Recent record low water levels in the upper Great Lakes Basin have given rise to speculation that due to global warming the lakes might be poised on the edge of a calamitous decline. During the past two years, Lake Superior, largest body of temperate fresh water in the world, has been nearly two feet below its long term averages. Lakes Huron and Michigan have experienced the same trend.

A recent report in The Duluth News Tribune seems to offer at least a little hope. In April, Superior levels rose six inches, double the normal increase for the month, and on May 1 the lake stood ten inches higher than at the same time in 2007.

The big lake did remain 8 inches below its long term average, but compared to the 22 inches measured early in 2007, current levels are seen as a cause for optimism.

According to the International Lake Superior Board of Control, after three straight dry months, rain and snowfall over the Superior basin were well above normal in April, leading to the surge in water levels and continuing an upswing that began last fall. Still, it’s unclear whether the current increase is part of a long-term return to normal or a hitch before low water levels seen over the past few years re-assert themselves. While the science is far from conclusive on either side of the matter, experts theorize that warmer winters contribute to lower snow melt levels and reduced ice cover which increases the potential for evaporation.

The International Joint Commission (IJC), controversial controlling agency of the St Lawrence Seaway, is in the midst of a $15 million study designed to determine if human intervention is required to help stabilize water levels in the upper lakes. Of the five great lakes, Lake Ontario, smallest in area and furthest downstream, is the only one in which water levels can be controlled, and the IJC has regulated it since 1958.

Regardless of future developments, current Lake Superior levels are cause for optimism because all that water is on its way downstream. Environmental advocates say the lakes have always fluctuated in this manner. Its part of the way things work in the ecosystem, and this rebound is nothing more than nature continuing a cycle thousands of generations old. To add an exclamation point to this statement, a great deal of the criticism the IJC has received of it’s handling of Lake Ontario over the past few years has been centered around its refusal to allow Ontario to fluctuate in the same way the other lakes do. As environmentalists say, low levels reduce cattail populations and allow the boundary layer between lake and shore to develop and retain more diversity, which has been demonstrated to lead to a healthier environment for both aquatic and nearshore landlocked creatures.

Ironically, lakefront property owners in Michigan are begging the IJC to recommend the exact kind of regulation property owners on Lake Ontario have loudly rejected via their support of IJC Plan B+, which would require the IJC to artificially simulate the same kind of fluctuations that benefit wildlife to the potential detriment of the interests of property owners and boaters. Seems like it’s all a matter of perspective. Those who don’t have enough water, want more; those who’ve got it, can often have way too much. Regulation of levels might be just what's needed to keep everyone only a little bit unhappy.

While seeming to lament the fact that small boats exist by the million, and are not nationally regulated, the Bush administration is considering creating a federal licensing program that would do just that. Coast Guard and Homeland Security representatives have toured the country over the past year, testing the waters to see how much resistance such a program would encounter.

The latest step toward regulation, effective April 28, asks states to develop safety standards for recreational boaters, and once again asks boaters to look for and report suspicious behavior on the water (the Coast Guard has had it's "waterways watch" program going four years now). Of course, no state could implement such a plan without first establishing a strong regulatory infrastructure which would almost certainly mean a licensing program for every boat operator. The spin the administration is trying to give this thinly disguised first step toward federal regulation is that it would be much like a neighborhood watch program.

According to the government’s long range plan, the strategy is to create a layered defense based on radiological and nuclear detection equipment deployed with harbor patrols and police departments, and in addition to the above “suspicious behavior watch,” would include national federal standards to operate a small boat. The Coast Guard will be detailed to work with states in establishing minimum safety standards and to enforce the new laws. This could include requiring boat operators to have a current safety certificate on board with them, and a piece of identification that links to the certificate.

Among the suspicious behaviors detailed are boaters taking photos of a bridge or measurements of a dam, a boat lingering near a piece of critical infrastructure, people who seem strangely unfamiliar with boats, any person or watercraft that appears to be loitering or has no specific reason to be in the area, unattended vessels in odd locations, unusual night operations, lights flashing between boats, or anyone recovering or tossing items into waterways or onto shorelines.

Hey, I just realized the suspicious actor is me. In the last year, I have committed most of the above suspicious acts.

Combined with the other measures implemented by the Department of Homeland Security; the hostile new attitude of the Coast Guard, the fencing in of government structures and facilities, this new program has further ominous overtones. It sure feels like in the name of “security,” big brother is standing a lot closer to our backs than ever before. Almost close enough to reach around and eat our lunch for us. And you know what? If we let him know he can, he’s almost certain to go ahead and eat.

Taken from the author's window, the bridge on Sunday, April 13. Note the strong spring runoff.

To date, the traffic plan devised by state and local authorities has been working well. The plan diverts local traffic to the Utica Street bridge (a half mile south), and also detours traffic at Mexico and Hannibal . Delays have been short and confined to the busier morning and afternoon drive times.

Not without a certain amount of tongue in cheek, local observers say that because local police officers stationed at either end of the Utica Street bridge haven’t tried to help too much, they’ve made major contributions to smooth traffic flow. The officers will step in and direct traffic to expedite things for emergency vehicles, but otherwise they haven’t interfered.

This is a variation on the long-time local joke that has its origins in the huge annual traffic snarls that follow the Harborfest fireworks display each summer. With an officer ignoring the traffic control signals and directing traffic at every important intersection, it seems as if essentially, you can’t get where you’re going from where you are for at least an hour after the fireworks end. If police would only stop trying to help, things would go a heck of a lot better.

Progress update: 

It appears that whole sections of the old bridge will be lifted out one by one. Today, the crew is using a Komatsu Shovel to pick out the guard fence and crews are jackhammering through the concrete sidewalks over each bridge support.

A Kobatsu PC2000 Shovel plucks a section of guard rail. What a machine: 430,000 lbs and can grab 14.4 Cu yds with one bite.

The red steel underneath the spans was put in position last fall, mostly at night. It appears to be the framework for the lifting slings. We're looking forward to seeing the actual lifting of the spans.

"Seven with one blow"

Borrowing several pages from the classic Grimm Brothers fairy tale, The Little Tailor, the International Joint Commission (IJC), which oversees the St. Lawrence Seaway and controls Lake Ontario water levels, has proposed the adoption of new discharge management plan D+(as revised) to become effective next year. In doing so, the commission promised that in two years environmental groups and recreational boaters could have the plan they favored (plan B+), but only if they first succeed in accomplishing three seemingly impossible mitigation measures.

The mitigation measures:

1 - Create and implement shoreline protection (high water) for all at-risk areas, and demonstrate that the measures are in place and working as designed. Among these measures are breakwaters, beach nourishment and other habitat restoration measures.

2 - Deepen channels that would be at risk during low water conditions by dredging and other measures.

3 - Convince federal, state, provincial and local governments to act as follows: public acquisition of properties that can not be otherwise protected from high water; low interest loans where at-risk properties can be protected; institute stricter floodplain and land use programs; zoning changes.

Both plans D+ and B+ are descended from a five-year $20 million study commissioned by the IJC and completed in 2005. The study recommended three possible plans of action; plans A, B, and D. All three represented a distinct departure from the plan then in effect (plan 1958DD).

The study clearly stated any of the new plans could be implemented without the prior implementation of mitigatory measures.

The commission did accept the final report, but promptly appointed another group to review it and suggest better alternatives. This second very distinguished group of scientists and researchers produced revisions; plans A+, B+, and D+, all of which came closer to the IJC’s plan (1958DD) and were thus more acceptable to the commission – but apparently not yet close enough to be totally so.

Additional study and consideration commenced, resulting in last week’s March 28 introduction of proposed “Plan 2007.” Although nominally a derivative of plan D+, plan 2007 is virtually identical to plan 1958DD. This is not surprising as both were developed with the interests of commercial shipping and power generation in mind. It appears the commission – from the tone of its documents reluctant to undertake the study process in the first place – has managed for the most part to deflect change.

Plan B+ is favored by environmentalists and boaters because it results in both higher and lower extreme water levels than the other plans. Plan B+ would favorably impact wetland areas adjacent to Lake Ontario proper by narrowing the transition line from submerged to upland plant species, thus improving spawning habitat and the diversity of marshlands. Specifically, occasional very low water levels would dry out marshes and reduce the dominance of cattails that crowd out aquatic grasses and other plants. Boaters supported this concept, even though the same low water conditions could make things difficult for them.

Last week’s decision was not unexpected. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established an order of precedence in the IJC’s management of its assets: uses for sanitary and domestic purposes; uses for navigation; and uses for power generation, and the commission is bound to uphold its responsibilities under the treaty. This it has done, stating that it is now the responsibility of the governments of New York State, the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the joint federal governments, and the governments of waterfront cities and counties to implement whatever mitigation processes they please.

Like the little tailor in Grimm’s fable, who after having miraculously swatted seven flies with one blow, cried “I killed seven with one blow” - just as the king asked who in his kingdom could kill the two giants - environmentalists, boaters, and shoreline communities stood up and were counted when invited, only to be handed the task of slaying the giants. Is it possible? Yes, but not only have no sources of funding been identified, no organization seems ready to step forward. Even if funds were available immediately, it might take two years just to compile a list of potential impact sites. IJC has to know this as well as anyone. For an international organization to establish such a set of conditions in the face of the recommendations of its own study, which categorically stated no remediation actions were needed, seems cynical indeed. 

The IJC - left to right: Jack Blaney; Irene Brooks; Herb Gray- chair; Allen Olson

The new fence guarding Oswego's empty west side wharf

It’s downright unfriendly. THAT’S what.

Blame it on Washington's first ever "stealth" economic stimulus package, cleverly disguised as the Department of Homeland Security. Since 9/11/01, millions of new federal, state and local jobs have been created in security and related industries. The list is so long and the flow of money so broad it could be rightly claimed security is our newest social program, and further, so broad in scope it could by itself be responsible for the positive economic numbers we’ve seen for the last seven years.

That might be speculation, but the best lies always have strong elements of truth and speculation is no different. I don’t know so much about the national picture, but let me give you a snapshot of my town. I live on the southern shore of Lake Ontario – which makes my small city a border town. Despite this fact, it’s nearly thirty miles by water to the nearest point of land in Canada and more than three times that overland. If you knew the nature of Lake Ontario, you wouldn’t call either route the easiest for aliens entering the country, and in recent memory none have been apprehended trying. This has not prevented the construction of a large new Border Patrol facility here. Add to that a huge new Army Reserve structure; a suddenly hostile Coast Guard attitude to go along with their brand new stainless steel cutters; and finally, an aggressive new Port of Oswego Authority emphasis on security.

It's this last that is most bothersome to many. The federal activities can be tolerated, if only because there's nothing anyone can do about them. The port authority, however, controls most of the waterfront, and this makes its actions particularly visible.

Shortly after 911, fences were erected around the east side terminal, and guards positioned at the gate. After decades of open access (a period by-the-way devoid of incidents of theft, vandalism, mayhem or mischief upon port facilities), drive-in access is now denied.

Next came the turn of the port’s west side wharf, former site of the now-demolished grain elevators. The wharf has grown a highly visible, very ugly and forbidding fence; a fence destined most of the time to protect empty space. This is the same wharf on which the Port of Oswego Authority recently granted a 1500 linear foot easement to the city of Oswego in order to allow for completion of the Oswego Harbor Trail Project. How the fence, which sports some pretty threatening signs, will contribute to the comfort level of visitors accessing the public corridor is a bit hard to visualize at the moment.

Despite the port's generosity in granting an easement, if the visitor access corridor passed to the left of this sign. Would YOU chance passing it?

What anal fixation has suddenly seized our nation? Exactly what are we trying to guard against? In Oswego's case, it can’t be terrorism. A ten year old could gain access to Oswego's Port Authority property.

                                            This fence might stop someone in a wheelchair, but not much else.

If not terrorism, what? The unwashed public - folks who like to visit the port, enjoy a few hours on the rip rap with a fishing pole and a cold soda, or maybe just cruise through as part of an occasional waterfront tour? For ages, the public has been able to do this without interfering with port operations. The Port might be state owned, but we’ve always thought of it as an open and friendly operation.

Of course, there must be a federal mandate behind these measures. The port stores potash, among other chemicals. Whatever! Who’s going to steal the stuff in broad daylight? Suddenly barring the gates and completely barring access is, well, it’s not only impolite, it's downright unfriendly.

The America’s Cup always was a game for the rich and powerful. In the age of wooden yachts, only millionaires and kings could afford such an expensive hobby. The average person couldn’t afford to take part at all. For most of the Cup's 132-year residence in the trophy case at The New York Yacht Club, the average person had little idea such a trophy even existed.

In the 1950’s, radio and television, as well as the introduction of fiberglass as a boatbuilding material, led to a boom in boat construction and greatly expanded the accessibility of the sport. Concurrent with the arrival of inexpensive fiberglass yachts, a community of enthusiastic new sailors appeared. Cup matches began to attract a wider audience. In the US, national fervor peaked in 1987, when Dennis Conner – who in 1983 became the first man to lose the cup when the yacht Australia II (of upside down winged keel fame) put together a fantastic comeback – made his way down under and by sheer force of will won it back. All over America, sailors braved the wee hours of the morning to watch Conner, now dubbed Mr. America's Cup, and his team sail to victory. It was a truly American effort. The boat, sailors, sails and most of the equipment were American, as rules then required.

Things changed in 1988 when Dennis Conner, forced to abandon Stars and Stripes which had just finished repatriating the cup, sailed out to the starting line in a 67 foot catamaran to meet Kiwi Michael Fay’s 90 foot ultra-light-displacement monohull New Zealand. The match was a disaster for the Cup’s reputation. Months and months of acrimonious litigation followed by a lopsided match on the water killed off a great deal of interest among sailors.

Things couldn’t get worse, but they have. The arrival of big name sponsors and the resulting crossing of national boundaries by competitors upended 150 years of tradition. Where in the beginning the owners were mere multi-millionaires, today the top sailors are the millionaires and any owner with less than a billion or two can forget winning the Cup. Sailors aren't stupid, they follow the money. If that means a Kiwi steers a Swiss boat, hey, they all have families to feed. Today’s America’s Cup competitions no longer have a national flavor and that’s the element that's missing. The Cup has become a playground for mega-corporations which do not recognize national borders. 

To save the Cup, it’s time to bring back national teams. BMW Oracle Racing might be based in San Francisco and owned by an

The author and crew calling the pin end of the start line

American, but it isn’t an American team. Helmsman Russell Coutts is from New Zealand. The crew are from everywhere but the US. No wonder yesterday's announcement was met with virtual silence. Nobody cares. BMW Oracle isn't us.

Give me an American team and I’ll pay attention again. Require the skipper and tactician, plus 90% of all team members to be US citizens. Make sure the boats and equipment are conceived, designed, and built in the country where the challenge originated. Require all sails to be designed and built by lofts that do not share technology. And what’s with this catamaran crap? Less than one half of one percent of all sailboats are catamarans. They might be straight line fast, but the rest of the time they’re unwieldy space hogs that tack slower than a tractor trailer rig doing a u-turn, and to the average sailor they might as well be moon buggies. Make the boat a hundred feet long if you want, but get back to monohull competitions.

According to the Deed of Gift, the challenger may decide the size and type of boat to be used. Larry Ellison, prime mover at GGYC and owner of the BMW Oracle Racing team has declared that BMW Oracle will compete in a 90' catamaran. Catamarans are twin hulled boats and much faster than their single hulled counterparts.

Thus, Societe Nautique de Geneve, current holder of the Americas Cup will be unable to use Alinghi, the yacht with which they successfully defended less than a year ago. Alinghi, undisputedly the fastest IACC yacht in existence, is a monohull and has no chance to defeat a multihull.

This particular switcheroo is a refinement of an old tactic in America’s Cup challenges and was most imaginatively employed in the cup match of 1988. Dennis Conner and San Diego YC had only recently repatriated the cup when Michael Fay, who in the 1987 AC campaigned "Kiwi Magic" a very fast fiberglass yacht that failed to defeat Conner in the challenger finals, filed a new challenge and named an already completed 90 footer as his challenger of record. With its winning yacht sure to be defeated by Fay’s 90 foot entry, and with only 8 months to design and build a challenger, San Diego YC decided to "one-up" Fay and enter a 65' catamaran. The rules did not prohibit this, and Conner went on to soundly defeat " New Zealand " in a notable mismatch.

Last year, with precedent firmly in place, Ellison made his new challenge and predictably, the courts again ruled in favor of the challenger. Yesterday’s ruling orders Societe Nautique de Geneve (SNG), and the Alinghi syndicate to meet Ellison and his BMW Oracle catamaran head to head in a winner take all showdown. Like the San Diego YC before them, SNG will need to start from scratch, and there is little time left.

Lucien Masmejan, SNG lead counsel, issued a biting response to the ruling: "Following today’s court order, Larry Ellison has eliminated the competition and gained access to the America’s Cup Match, a feat BMW Oracle Racing has never been able to achieve on the water."

Tom Ehman, Golden Gate YC spokesman, said: "We are very pleased with this decision. The court has ruled that our challenge complied fully with the Cup’s Deed of Gift, and we are now keen to keep moving forward towards the next regatta."

This is not the "auld mug’s" first visit to the New York courts. There have been many. In that 1988 challenge, the court ruled in favor of challenger Fay. Up to then, since 1958, the regatta had been sailed in 12 meters (65-75 feet in length).

While the 1987 regatta in Freemantle, Australia became the high point of national interest in the cup and millions of Americans stayed up to the wee hours to watch Conner and Stars and Stripes bring the cup home, the 1988 fiasco nearly destroyed the popularity so painfully gained. Soon afterward, sailors began to cross national boundaries. Lines of demarcation blurred. A large segment of the public lost interest and no longer followed cup activities.

Today, the battle lines have been drawn for the 33^rd time since 1851, but the underlying turmoi is far from ended. The months of litigation and uncertainty have taken a severe toll. Not even the date of the regatta has been set. Racing could begin as early as this summer, although BMW Oracle suggests a date in October 2008 and Alinghi today suggested June 2009 would be better. Meanwhile the energetic British challenge has been put on inactive status and team members furloughed. Team United Internet Germany has lost its sponsor as a result of all the uncertainty, and other potential challenges are floundering with nothing to work toward. Further delay seems inevitable, could even spell the end of America's Cup sailing, and that would be a shame.

Art Tirrell is a former US Sailing Club Race Officer, USYRU Club Sportsman of the Year, and a life member of Oswego Yacht Club. He is the author of the 2007 adventure novel The Secret Ever Keeps Follow the link to read reviews of this exciting novel.