The article on the current push/rush to get Bv7 ratified raised questions amongst my neighbors and myself. While there was brief mention of Rochester shoreline concerns, the eastern shore of Lake Ontario and Mexico Bay were ignored. Perhaps the water levels panel at the boat show, and in the future, should include Lake Ontario shoreline resident/taxpayers also? While its understandable that the residents of the river have reportable concerns with existing 1958DD, the question becomes why are their viewpoints and concerns important and reportable and not those of the thousands of property owners on the shore of Lake Ontario?
The average level in the spring will not be only 2.4 inches in normal precipitation years. We routinely see up to a foot above normal. Spring storms exacerbate damages; 8- to 12-foot waves probably dont occur often on the river. International Joint Commission has already admitted that the shoreline property owners, business and private, will bear the burden of 95-plus percent of the costs for damages/erosion to property. Without mitigation or compensation these admitted damages/erosion are government confiscation of property; i.e. unconstitutional, federal and state.
The flawed 1958DD has caused shoreline owners to repair, evolve and invest in property protections (for example, storm walls) over the 50-plus years of 1958DD. Most residences and businesses have been on the shore for decades, many longer than 1958DD. Changing horses in midstream, without considering the owners on the shore, is the height of unfairness.
There are no natural flows or fluctuations anymore on the lake; it is a reservoir, i.e. the level is manipulated. Montreals IJC guarantees to prevent flooding, or low levels to shipping, trump concerns on the lakeshore.
The IJC and their Board of Control have already wrecked ecosystems and habitat for the last 50 years. Why will their interference and questionable competence be any better with higher or lower levels on the lake? What could go wrong? The denial of framing input on Bv7 agreement(s) is a glaring injustice on thousands of taxpaying, shoreline citizens on the lake, not to mention local government assessments and tax revenues.
Bv7 should be scrapped and Bv8 should include all stakeholders. As the largest stakeholder group it is ridiculous to deny them this input and put 90 percent of the cost on them. Balanced? I dont think so, nor is anyone responsible as yet for inevitable damages and general foul-ups.
Richard L. Henry