Board on i t s own a u t h o r i t y may seek ana l y se s , assessments and recommendations from other p r o f e s s i o n a l , academic, governmental or intergovernmental groups about the problems o f the Great Lakes water q u a l i t y research and r e l a t e d research a c t i v i t i e s . 4. The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission s h a l l determine the s i z e and compos i t ion o f the Research Adv i sory Board. The Commis.sion should appoint members to the Adv i so ry Board from appropr i a te F e d e r a l , S tate and P r o v i n c i a l Government agencies and from other agenc ie s , o r gan i z a t i on s and i n s t i t u t i o n s i n vo l ved i n Great Lakes research a c t i v i t i e s . In making these appointments the Commission should cons ider i n d i v i d u a l s from the academic, s c i e n t i f i c and i n d u s t r i a l communities and the general p u b l i c . Membership should be - 203 -based p r i m a r i l y upon an i n d i v i d u a l ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to the work of the Adv i sory Board. 5. The Research Adv i so ry Board should work a t a l l t imes i n c l o s e cooperat ion w i t h the Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Board. - 204 -APPENDIX IV IJC ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENT AND BOARDS (1975) COMMISSIONERS, UNITED STATES SECTION St . C ro i x R i ve r Lake Champlain St . Lawrence R i ve r Niagara R i ve r Lake Super ior P r a i r i e Portage Rainy & Namakan Lakes Sour i s R i ve r St . Mary & M i l k R iver s Kootenay Lake Columbia R i ve r Osoyoos Lake Skag i t R i ve r COMMISSIONERS CANADIAN SECTION INVESTIGATIVE BOARDS American F a l l s Great Lakes Leve l s Roseau R i ve r Drainage Sour i s -Red R iver s Po in t Roberts R i c h e l i e u R i ve r and Lake Champlain A i r q u a l i t y Mich igan/Ontar io Gar r i son D i ve r s i on POLLUTION SURVEILLANCE BOARDS S t . C ro i x R i ve r Red R i ve r Rainy R i ve r A i r P o l l u t i o n the Boundary along REFERENCE GROUP UPPER LAKES POLLUTION FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES REFERENCE GROUP S t a f f | 1 GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD WATER QUALITY] BOARD IJC REGIONAL OFFICE - 205 -APPENDIX V IJC LIST OF INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS 1912-1977 - A or R on the char t i n d i c a t e s a p p l i c a t i o n or re fe rence - The year r e f e r s to the date the a p p l i c a t i o n or re fe rence was submitted to the IJC - The IJC Document number i s the o f f i c i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number f o r the purpose of keeping t r ack o f the p r o j e c t s . Numerical Index and Capsule of IJC Dockets Year 1912 1913 1914 Docket No. 1A 2A 3R 4R 5R 6A 7A 8A 9R T i t l e Rainy R i ve r Improvement Co. K e t t l e F a l l s Dam Watrous I s land Boom Co. Boom i n Rainy R i ve r Lake of the Woods Leve l s P o l l u t i o n of Boundary Waters L i v i ng s tone Channel D e t r o i t R i ve r Michigan Northern Power Co. S t . Mary ' s R i ve r Dam (with No. 8) Greater Winnipeg Water D i s t r i c t 100 mgd from Shoal Lake f o r Winnipeg water supply Alqoma Stee l Corporat ion St . Mary ' s R i ve r Dam (with No. 6) S t . Mary and M i l k R ivers A r t i c l e VI of B.W. Treaty A c t i o n Dismissed as covered by a " s p e c i a l agreement. Approved. No Board. Completed. Resu l ted i n the 1925 Convent ion. A c t i v e Board Completed. Recommendations not implemented. Completed. Recommendations implemented. Approved. F i r s t Board of C o n t r o l . A c t i v e Board. Approved. No Board. Approved. A c t i v e Board. Issued Order i n 1921 on method o f water measure-ment and apport ionment. 206 -Year 1914 1915 1916 1918 1920 1923 1925 1926 Docket No. 10A 11A 12A 13A 14A 15A 16A 17R 18 A 19A 20R 21A 22A T i t l e The S t . C r o i x Water & Power Co. Grand F a l l s Dam (with No. 11) Spraque 's F a l l s Mfg. Co. Grand F a l l s Dam (with No. 10) I n t e r na t i ona l Lumber Co. Boom in Rainy R i ve r St . C l a i r R i ve r Channel A c t i on same s t r u c t u r e . Approved i n 1915. Amended i n 1931 - Docket No. 28. A c t i v e board. Approved. No board. Approved.dredging. No board. Compensating works not con s t ruc ted . New York and Ontar io Power Co. Dec i s ion postponed. Now Waddington Weir inundated by S t . Lawrence Power. S t . Lawrence R i ve r & Power Co. Approved Board was e s t a -Massena Weir b l i s h e d . Works removed p r i o r to S t . Lawrence Power P r o j e c t . Withdrawn i n 1919. Canadian Cottons L t d . Mi 11 town Dam on S t . C ro i x R i ve r S t . Lawrence R i ve r Nav igat ion Completed. T reaty d r a f t e d and Power i n 1932. U.S. Senate d id not r a t i f y i t . Revived i n Docket 68. Approved. No board. S tate of Maine Fishways Fishway i n St . C ro i x R i ve r . New Brunswick E l e c t r i c Power  Commission Grand F a l l s Dam on St . John R i ve r Rainy Lake Leve l s Approved wi thout pass ing on the i s sue o f down-stream b e n e f i t s . No board. Completed. Led to Con-vent ion o f 1928. A c t i v e Board. See Docket 50. B u f f a l o and Fort E r i e P u b l i c Approved. No board. Br idge Co. Br idge over Niagara R i v e r . S t . John R i ve r & Power Co. Grand F a l l s Dam on St. John R i ve r Approved t r a n s f e r o f approval granted under Docket 19. - 207 -Year 1927 1928 1929 1931 1932 1932 1934 1935 Docket No. 23A 24A 25R 26R 27A 28A 29A 30 31A 32A 33A 34A T i t l e Creston Reclamation Co. L t d . Dyking on Kootenay R i ve r i n Canada and above the Lake S t . Lawrence R i ve r & Power Co. Raise Massena Weir T r a i l Smelter Fumes Roseau R i ve r Drainage West Kootenay Power & L i gh t  Co. L t d . Kootenay Lake Storage St . C ro i x Water Power Co. , and Sprague F a l l s Mfg. Co. Grand F a l l s Dam on St . C ro i x R i ve r Kootenay V a l l e y Power and  Development Co. Dyking on Kootenay R i v e r i n Canada near Creston Docket Number ass igned i n e r r o r - same as above Madawaska Company Grand F a l l s Dam on St. John R i v e r . Canadian Cottons L t d . Mi 11 town Dam on St . C ro i x R i ve r . Jean L a r i v i e r e P r i v a t e small dam on L i t t l e S t . John Lake Bruner, P.C. Dyking on Kootenay R i ve r i n Canada Ac t i on Approved. No board. No a c t i o n . Hearing ad -journed " s i n e d i e " . Now inundated by St . Lawrence Power P r o j e c t . Completed. Report not accepted by U.S. The t r i b u n a l award s i m i l a r to IJC. S tud ies proceeding a f t e r a 40-year governmental de lay . Withdrawn i n 1934. Approved r a i s i n g forebay 1.5 f e e t . A c t i v e board. I n i t i a l approval i n Dockets 10 & 11. Approved. No board. Denied. Re lated to c la ims pursuant to operat ion under Dockets 10 & 22. Approved. A c t i v e Board. Approved. No board. Approved. No board. - 208 -Year 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1940 1941 Docket No. 35A 36A 37.R 38A 39A 40A 41R 42A 43A 44A 45A T i t l e Montana Conservat ion Board Dam on East Fork o f Pop la r R i v e r . Myrum, Geo. B. Repair o f P r a i r i e Portage Dam Ch amp1 a i n Wa t e rway Deep waterway from St . Lawrence to Hudson R i ve r R i c h e l i e u R i ve r Remedial Works Ac t i on Approved. Dam not b u i l t . No board. Approved. Repa i r work on e x i s t i n g t imber dam not implemented. Completed. Recommended new study a f t e r S t . Lawrence Seaway b u i l t . Approved. Only c o n t r o l gates i n s t a l l e d . Dykes and excavat ion not imple-mented. A c t i v e board. West Kootenay Power & L i g h t Approved. A c t i v e board. Co. , L t d . Corra L inn Dam f o r Kootenay Lake Storage Un i ted States Fores t Se r v i ce Approval granted to — ' * ~ ^ .-«/>/>«P-|-VMIO4- Asm fin P r a i r i e Portage Dam Sour i s R i ve r Water apportionment Creston Reclamation Co., L t d . Dykes along Kootenay R i v e r i n Canada r e con s t r u c t dam. Only cofferdam b u i l t . A c t i v e board. Governments approved i n t e r i m measures recom-mended by IJC. A c t i v e Board of C o n t r o l . Approval s e t t l e d ou t -s tand ing d i f f e r e n c e s . No board. I n i t i a l approval under Docket 23. West Kootenay Power & L i g h t Approved f o r one year . Co. L t d . A c t i v e board. A d d i t i o n a l two f e e t of storage on Kootenay Lake Grand Coulee Dam & Rese rvo i r Approved. Backwater r a i s e d water l e v e l i n Canada A c t i v e board. West Kootenay Power & L i g h t Informal request con -Co, L t d . '. s i de red to be unneces-A d d i t i o n a l two f e e t o f sary a p p l i c a t i o n , storage on Kootenay Lake - 209 -Year Docket No., 46A 1942 47A 48A 49A 50R 1944 1944 51R 52A 1946 53R 54R 1948 55R T i t l e C i t y of S e a t t l e Ross Dam, Skag i t R i ve r West Kootenay Power & L i gh t Co. L t d . A d d i t i o n a l two f e e t of s torage on Kootenay Lake A c t i o n Approved. Board e s t a -b l i s h e d when S e a t t l e & B.C. reached agreement i n 1967. Approved u n t i l end o f war. Board a c t i v e . Creston Reclamation C o . L t d . Approved. Reclamation o f f l ooded i s l and s i n Duck Lake No board. S tate of Washington Zosel Dam at o u t l e t o f Osoyoos Lake Rainy Lake Watershed -Emergency c ond i t i o n s i n Rainy and Namakan Lakes. Spec ia l j u r i s d i c t i o n under Convention o f 1928. Columbia R i ve r Ontar io & Minnesota Pulp & Paper Co. Ash Rapids Dam i n Lake of the Woods Sage Creek App rop r i a t i on of waters. Approved. A c t i v e board. Completed. Issued and subsequently mod i f i ed . Orders s p e c i f y i n g r u l e curves . A c t i v e board. See Docket 20. Completed. Led to Columbia R i ve r T rea ty . Approved but not b u i l t . Lake of the Woods Board o f Contro l to superv i se . Completed. No a c t i o n by Governments. P o l l u t i o n o f S t . C l a i r R i ve r Completed. S u r v e i l l a n c e Lake St . C l a i r and D e t r o i t over water q u a l i t y u n t i l R i ve r and S t . Mary ' s R i ve r P o l l u t i o n of Niagara R i ve r Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement s igned i n 1972. Completed. S u r v e i l l a n c e u n t i l Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement s igned i n 1972. 56 Northern States Power Co. Was d e a l t w i th under Number ass igned i n e r r o r Docket 41. Docket Year No. - 210 -T i t l e A c t i o n 57R 58R J 59A 6 OR 1949 61R 1950 62A 63R 64R 1951 65A 66A 1952 67R 68A 1954 69A Waterton & B e l l y R i ve r s Fur ther uses and a p p o r t i o n -ment of waters Sour i s & Red R i ve r s Fur ther uses & a p p o r t i o n -ment of waters West Kootenay Power Co .L td : * A d d i t i o n a l two f e e t of s torage on Kootenay Lake Passamaquoddy T i d a l Power A i r P o l l u t i o n i n Windsor-D e t r o i t area from ves se l s Creston Reclamation Co. , L t d . Leve l s o f Duck Lake S t . John R i ve r Water resources o f the bas in above Grand F a l l s N iagara F a l l s - P re se r va -t i o n and enhancement of t h e i r beauty L ibby Dam and Rese rvo i r Conso l ida ted Min ing & Smelt-ing Co. Waneta Dam on P e n d ' O r e i l l e R i ve r Lake Ontar io Leve l s S t . Lawrence Power L ibby Dam and Rese rvo i r Stud ies completed. IJC d i v i d e d on na t i ona l l i n e s . Only Canadians repo r ted . Completed. Board s t i l l r epo r t s on i t s umbrel la a c t i v i t i e s . Approved f o r f ou r yea r s . Board a c t i v e . Completed. Government accepted apportionment o f cos t s o f f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . Completed. S u r v e i l l a n c e a c t i v i t i e s terminated i n 1966. Approved. Board a c t i v e . Completed. Completed and accepted by Governments. A c t i v e Board. Withdrawn. Approved. No board. Completed. S tud ies con -cu r ren t w i th A p p l i c a t i o n under Docket 68. Approved. Very a c t i v e Board. No d e c i s i o n . Problem so lved by Columbia R i ve r T reaty . - 211 T i t l e A c t i o n Creston Reclamation Co. , L t d . M o d i f i c a t i o n o f 1950 Order on Duck Lake Approved. Board a c t i v e . S t . C r o i x R i ve r Use, conservat ion and r e g u l a t i o n Completed. P o l l u t i o n aspect s t i l l under a c t i v e s u r v e i l l a n c e . Passamaquoddy T i d a l Power Completed. Rainy R i ve r and Lake o f the Woods P o l l u t i o n A d d i t i o n a l Remedial Works  above Niagara F a l l s Hepco and Pasny Remedial Works above Niagara Fa 1-1 s Pembina R i ve r Cooperat ive development o f water resources Champ!ain Waterway Commercial nav i ga t i on Power A u t h o r i t y S tate o f  New York Shoal Removal, Niagara F a l l s Lake E r i e -N i aga ra R i ve r Ice Boom Vanceboro Dam Red R i ve r P o l l u t i o n Great Lakes Leve l s P o l l u t i o n of Lower Great Lakes Completed. Rainy R i ve r s t i l l under a c t i v e s u r v e i l l a n c e . Completed. Stud ies l ed to a p p l i c a t i o n under Docket 75. Approved. A c t i v e board. Completed. Recommenda-t i o n s not acted upon. Completed. Negat ive r e p o r t . Approved. A c t i v e board. Approved. A c t i v e board. Approved. A c t i v e board. Completed. A c t i v e s u r -v e i l l a n c e . S tud ies not completed. Completed. Led to s i gn i ng o f Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement i n 1972. - 212 -Year 1966 1967 1968 1969 1971 1972 Docket No. 84A 85R 86R 87A 88A 39A 90A 91R 92R 93A 94R 95R 96R T i t l e Cominco Two f ee t a d d i t i o n a l storage on Kootenay Lake A i r P o l l u t i o n In D e t r o i t - S t . C l a i r R i ve r areas American F a l l s , Niagara  R i ve r Fores t C i t y Dam On S t . C ro i x R i ve r R a i s i n R i ve r D i ve r s i on from St . Lawrence ..River. A c t i o n Approved f o r one season. Board a c t i v e . Completed. Governments ye t to a c t . General observat ion a long r e s t of boundary. Completed. Governments ye t to a c t . Approved. Order vo id because a p p l i c a n t d i d not agree to cond i t i on s . Approved. Board a c t i v e . Me t r opo l i t an Corporat ion o f IJC a c t i o n de fe r red at Greater 'Winn ipeg D i ve r s i on f rom-Shoa l .Lake, water f o r domestic purposes Creston V a l l e y W i l d l i f e  Management Area Duck Lake Leve l s Skag i t R i ve r Environmental consequences o f f l o o d i n g Po i n t Roberts Socio problems o f r e s i den t s Cominco Kootenay Lake Storage P o l l u t i o n of Upper Great Lakes a p p l i c a n t ' s request . Approved. A c t i v e board. Completed. Stud ies s t i l l underway. Withdrawn Stud ies underway. P o l l u t i o n of Great Lakes from land use a c t i v i t i e s Stud ies underway. S t . John R i ve r Water Q u a l i t y Review and pass upon A CCMS p r o j e c t r epo r t of s p e c i a l U.S. Canada Committee when submitted. - 213 -Year Docket No. T i t l e A c t i o n 1973 97A 1975 1976 1977 98R 99R:. 100A 101R 102R 103R 104R U.S. Department of S ta te Emergency Regu lat ion o f Lake Super io r R i c h e l i eu-Champlai n Regu lat ion A i r Q u a l i t y  Toussa int Causeway Garr i son, D i ve r s i on P r o j e c t  R i c h e l i e u - Champ!ain Regu lat ion o f Lake E r i e  Levels Great Lake D ive r s ions and  Consumptive Uses A p p l i c a t i o n i n suspense. Deal t w i t h on i n t e r i m emergency b a s i s , pending Government's c on f i rma -t i o n . I n te r im repo r t submit ted. New environmental study underway i n 1975. Stud ies underway. A p p l i c a t i o n approved i n 1976. S tud ies underway. Stud ies underway. Stud ies underway. S tud ies underway. - 214 -FOOTNOTES I: INTRODUCTION AND PART ONE 1. See BTLDER, The Sett lement o f Disputes i n the F i e l d of the I n t e r na t i ona l Law o f the Environment, i n : Recue i l des Cours 1975 I, 139, a t 227. 2. S i m i l a r JORDAN, The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission and Canada - Un i ted S tates Boundary R e l a t i o n s ; i n : MACDONALD/ MORRIS/JOHNSTON ( ed s . ) , Canadian Pe r spec t i ve s on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and O r gan i z a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P re s s , 1974; pp. 522 f f . , a t 540. 3. I t was c rea ted i n 1909, but i t d i d not c o n s t i t u t e i t s e l f u n t i l 1912. See f o l l o w i n g chapter . 4. See l i s t of docket s , Appendix V. 5. There are not many monographs on the I JC, but i t i s d e a l t w i t h to some degree i n numerous papers and a r t i c l e s . See B i b l i o g r aphy . 6. As e a r l y as the f i r s t h a l f o f the 1920 1s i t was a l ready being s tud ied as a model f o r the r e g u l a t i o n of boundary d i sputes e l sewhere, notab ly between France and Germany. See BURPEE, Insurance f o r Peace, i n : Papers R e l a t i n g to the Work of the I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, Ottawa, 1929; p. 70. JONES, the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission of the Un i ted States and Canada, In : P a p e r s . . . , p. 26; BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD, Boundary Waters Problems of Canada and the Un i ted S t a t e s , C a r s w e l l , Toronto, 1958; p. 63. 7. See i n f r a , Pa r t One, IT B and D. 8. See i n f r a , Pa r t Two, I I I . 9. Treaty between the .Un i ted States and Great B r i t a i n Respect ing Boundary Waters between the Un i ted States and Canada. Signed at Washington, January 11, 1909; R a t i f i c a t i o n s exchanged May 5, 1910; Procla imed May 13, 1910. See Appendix I f o r t e x t . 10. For more d e t a i l e d h i s t o r i c a l i n fo rmat ion see: CHACKO, The I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P re s s , New York, 1932, pp. 52-85; BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD,dp. c i t . , f n . 5, pp. 7-74; SIR GEORGE GIBBONS, I n t e r na t i ona l Re l a t i on s i n : Papers, op. c i t . f n . 5, pp. 7-9; BOURNE, Canada and the Law-of I n t e r na t i ona l Drainage Ba s i n s , i n : Macdonald/ Mor r i s/Johns ton , op_. c i ^ . f n . 2, pp. 468-477, A.Q. GIBBONS, S i r George Gibbons and the Boundary Waters Treaty o f 1909, i n : 34 Can. H i s t . Rev. 124 (1953). - 215 -11. D e f i n i t i v e Treaty of Peace, s igned at P a r i s , September 3, 1783; i n f o r ce May 12, 1784. 8 S t a t . 80; T.S. 104; 1 Ma l loy 586. 12. Treaty of Amity , Commerce and N a v i g a t i o n , s igned at London, November 19, 1794; i n f o r ce October 28, 1795. 8 S t a t . 116.; T.S. 105; 1 M a l l o y 590. 13. Treaty of Peace and Amity , s igned a t Ghent, December 24, 1814; i n f o r ce February 17, 1815. 8 S t a t . 218; T.S. 109; 1 Ma l loy 612. 14. Agreement R e l a t i n g to Naval Forces on the American Lakes. Exchange o f notes a t Washington, A p r i l 28 and 29, 1817; i n f o r ce A p r i l 29, 1817. 8 S t a t . 231; T.S. 110, 1-2; 1 Ma l loy 628. 15. Webster-Ashburton T rea ty . Signed at Washington, August 9, 1842; i n f o r ce October 13, 1842. 8 S t a t . 572; T.S. 119; 1 Ma l loy 650. 16. Treaty e s t a b l i s h i n g the boundary i n the t e r r i t o r y on the northwest coast o f America l y i n g westward of the Rocky Mountains (Oregon T r e a t y ) . Signed at Washington, June 15, 1846; i n f o r ce J u l y 17, 1846. 1 M a l l o y , 656; T r e a t i e s , p. 28. 17. 1 M a l l o y , 668 18. BL00MFIELD/FITZGERALD, op. c i t . f n . 5, p: 6; BOURNE, op. c i t . f n . 10, p. 468. 19. Treaty f o r an amicable set t lement of a l l causes of d i f f e r e n c e s between the two c o u n t r i e s . Signed at Washington, May 8, 1871; i n f o rce June 17, 1871. 1 Ma l loy 700; T r e a t i e s , p. 37. 20. See BOURNE, op_.' c r t . f n . 10, pp. 469 f ; CHACK0, op_. c v t . f n . 10, pp. 63-68. 21. See AUSTIN, Canadian - Un i ted S tates P r a c t i c e and Theory Respect ing the I n t e r na t i ona l Law o f I n t e r na t i ona l R i v e r s : A Study of the H i s t o r y and In f luence o f the Harmon Do c t r i n e , i n : ' 37 Can. B. Rev. ,393 (1959). 22. BURPEE, A Success fu l Experiment i n I n t e r na t i ona l Re l a t i on s i n : Papers , op_. cit_. f n . 5, p. 27. Quoted i n : BL00MFIELD/FITZGERALD . op_. c i t . f n . 5, p. 9. 23. See i n f r a , Pa r t Three II c . 24. BL00MFIELD/FITZGERALD, op. c i t . f n . 5, p. 9. 25. W.H. SMITH, I n t e r na t i ona l J o i n t Commission, i n : Papers, op. c i t . f n . 5, p. 103. - 216 -26. BOURNE, Op_. c i t . f n . 10, p. 471. 27. I Ma l loy 815; T r e a t i e s , p. 299. 28. A.O. GIBBONS, op_. c i t . f n . 10, p. 125. 29. George Gibbons desc r ibed Mr. Root to Prime M i n i s t e r L a u r i e r as " the shrewd American who wants a l l he can get wi thout being p a r t i c u l a r about the manner o f g e t t i n g . " (Quoted from BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD, op. c i t . f n . 5, p. 12). 30. Named a f t e r U.S. At torney General Judson Harmon, who f i r s t expressed i t s p r i n c i p l e i n an adv i so ry op in ion to the U.S. Department of S ta te i n 1895. Treaty o f Guadalupe-Hidalgo- ^ I n t e r na t i ona l Law, 21 Ops. A t t ' r y General 274, 282-3. 31. See: AUSTIN, op_. c i t . For a recent d i s cu s s i on o f the v a l i d i t y o f the Harmon doc t r i ne i n Canadian-U.S. boundary r e l a t i o n s , i n l i g h t o f the e q u i t a b l e u t i l i z a t i o n p r i n c i p l e , see BOURNE, op_. c i t . f n . 10, pp. 472-476; KRAKAU, Die Harmon D o k t r i n , I n s t i t u t f u r AuswaVtige P o l i t i k , Hamburg, 1966, pp. 87-98. 32. A r t . I I , BWT. 33. A r t . V I I , BWT. 34. See Appendix I. 35. S i r W i l f r e d L a u r i e r , then Prime M i n i s t e r , wrote on A p r i l 20, 1909 ( i . e . a f t e r the s i g n i n g ) : " I f I were to f o l l o w my own i n c l i n a t i o n s a t the present time we should d e c l i n e i t h e t r e a t y . A r t i c l e II has always seemed to me a very se r i ou s source o f t r o u b l e , but i n view o f the other concess ions , I have been disposed to a c c e p t . " Quoted i n BL00MFIELD/FITZGERALD, op. c i t . f n . 5, p. 13. 36. Appendix I. 37. Preamble, f i r s t paragraph, BWT.. 38. P r e l i m i n a r y a r t i c l e , BWT. 39. See i n f r a , II b. 40. See Appendix I I . 41. For f u r t h e r background i n fo rmat ion see AUSTIN, op. c i t . f n . 21, ,pp. 412 f . 42. For more d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion on the S t . Mary and M i l k R iver s i s sues see MACKAY, The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission between the Un i ted S t a t e s , and Canada, i n : Papers, op. c i t . f n . 5, pp. 86-88; CHACK0, op_. ' c i t . f n . 10, pp. 209-239; BLOOMFIELD/ FITZGERALD, 0 £ . c i t . . f n . 5, pp. 87-93. - 217 -43. See A r t . V I , l a s t sentence BWT (Appendix I ) . 44. Of on ly three a l t o g e t h e r ; see IJC Annual Report 1975, p. 1. 45. Convention p r o v i d i n g f o r Emergency Regu lat ion o f the Lesvel of Rainy Lake and o f C e r t a i n Other Boundary Waters. Signed at Ottawa, September 15, 1938; i n f o r ce October 3, 1940. C.T.S. 1940., No. 9; Bevans 115; 4 S t a t . 1800. 46. CHACKO, op_. c i t . f n . 10, pp. 86 f f , and BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD d p . c i t . f n . 5, pp. 17 f f , r e f e r to them as " j u d i c i a l 1 1 powers. The term " q u a s i - j u d i c i a l " i s a l s o used, i n t e r a l i a , by MACKAY, op_. c v t . f n . 42, pp. 72 f f : and by the IJC i t s e l f , Annual Report 1975, p. 2. Because the Commission i s not a t r ue j u d i c i a l t r i b u n a l the term " q u a s i - j u d i c i a l " i s deemed to de sc r i be t h i s p a r t i c u l a r one o f the Commission 's f unc t i on s most a p p r o p r i a t e l y and s h a l l henceforth be used i n t h i s con tex t . See a l s o recent " B u r n e l l " d e c i s i o n of the Federal Cour t , T r i a l D i v i s i o n [1976] 71 D.L.R. (3d) 725 (1977). 47. 1912-1975: 99 p r o j e c t s 1912-1944.:, 51 p r o j e c t s - 12 r e f e r e n c e s , 39 a p p l i c a t i o n s . Th is t rend was l a t e r r e ve r s ed ; see i n f r a . 48. As desc r ibed i n the p r e l i m i n a r y a r t i c l e o f the T rea ty . 49. The d i f f e r e n c e i n permit order between A r t i c l e I I I and IV -A r t i c l e I I I : f i r s t government a u t h o r i z i a t i o n , t h e n l J C app rova l , then government permit - does not seem to be o f any p r a c t i c a l consequence. 50. Th i s corresponds w i th the U.S. demands pursuant to t h e i r Harmon d o c t r i n e . The negat ive e f f e c t s of t h i s omission, were most p a i n f u l l y f e l t some years a f t e r conc lu s i on o f the T rea t y , when water p o l l u t i o n became an acute problem. 51. " S p e c i a l agreement" i s de f ined i n A r t . X I I I o f the T rea ty . 52. In accordance w i th the p r i n c i p l e of f ree nav i ga t i on o f the boundary wate r s , as procla imed i n A r t i c l e I. 53. Docket no. 1. For more d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion see WM. H. SMITH, op_. c i t . f n . 25, p. 115; CHACKO, op_. c r t . f n . 10, pp. 168-180; BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD,dp. c i t . f n . 5, pp. 69 f . 54. Supra, pp. 3 f . - 218 -55. Docket no. 7; see WM. H. SMITH, op_. c v t . f n . 25, pp. 123 f ; BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD, op_. c i t . f n . 5, pp. 85 f ; CHACKO, op_. c r t . f n . 10 pp. 87-90, f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s . 56. The water was requested by the a p p l i c a n t who had grown i n s i z e from 50,000 to 225,000 i n h a b i t a n t s i n the f i r s t 13 years of t h i s century and d id not deem i t safe to r e l y s o l e l y on i t s a r t e s i a n water supply . See preceding f oo t no te . 57. The Order fn Counc i l had s ta ted that Shoal Lake was not a boundary water. 58. Docket No. 46; see BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD,dp. c i t . f n . 5, pp. 159 f ; IJC Annual Report 1975, p. 45. 59. Docket no. 14; see WM. H. SMITH, op_. c r t . f n . 25, pp. 122 f ; BLOOMFIELD/FITZGERALD,dp. c i t . f n . 5, pp. 83 f . 60. See Appendix IV. 61. IJC Annual Report 1975, p. 45. 62. The agreement between S e a t t l e and B r i t i s h Columbia i s , o f cour se , not a t r e a t y under i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. I t can, a t best,be regarded as supplemental to the IJC o rder . Another po i n t o f i n t e r e s t , which would mer i t a more d e t a i l e d examination e l sewhere, i s whether the I JC 1 s order i n t h i s case i s b i n d i n g , g iven tha t i t was i s sued con t ra ry to A r t i c l e IV o f the T r ea t y ; t h i s p r o v i s i o n c l e a r l y c a l l s f o r the Commission 's approval o f i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n arrangements p r i o r to the i ssuance o f an order concern ing cross-boundary waters and waters f l o w i n g from boundary waters . Though i t i s now gene r a l l y f e l t t ha t t h i s order ought not to have been i s sued (see, e .g . IJC Seminar 1974, p. 10) the Commission has thus f a r avoided a n