Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels: the Public Speaks Out

J. Great Lakes Res., December 1977 Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. 3(3-4):240-257

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS: THE PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT

A. P. Grima and C. Wilson-Hodges Department of Geography University of Toronto IOO St. George Street Toronto, Ontario M5S I Al

ABSTRACT. The Great Lakes water levels fluctuate around a long-term average; these fluctuations are largely beyond man's control. Most lake users have adjusted to a narrow range oflevels but when extremes of stage occur, lake users are affected in different and opposite ways. In 1964, the problem offluctuating levels was referred to the International Joint Commission (If. C.). As an integral part of the reference procedure, the If. C. holds public hearings. Three sets of hearings were held on the Great Lakes Levels Reference (1964, 1973, 1974). The first part of this paper discusses the If.C. Reference and reviews the If. C. 's public participation process. The second part of the paper reviews various methods for analysing and summarizing public input; content analysis not only makes possible numerical summaries but also yields quantitative data for further analysis. The major section of the paper focuses on the 1974 transcripts (13 volumes) which were subjected to content/contingency analysis in order to provide objective summaries of public input and to reveal statistically significant associations between pairs of variables with particular reference to the affiliation of the participants. The study suggests that participants who are consulted during the study (federal/statejprovincial government participants) make submissions that differ from those of other participants (municipal governments, interest groups and individuals).

second part of the paper we discuss content/ contingency analysis as a technique for evaluating public input and we describe the research design. The empirical findings and discussion with special references to the affiliation of the participants forms the major part of the paper.

Although the Great Lakes have a high degree of natural regulation, periods of high water levels (e.g. 1951-52, 1971-73) or low water levels (early 1930's and mid 1960's) cause inconvenience and damage to lakeshore interests. Extreme fluctuations do not affect all the interest groups in the same way (e.g. hydro power generation and navigation tend to prefer above average levels; shoreline owners tend to prefer below average levels); therefore reaction~ to fluctuations in water levels and to proposals for regulation are likely to vary among interest groups. One of the major objectives in this paper is to analyse the views of the public as recorded in the transcripts of public hearings on Regulation of Great Lakes Levels held by the International Joint Commission in 1974. The public's input is examined by means of content/ contingency analysis and it is hoped to illustrate the value and versatility of this technique in describing, summarizing and organizing the information generated by public participation activities in general and public hearings in particular. The first part of the paper provides background to the set of transcripts which are analysed. In the

THE LJ.C. REFERENCE ON GREAT LAKES LEVELS, 1964-1976 The enormous storage capacity of the Great Lakes, combined with the restricted capacities of their connecting channels and the St. Lawrence, permits this fresh water system to have a high degree of natural regulation. Water supply inputs to anyone lake include inflows from the upper lake, surface runoff into that particular lake, precipitation falling directly on the lake surface area and artificial discharges or diversions into that lake. Water supply outputs include discharges to the next lower lake, evaporation from the lake surface and manmade diversions or extractions. The average values of these inputs and outputs for a 10 year period which includes high and normal water 240

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS supplies are shown in Figure 1. Relative to the natural hydrologic factors, man's modifications of the Great Lakes drainage system have exerted a negligible effect upon the fluctuating lake levels. For example, the Chicago diversion extracts only 84.9 m 3 per second of water from the MichiganHuron basin as compared to an outflow of 5292.1 m 3 per second through the connecting channels. The natural supply of water is about 2547 m 3 per second from land runoff draining into the lake, 2207.4 m 3 per second from Lake Superior through the connecting channels and 3084.7 m 3 per second from precipitation over the lake. The Chicago diversion reduces the levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron, Lake Erie and Montreal Harbour by 0.0701 m, 0.0427 m and 0.0457 m respectively (Table 1). The normal annual range in Great Lakes levels is relatively small but there are wider long-term fluctuations in water levels. These are the result of changes in the net supply from high (low) precipitation and low (high) evaporation over a

241

period of several years. For example, the normal annual range of Lake Superior's water levels from winter lows to summer highs seldom exceeds 33 cm but the maximum recorded range from extreme highs to extreme lows is 116 cm (International Great Lakes Levels Board 1973 c: A-40). In addition there are significant short-term changes in levels due to storm waves, seiches (caused by sharp differentials in barometric pressure), ice jams and aquatic weed growth in connecting channels. Since the changes from one extreme of stage to another occur over several years, users of the lakes rarely recognize or accept that lake levels will inevitably fluctuate around the long-term average. Consequently many interest groups or individuals on the Great Lakes have adjusted their use of the system to the normal range of levels and flows with limited flexibility to cope with abnormal conditions. When the levels rise to the point where accelerated erosion and flooding occur, lakeshore owners incur considerable loss

3.0847 (I09]

2-4621

l87) Oqokl and LonqLoc DiverSions

1415 (51

0849 CllitolJo (3)

Oiverslon

Values ore the averages for the period of October 1950 to September 1960

From

l.J.e. 1976. Further Regulation of the Great Lakes, An I.J.C. Report to the Government of Canado and the United Stotes.

p,14 DEC. 1973

FIG. 1. Hydrologic factors affecting water supplies to each of the Great Lakes.

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

242

TABLE 1. Effect of artificial factors on water levels. The regulation plans for Lake Superior and Lake Ontario are designed to accommodate the diversions and consumptive uses below. Source: II. C. 1976: 21.

Cause Diversions Long Lac-Ogoki Chicago Weiland Canal New York State Barge Canal

Average Amount cfs m 3 /second

152.82 - 90.56 198.10 19.81

5400 - 3200 7000 700

Dredging St. Clair-Detroit Rivers Cumulative Consumptive Use Superior Michigan-Huron Erie Ontario Montreal Harbour Net Effect

-1.13 - 36.51 - 55.75 ·64.24 - 64.24

40 -1290 - 1970 - 2270 ·2270

Lakes Michigan-Huron metres feet

0.1128 - 0.0701 - 0.0305 0

0.37 - 0.23 - 0.10 0

- 0.1798

- 0.59

- 0.0305

- 0.10

- 0.1981

of income and property damage. When the levels are abnormally low, navigation and hydroelectric power generation interests incur losses. In brief not only are the levels largely beyond man's control but long-term fluctuations impact the lake users in different and opposite ways. In response to the low water conditions of 1964, the governments of Canada and the United States referred the problem of fluctuations in Great Lakes levels to the International Joint Commission. Under this reference, the I.J.C. was to determine the long-term range of levels which would be most beneficial to all types of interests and devise economically feasible regulation schemes to attain this range. The I.J.C. established the International Great Lakes Levels Board (I.G.L.L.B.) with the following terms of reference: 1) to review the various factors affecting the fluctu'ations of the water levels of the Great Lakes; 2) to determine the feasibility of regulating further the water levels in the Great Lakes and connecting channels so as to bring about a more beneficial range of stage and other improvements for the purposes enumerated in the Reference; 3) to determine the changes in existing works or other measures within the basin needed to accomplish such regulation that would be practicable and in the public interest; 4) to provide an estimate of the costs of such measures; and

·0.65

Lake Erie feet metres

0.0701 - 0.0427 - 0.0975 0 0

0.23 - 0.14 -0.32 0 0

- 0.0305

- 0.10

·0.1006

- 0.33

Montreal Harbour metres feet

0.0671 - 0.0457 0 0 0

0.22 - 0.15 0 0 0

- 0.0305

- 0.10

- 0.0091

- 0.03

5) to indicate the probable effects, beneficial or adverse, in each country of any regulation plans or measures proposed. (I.G.L.L.B. 1973 b:3) THE lJ.C.'S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Under Article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty (1909) and the Rules of Procedure (27 and 29), the I.J.C. notifies the public of a Reference in order that interested groups or individuals may repond and submit pertinent information and opinions to the I.J.C. The public may submit presentations or comments at the start of the study on the Reference; at the end of the study the !.J.C. has to hold public hearings in order to allow presentation of briefs on the report of the study. In this respect the LJ.C. has been a pioneer in public involvement; even today, the Canadian legal system in general does not guarantee the citizen the right to participate in public and private decisions concerning resource development and management (Morley 1975:40). In the absence of common law or statutory rules about public participation, citizen involvement in the decision making process is facilitated, encouraged and incorporated only when the decision-maker feels that it is warranted. Three sets of hearings were held by the LJ.C. in order to assess the public's views on the problems of the fluctuating water levels and to receive factual information and opinions relevant to the

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS Reference on Great Lakes Levels. In 1965, during a period of extremely low lake levels, the initial hearings were held during May in four cities (Toronto; Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; Windsor; and Chicago) in order to identify the adverse effects of diminished water levels. In contrast to the presenta tions of 1973 and 1974, most of the submissions in 1965 were related to the adverse effect of low waters. Shore property owners complained of excessive beach exposure, weed growth, loss of cottage rental income and reduced property values. Operators of marinas and resorts blamed adverse publicity for keeping tourists away. In addition, they had to pay for expensive dredging, weed clearing, and modifications to docks, launching ramps and cruise boats. Commercial navigation witnesses emphasized that low water levels restricted tonnages; increased operating costs which indirectly affected the transportation costs; increased the danger of striking under-water obstacles; accelerated dry-rot deterioration and ice damage to exposed timber piles and cribs; created lock delays; and caused a loss of business from over-draft ships. Several environmentalists stated that fluctuations in water levels were necessary to maintain a suitable environment for life in marshes, but extreme low levels changed lagoons and ponds into mud holes and breeding grounds for mosquitos, reduced fish spawning, and decreased fishing opportunities. Spokesmen for hydro-electric power utilities stated that low water levels decreased power production due to reduced flow and due to a lesser head. Municipal and industrial representatives stated that low water levels at municipal and industrial intakes reduce the intake capacity; increase the pumping head; increase pump power consumption; aggravate icing problems, turbidity, algae and weed growth; and expose sewer outfalls. Several witnesses testified that although high water causes dramatic physical damages such as erosion, flooding and structural damage, the total effects, particularly the economic impact of lower water, are greater (International Joint Commission 1976:49-50). In response to the high water levels and widespread flooding in January 1973, Lake Superior's outflows were regulated in accordance with a new plan (S0-90l) and an Interim Report (International Great Lakes Levels Board 1973 a) was submitted by the I.G.L.L.B. to the I.J.c. on the effects of continuing this regulation. To obtain public views on this Interim Report, and in particular on effects of plan S0-90 1 and high lake levels, a second set of hearings was held during May

243

1973 in four cities (Rochester; Toronto; Detroit; and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario). A public meeting was held on June 18 in Duluth at the request of the citizens of the area. The opinions of the participants about the usefulness of the 1973 hearings as a vehicle for public participation were evaluated by Sinclair (1975). The transcripts were subjected to content/ contingency analysis in a pilot study by Grima (1976). The perceived problems in 1973 were related to high water levels, flooding and storm damage; presentations from power and navigation interests were very few (8 out of 154). The marked change in the nature of the input from the public between 1965 and 1973 illustrates the importance of the timing in attempts to elicit information from the public. In December 1973, the I.G.L.L.B. submitted its Final Report (International Great Lakes Levels Board 1973 b) with 7 Appendices following in October 1974. They also produced an illustrated Summary Report (International Great Lakes Levels Board 1974) to increase public awareness and encourage involvement in the public hearings. The Final Report identified several regulation plans for the coordinated regulation of the Great Lakes but the major findings were: a) The large storage capacities and restricted outflow characteristics of the Great Lakes are highly effective in providing a naturally regulated system. b) To the extent that the lakes already possess a high degree of natural regulation and are artificially regulated by means of works at the outlets of Lake Superior and Lake Ontario, only small improvements are practicable without costly regulatory works and remedial measures. c) A new regulation plan for Lake Superior, S0-90 1, can be expected to yield small long-term average net benefits to the system at minimal cost. d) Two preliminary plans for the combined regulation of Lakes Superior, Er.ie and Ontario exhibit favourable benefit-cost ratios. e) The most promising measures for minimizing future damages to shore property interests are strict land use zoning and structural setback requirements (International Great Lakes Levels Board 1973 b: 4-5). After the distribution of the I.G.L.L.B.'s Final

244

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

and Summary Reports but prior to the preparation of the I.J.C.'s report (International Joint Commission 1976) to the two Federal Governments, a set of public hearings was conducted in the fall of 1974 in the following 13 cities: Detroit; Green Bay; Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario); Thunder Bay; Muskegon; Milwaukee; Duluth; Cleveland; Chicago; Rochester; Hamilton; Owen Sound; and Montreal. These locations ensured that hearings were held on each of the Great Lakes, in both countries, and on the St. Lawrence. TIMING OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The timing of these hearings was in part controlled by the procedures normally followed by the I.J.c. and in part they were a response to the strong public concern about the fluctuations in Great Lakes levels. There were several advantages to securing public input throughout the planning process to both the citizens involved and the LJ.C. The interest groups or individuals who were not likely to be represented in making the final decisions were provided with an opportunity to express their views and to identify the values and priorities they attach to goods and services at the issue formulation stage (Lucas and McCallum 1975: 314). Values and preferences of the affected public must be considered as early as possible (i.e. when formulating the criteria for identifying issues and alternatives) since at a later stage the public evaluates the proposed alternatives on the basis of values and preferences (Borton and Warner 1971: 284). Public participation in the early stages of the decision making process may also reveal differences in the viewpoint between the policy makers (LJ.c. and the I.G.L.L.B.) and the concerned public(s) about what specific problems need most attention and what remedial or preventive action is required (Borton and Warner 1971: 304). The I.J.c. attempted to consult the concerned public(s) at the start bf the investigation and before making final recommendations to governments. As a result, the concerns about both low water and high water were fully expressed. Unfortunately the Great Lakes basin has multiple uses and some basic conflicts are irreconcilable (e.g. storing water for power generation and leaving space in order to prevent flood damages). In such cases, public participation is most useful as a means of generating information on possible trade offs rather than as a mediating process. In addition the public hearings serve as an education to the participants

by helping them to understand more thoroughly the conflicting uses involved. The timing of information affects the nature of its reception. Chances are that decision makers (and therefore the I.J .c.) will be most receptive to new information during the sorting out phase of an emerging issue. If the decision makers are uncertain about the public's preferences and about the risks attached to various options, they are apt to be relatively open to all suggestions which appear helpful. Once the issue has been placed in a context, the decision makers may be expected to follow routine patterns, listen to regular sources, and be more receptive to those categories of information which justify and legitimize their choice (Ingram 1973: 157). Holding three sets of hearings over a nine-year period certainly provided the public(s) with an opportunity to provide information as levels changed and at various stages of the policy making process. The LJ.C. public participation procedures in 1973 and 1974 were fairly typical of the manner agencies consult the public, viz. publication of an official report setting out options and costs followed by public comment. What is not typical is that the I.J .C. held the hearings on the I.G.L.L.B.'s report and prior to drawing up its own report. The LG.L.L.B. reports provided factual information and recommended courses for action. The public often disputed the facts, questioned the quality of the data and disagreed with the assumptions underlying the techniques. The I.J .C. Commissioners felt under no obligation to defend the findings of the I.G.L.L.B. and made it clear that they had an open mind on preferred choices. This arrangement should lead to a better rapport between the participating public and the Commissioners. In general this feature of I.J.c. public participation is very helpful and should be considered for adoption by other agencies. Unfortunately some of the participants did not make the distinction between governments and I.J.C., or Corps of Engineers or I.G.L.L.B. One stage of the process which did not incorporate public participation was that of deliberation and decision making. Once the session of hearings had terminated, the I.J.c. conducted its deliberations of the proceedings and reached its final recommendations without any further consultation. The members of the public did not know if the legal, fiscal, political, social, resource capability and environmental factors that they perceived as important were actually incorporated into the

245

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS range of possible alternatives and therefore considered prior to choosing the optimum alternative. PUBLIC HEARINGS AS A VEHICLE FOR PARTICIPATION Although public participation is fundamental to planning and decision making, techniques for obtaining public sentiment are not always successful in obtaining the opinion of a representative sample of the public. In particular, the technique employed by the I.J.c., the public hearing, has acquired a poor image in past years. The formality and protocol of presenting briefs before the I.J.c. Commissioners tends to inhibit many participants from testifying. If the hearing has a large number of participants, the communication channels become a one-way process. The Commissioners explain the problem and identify selected solutions in their introductory remarks and then the participants' presentations are given with little feedback or discussion. This one-way communication problem was evident in the 1974 public hearings (Table 2). In Duluth, the hearing achieved the highest attendance but approximately 40% of the participants received no feedback from the Commissioners, whether it be negative, positive or explanatory. As the number of participants declined, the number of presentations receiving 'no response' also declined. Another disadvantage of large public hearings is that some people may be prevented from participating due to lack of time. In addition, the scheduling of the hearing, particularly of those held during the day, prevents many working individuals from attending if the topic is not work-related. There are even more serious criticisms of public hearings which are related to the input received from the hearings rather than to its format. The input from the hearing is often considered to be unrepresentative of public sentiment. The hearing according to White (1973: 165) is "a hackneyed, popular, and generally sterile method of eliciting response from interest groups ... (which) ... air the obvious without significant effect upon either the speaker or hearer." Dr. O. M. Solandt, former chairman of the Science Council of Canada, stated that "the public hearing mechanism may be evolving into an institutional structure by means of which a minority can short-circuit the established mechanisms of democracy and achieve its own ends without the opposition even being mobilized or heard" (Report of the Solandt Commission 1975: 142). These are serious criticisms of public hearings,

TABLE 2. Response from the 1 J. C Commissioners by city.

City

Duluth Cleveland Green Bay Hamilton Rochester Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Muskegon Milwaukee Owen Sound Detroit Chicago Montreal Total

No Response Number of from Response from Oral the !.J.e. Presentathe !.J.e. Commissioners Commissioners tions

22 24 17 15

21 14 7 6 11

9 8 12 4 170

15 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 38

37 28 21 19 23 16 9 8 12 10 9 12 4 208

particularly since public hearings are the most common vehicle of public participation. Public hearings are required by law for many purposes. In 1975 in Ontario alone there were hearings conducted by not less than eleven boards or commissions. It is clear that the public hearing is the chosen instrument to inform the public and to allow the public to react, review and comment. Public hearings provide a democratic forum by allowing anyone to speak and the proceedings are open to the public at all times. Sinclair (1975: 104) reports that the participants at public hearings consider them to be a good means of learning how the public feels. It may be that the majority of the public is not sufficiently concerned and remains silent; that is not a shortcoming of public hearings but of the silent majority. There are no compelling arguments to support the view that the participants reflect only one side of the issue or that the public hearings do not reflect a cross-section of public opinion. There is some empirical evidence to support the view that public hearings generate useful information from interested public(s) and are no more unrepresentative than other vehicles of public participation. Heberlein and Prouty (1976) compared information obtained at the public hearing to that obtained by an opinion poll and jury workshop. Participants of the public hearing, the jury workshop, and a probability sample selected from the voter registration lists were mailed the same questionnaire concerning the reduction in the amount of salt used to melt ice and snow on the

246

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

streets of Madison, Wisconsin. The researchers report that for most policy items there was no significant difference in the input from the three methods (Heberlein and Prouty 1976: 9). The importance of this analysis for decision makers is that, in this case, for the purposes of obtaining preferences on policy questions for management decisions, "the decision maker would not have been seriously misled by surveying those who come to a hearing rather than a general population of voters" (Heberlein and Prouty 1976: 13). The pilot study on the 1973 I.J.C. hearings reported a wide variety of opinion representing several concerned publics (Grima 1976). The 1974 !.J.e. hearings were widely spaced geographically and were supplemented by an information programme designed to reach all sectors of the public; it is reasonable to assume that a wide range of participants was able to attend and that the presentations reflect the opinions of interested groups, agencies and individuals. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC INPUT One of the most difficult problems of integrating public participation into the planning process is the analysis of public input so that it may be objectively and systematically analysed in the decision making process. Unless public input is subjected to objective evaluation, the interpretation of the input will reflect the observer's perceptions, interpretations and biases rather than public sentiment. The analysis of public input aims to summarize and display the number, content, nature and extent of public input so that it can be considered in making recommendations and decisions (United States Forest Service 1973: 103). One could distinguish among four methods; intuitive analysis, simple tabulation, content summary and content analysis. Intuitive analysis relies upon the subjective interpretation of public input. The analyst examines the input and develops a "feeling" about the public sentiment without any data or tabulation to demonstrate his conclusions. Simple tabulation is an elementary method whereby frequencies of a single facet or variable of public input are enumerated. This method adds an objective quality to the analysis, may be replicated and ensures that all input is incorporated, but misses all the important interrelationships of the identifiable variables. The third method, content summary, records the substance of the input in precis form. In their

Final Report on the Further Regulation of the Great Lakes, the I.J.c. (1976) used content summary to paraphrase the essence and salient points of the transcripts and written submissions of the public hearings. Below is an extract from their summation. The absence of detail and frequency in the summary makes the summary less than objective. Although no quantitative information is provided (such as the number of people expressing the various concerns), reasons for the opinion expressed are captured. "Shore property owners, as in 1973, repeatedly testified that high waters and pounding waves had inundated properties, flooded basements, made septic tanks inoperative, accelerated shoreline erosion, increased sediment pollution, and destroyed dwellings, docks and protective works. Some witnesses said erosion was a natural process of encroachment, and never ending because the shoreline is not yet stabilized. Others stated that breakwaters, groynes, piers, seawalls and dredging changed the littoral drift and accelerated erosion." (I.J.C. 1976: 53) (Emphasis not in original).

The fourth method, content analysis, aims to quantify public input in tabular form as well as to provide a summary of the characteristics of the participants and their opinions. Content analysis aims to be systematic, objective, replicable and comprehensive: it also stores 'data' in a retrievable form. This method is flexible in that it can handle enormous volumes of public input on complex issues; it could be used to obtain summary tables or summaries of individual presentations or to use data in testing hypotheses by means of contingency analysis. A comparison between the information obtained through content summary and content analysis may be made by contrasting the following paragraph with the paragraph quoted above from the LJ.C. report. It attaches the relevant findings of the content analysis to the concepts in the summary. To minimize the length of the revised paragraph, only riparian interests ~re discussed. Seventy representatives of riparian interests (out of 146), as compared to 81 (out of 87) in 1973, testified that high waters and/or storms caused the damages that they incurred. Of the riparians who mentioned physical damages, 23 experienced accelerated shoreline erosion; 17 flooding; 51 erosion and flooding, and wildlife disturbance. * Increased sediment pollution was not a major concern of riparians; it was mentioned only 7 times in combination with at *For convenience and brevity, physical damages with less than 5 observations are omitted in this sentence.

247

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS least 3 other types of damage. Damage to acquired property such as flooded basements, inoperative septic tanks, dwellings, docks and protective works was mentioned 64 times by riparian interests. Nine of the riparian submissions blamed nature for their damages. Breakwaters, jetties, groynes, piers and seawalls were identified by 3 riparian interests as causing accelerated erosion. Also littoral drifts were mentioned by one riparian interest but he did not acknowledge any relationship between the current and dredging.

Content analysis reduced the vague nature of the information obtained through content summary; it has provided frequencies and ratios, thus underlining the objectivity of the observations. Although these various methods are all used to analyse public input, the effectiveness of the methods varies considerably. Clark and Stankey (1976: 216) have identified several criteria which help to measure a method's effectiveness and

provide a standard of comparison. Table 3 summarizes these characteristics. Intuitive analysis has none of the desired characteristics; simple tabulation could be systematic, objective, uniform, reliable, could handle large numbers, identify balance in input and facilitate environmental impact analysis. Content summary (used by I.J.C. and by administrators of public hearings in general) could relate opinions to reasons supporting them but does not aim to satisfy the criterion of objectivity because frequencies are replaced by vague terms such as "few" or "many" or "the majority." Content analysis satisfies all the criteria listed. One word of caution is in order: content analysis can only generate data (e.g. opinions) from public presentations if, and only if, two conditions are satisfied: 1) the information has been put in by the participant in the first place;

TABLE 3. Desired characteristics of methods of analysing public input. Adapted with revisions from: United States Forest Service 1973: 99.

Desired Characteristics

Intuitive Analysis

Method of Analysis Simple Content Tabulation Summary

Systematic

X

Objective

X

Fosters: Visibility Traceability Reliability Uniformity Flexibility Capacity to handle a large number of submissions

X X X

x X X X X

X X X X X

x

X

X

Provides for continuity (can add, summarize and retrieve input as needed) Can relate opinions to reasons supporting them

X

X

X

X

X

X

Can identify variations within each submission

X

Can describe input by (selected examples): Participant Form of input Afftliation/place of residence Basis for interest Employment of participant Level of education of participant Facilitate environmental impact analysis

x X

Storage and retrieval capacity

Can identify the distribution in opinions expressed by various publics

Content Analysis

X

X X X

X X X

X

X

248

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

2) the policy maker identifies the information as being relevant to his mandate. These limitations are also common to the other methods of analysing public inputs. Research Design The first step in the analysis was to compile a list of questions which needed to be answered from the input. These questions were chosen in order to facilitate the summary and description of the presentations and the testing of some underlying hypotheses. Al though most questions were closed and very specific, certain open questions or sections of questions were included in order that unanticipated information could be recorded. These questions formed the basis for a coding sheet. (The coding sheet is available upon request.) In order to avoid ambiguity in the coding sheet and to enhance reliability of the observations among coders, rules of interpretation were developed for each question. The participants' presentations were read by at least two coders and all input was transferred to the coding sheet. At times there was some ambiguity in the presentation either because of a lack of articulateness on the part of the presenter or of understanding on the part of the coder. In such cases the pooled judgment of three or four coders was relied upon to complete the data sheet. The coded data was transferred to computer cards according to a predefined format and stored in a computer memory bank for easy retrieval. Content analysis is an effective technique to code the information in the presentations on a uniform and consistent basis and it yields numerical data which may be subjected to contingency analysis (Holsti 1969). The bias of the reader is removed because once the coding sheet is drawn up, the coder has no choice except to observe the presence (or absence) of a category (e.g. riparian interest expressed or not expressed). In selecting the categories for coding the data, it was aimed to extract as much information and on as uniform a basis as possible. This selection is probably the most critical step in the research design and involves the conscious selection of the relevant from the not so relevant; as pointed out above, this could result in "bias" in the content analysis or in any other method of analysing public input. In order to reduce this weakness, one has to consciously strive to make the coded sheet reflect as fully as possible the information expressed in the presentation.

SELECTED EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The tabulated data provide descriptive frequencies of the opinions, perceived solutions, basis for interest, affiliations and so on. It is also possible to formulate contingency tables that could identify significant associations among variables. The final draft of the data sheet had 46 different variables. Each variable could be crosstabulated against the other 45 variables i.e. a total of 1035 tables. Of these, 27% (or 289 tables) showed a significant association at the 5% level. It is not possible or necessary to report all the empirical results in this paper. The tables are available from the authors. One variable (affiliation) was selected in order to demonstrate the use of content/contingency analysis as a technique for organizing, summarizing and examining information generated in public hearings. It is hoped that this discussion of the empirical findings would throw some light on the public's views on regulation of Great Lakes levels; more importantly, it may suggest ways to improve the process and thus prove to be useful to potential participants and to administrators of public hearings. Public hearings have been severely criticized for the low quality of information that is generated by participants at public hearings. This research is a pioneer study on a method that exposes the information generated to critical and quantitative analysis. In so doing the weaknesses are more clearly perceived and hopefully reduced. Affiliation of the Participants During the 1974 hearings, five types of affiliations or actor groups emerged to comment on either the I.G.L.L.B.'s Final Report and Appendices or the illustrated Summary Report. In total each type of affiliation was relatively well represented in terms of the number of presentations. However at the individual hearings, representation was often absent or inadequate for one or more types. At Owen Sound, for example, neither the federal nor the provincial/state officials expressed their views or submitted written testimony. At Montreal and Chicago, private individuals were not represented. (Table 4). Private individuals and groups accounted for almost two-thirds of the total presentations; this indicates that public hearings do provide an opportunity to interest groups and concerned individuals to state their views and that this opportunity is taken up. The small number of presentations compared to the potential numbers may well indicate

249

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS TABLE 4. Affiliation ofparticipants at the 1974 hearings.

City Chicago Cleveland Detroit Duluth Green Bay Hamilton Milwaukee Montreal Muskegon Owen Sound RJchester Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Total

Private Association

Private Individual

Affiliation Federal Government

State/Provo Government

Municipal Government

Total

3 11 6 18 6

5

0 9 1 20 7 4 6 0 7 6 6 5 1

1 2 3 2 3 1 1 0 4 0 2 3 2

3 4 2 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 3 2 1

7 4 2 15 2 5 2 1 0 2 1 2 0

14 30 14 58 21 19 12 5 12 12 25 19 9

87

72

24

24

43

250

8 2 3 1 4 13

7

2

Note: X = 71.439; df = 48; Q = 0.016; C = 0.471 (does not meet criteria)

the high costs for individuals and groups who may wish to participate, particularly when the problems are as complex as the regulation of Great Lakes levels. The low level of response to the invitation to public hearings is a topic that has received little attention in the literature. If the majority is predominantly silent, how could one justify the high costs of public participation and the even higher costs of adjusting decisions in response to expressed opposition? The justification for public participation is to bring to the attention of the decision makers information that the technical planning team may have missed. Therefore the need to elicit as wide a response as possible and to analyse the content of the public hearing is reinforced. The private associations (which included both commercial and non-profit groups) constituted approximated 35% of the presentations and represented various interest groups. Private individuals accounted for 29% of the presentations and in 93% of these presentations, they represented themselves. On the whole, the private sector dominated the hearings whereas the three levels of government accounted for 36% of presentations. Most of the municipal and states/provincial officials (59 out of 67) spoke on behalf of agencies and communities. Nearly one-third of the 24 federal presentations were made on behalf of elected representatives. It is fair to conclude that the presentations made at the hearings, though small in number, reflected the concerns of the

major groups of actors in a democratic society, viz. concerned individuals, interest groups, elected representatives from affected communities, and government agencies with a mandate (and a budget) in the area of concern. Nationality and Spatial Character of the Hearings In terms of numbers the hearings were dominated by Americans who presented 78% of the briefs (Table 5). This is a reflection of 3 facts: a) The geographic distribution of the hearings was more favourable for the Americans. Only 5 out of the 13 hearings were conducted in Canadian cities. b) The ratio of the population of Americans to Canadians living within the Great Lakes Basin is approximately 5: 1. This ratio is similar to that between American and Canadian presentations at the hearings. c) The Great Lakes Basin is under more intensive and urban land uses on the American side of the border and fluctuations in water levels would result in more damage on the American side. For example SO-90l shows "gross" losses by erosion and inundation of $152,000 a year on the U.S. side and only $6,000 on the Canadian side (International Great Lakes Levels Board 1973a: 125). It should be added that these gross losses are more than compensated in the Great Lakes system as a whole and that the

250

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

net average annual benefits from erosion and inundation control are four times larger on the U.S. side as on the Canadian side. TABLE 5. Affiliation by national composition.

Mfiliation Private Association Private Individual Federal Government State/Provincial Government Municipal Government Total

Nationality American Canadian

Total

65 58 20

22 14 4

87

19 34 196

5 9 54

24 43 250

72

24

A more detailed breakdown by nationality shows that just over one-third of the presentations are from private associations for both the United States and Canada; private individuals generate between 26-30% of the presentations; and the three levels of government made approximately 35% of the presentations. These frequencies are comparable to those obtained in the 1973 hearings (Grima 1976: 36) and suggest a stable relative strength among the major actor groups in the Great Lakes region. The location of the public hearing was also an interesting variable although the frequencies do not lend themselves to statistical analysis because of the large number of cells with expected frequencies below one. Chicago, for example, generated the largest proportion (50%) of the presentations from municipal representatives. The reason is that the city is pressing for an increase in the diversion flows through the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal to dilute the pollution loadings discharged into the river. Duluth, the city which generated the greatest number of participants (58), generally succeeded in arousing only private associations, private individuals and municipal representatives to attend the hearings. These groups repeatedly testified to the adverse effects of the implemented plan, S0-901, and demanded equity in the form of compensation. The federal and state representatives were, relatively speaking, silent at this hearing because they probably realized that the topics frequently discussed such as shoreline mismanagement and compensation would fall under their political jurisdiction and therefore a balance of the testimonies would be directed at their lack of foresight and action. When a presentation mentioned one or more

lakes and/or connecting channels as being their concern, this information was also coded. In total the participants identified 25 different variations which included either single and/or multiple Only 3 people (about 1%) choices of lakes. omitted any reference to the lakes, but of greater significance is the fact that only 5% considered the Great Lakes as a system even though they are continuously presented in the reports as such. Local or single-lake concerns accounted for 80% of the presentations (Table 6). This has important implications for Great Lakes management; if the public(s) do not view the Great Lakes as a system but as a series of local water bodies, management strategies based on system-wide benefit-cost analysis are not likely to be supported unless compensation is made by gainers to losers. Lake Superior generates little concern from the federal and state/provincial representatives. However one third of the presentations from private associations, private individuals and municipal representatives express concern for this lake. No doubt these participants noted with apprehension the fact that annual net loss from electricity generation, erosion and inundation, marine structures and recreation beaches was computed at $254,000 on Lake Superior shores as a result of the implementation of plan S0-901 (International Great Lakes Levels Board 1974: 28). Major Concerns of the Principal Actor-Groups Although the majority of participants (68%) expressed only one major concern or interest area such as riparian or ecological, a number of combinations of interests were also identified. To simplify the analysis, these interests were regrouped according to the frequency of observations. The contingency table of affiliation and concern (interest) indicated a significant association between these two variables (Table 7) suggesting that the principal actors speak on behalf of discretely different concerns or interests. Riparian concerns dominated the hearings (146 out of 250 cases). However, the private individuals were the most persistent in testifying to inundated property, destroyed buildings, protective structures and docks and inoperative facilities. Ecological concerns received minimal attention from all affiliations. Either the intangible nature of many environmental problems inhibited witnesses to express their opinions or citizens and government officials were preoccupied with devalued lakeshore property and reduced property tax values.

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS

251

TABLE 6. Affiliation by lakes.

Private Association

Private Individual

Affiliation Federal Government

State/Provo Government

Municipal Government

Total

Ontario St. Mary's Huron Erie Michigan Superior Other Combinations

14 3 2 16 9 29

7 3 6 12 14 24

3 1 0 3 5 6

1 2 0 3 4 4

3 0 2 4 6 15

28 9 10 38 38 78

14

6

6

10

13

49

Total

87

72

24

24

43

250

Lake

2

Note: X = 33.917; df= 24; a = 0.086; C = 0.347 (does not meet criteria)

TABLE 7. Interest (concern) and affiliations of participants.

Private Association

Private Individual

Affiliation Federal Government

Stat.e/Prov. Government

Municipal Government

Total

Ecological Riparian Ecological/Riparian Riparian/Industry Power/Navigation/ Industry Other Combinations

12 45 8 5

5 55 4 1

2 14 4 0

3 11 4 0

1 21 5 6

23 146 25 12

8 9

2 5

1 3

0 6

3 7

14 30

Total

87

72

24

24

43

250

Interest

2

Note: X = 36.708; df= 20; a = 0.013; C = 0.358

Industry, power and navigation interests were discussed by a small minority either singly or in combination with one or more interests (64 out of 250). The higher levels of government in particular repeatedly omitted any acknowledgement of these interest groups. On one hand this result is surprising when "the economy of the basin is basically industrial" (International Joint Commission 1976: 9). On the other hand, large populations with riparian interests are concentrated along the shoreline and comprise a significant sector of the voting population; they were also present in large numbers at the hearings (Table 7). The industry, power and navigation interests probably did not feel sufficiently threatened by the report and therefore did not turn out in force at these hearings. Discussion of the Final Report One of the recurring problems in citizen partici-

pation is the lack of time and expertise to cope with thick and complex technical reports. Prior to the 1974 hearings, the LG.L.L.B. had submitted a final and detailed report to the LJ.C. containing their findings and conclusions on the possibility of regulating the ranges and levels of the Great Lakes. Two plans were discussed in depth, SO-90 1 and SEO-42P. However due to the emergency high levels of January 1973, Plan SO-90l had already been implemented to provide relief to the Lower Great Lakes. The Final Report is mentioned by all affiliations in at least one out of two cases (Table 8). The government groups are the best informed about the report, particularly the state/provincial representatives who refer to the report in 88% of their presentations. Similarly the state/provincial group mention a specific aspect/section/plan in the report in 7 out of 10 cases. In contrast the private individuals only mention the report and sections of

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

252

TABLE 8. Mentions the Final Report or Aspects/Sections/ Plans.

AffIliation Private Association Private Individual Federal Government State/Provo Government Municipal Government Total

Yes

Report No Total

Aspect/Section/Plan Yes No Total

60

27

87

52

35

87

37

35

72

27

45

72

17

7

24

14

10

24

21

3

24

17

7

24

28

15

43

23

20

43

163

87

250

133 117

250

2

Note: X 12.192; df 2 port. X 11.889; df pect/Section/Plan. 0::

0::

0::

0::

4; a 4; a

0:: 0::

0.016; C 0.018; C

0:: 0::

0.216 for Re0.213 for As-

the report in just over 1/2 and 1/3 of their presentations respectively. This pattern also emerged from the analysis of the 1973 hearings. Perhaps the government officials may have more access to the reports or are forced to examine them as part of their job to represent government agencies at the hearings. In addition government officials may consult expertise within the civil service concerning the content of the report whereas the private individual does not have this advantage and consequently may lack the confidence to refute some of the statements in the report. The private associations may be expected to have more full time help than individuals and they refer to the documents under discussion more often (69%). One may fairly conclude that members of the public who show an interest in participating should be assisted to prepare briefs in order to maintain a high overall quality in presentations and a better balance between high-powered agencies and/ or interest groups on one hand and concerned citizens on the other. Although a large proportion of the participants mentioned the report, only 88 (out of 250) were prepared to clearly state their approval or criticisms. Only 40 participants or 16% agreed with the findings and conclusions of the I.G.L.L.B. 's Final Report. Of these forty, 17 were federal/ state/provincial government presentations. A slightly higher proportion, 19% (or 48 participants) disagreed with the report. Of these only II came from federal/state/provincial governments. The state/provincial and federal representatives voiced

their opinion more often (28 out of 48) than the other affiliations and agreed with the report most often. In contrast, the consensus of the private groups and the municipal government officials was that the report provides inadequate solutions to their problems. The proposed plans were also discussed at the meetings. The frequency and pattern of the references to the plans differed among the plans. Plan SO-901 received most attention with 26 agreeing and 56 disagreeing and 168 not registering an opinion. Plan SEO-42P (which favours riparian interest more than SO-901) generally received favourable discussion from all types of affiliations; 38 agreed and 14 disagreed with SEO-42P. The remaining plans were discussed infrequently and often by only one person. An explanation of these results may be that individuals, associations and municipal governments may be facing costs and difficulties that would not be removed by the recommendations in the Final Report; therefore they feel their interests and problems have been neglected and will remain unsolved if the recommendations, (particularly for the continuance of Plan SO-90 I), are adopted. The federal or state/provincial governments in contrast are involved with a wider range of concerns. Since the report adequately attempts to identify plans or solutions which will yield the greatest net benefits these groups tend to agree more often with the report. Significantly, they are also the groups that were consulted by the I.G.L.L.B. and contributed money and knowhow to the reference group. If municipal governments, concerned individuals and groups had been consulted during the study, there would have been more support for the recommendations or less opposition. Having stated a clear opinion about either the final document, the present regulation of the Great Lakes (Plan SO-901) or the proposed plans, it would be expected that the participant should outline reasons for formulating this viewpoint. Approximately 1/5 of the private individuals omitted their reasons for formulating their opinion. This is probably the result of holding hearings during a period of high water levels when presentations become emotional pleas to the I.J.c. for compensation for or prevention of personal losses rather than objective statements to support or object to policy and decision making. Surprisingly 5 government representatives also submitted opinionated statements without substantiating their view-points, consequently discrediting their

253

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS

competence as planners. The high proportion of presentations that fail to agree or disagree with the report is significant (162 out of 250). The critical analysis of the transcripts would improve the public participation process because it could enable the LJ.C. to identify key questions to put to the participants. In this case, the LJ.c. still have only a vague notion of the strength of support for (or objection to) the various plans because over 65% of the various principal actor-groups did not express an opinion. The same pattern emerged in the 1973 I.J.c. hearings. If the 1973 hearings had been contentanalyzed, by the I.J.c., the Commissioners could have asked the participants where they stood on the recommendations. Perceived Damages and Benefits As may be expected, all actor groups emphasized damages to their own group (87% to 92% depending on the group) (Table 9). The large majority of participants were able to identify multiple concerns; of the 207 participants who mention physical damages, 66 had singular damages while 141 had multiple damages. However, as in 1973, the most commonly perceived physical damages were erosion and flooding (141 out of 207). The loss of acquired property and income were the dominant economic damages (210 out of 213). No doubt this preoccupation with erosion, flooding and loss of property reflects the high water conditions of 1973/74. The LJ.C. (1976) as well as the LG.L.L.B. (1973b: 5) quite correctly emphasize non-structural adjustment to shore property damages (e.g. land use zoning and structural setback requirements). The content analysis confirms the validity of this recommendation with respect to future development: if better land zoning had been practiced in the past, mention of damages would have been correspondingly reduced in 1973/74. Rather than constituting a good

argument for shore property protection, the preponderance of erosion and flood damages is the most eloquent argument for zoning. Perhaps the LJ.c. and the I.G.L.L.B. should have found out the cost to the federal governments of buying out acquired property and land except for such high cost structures as port installations. The preponderance of erosion and flood damages indicated that the basic policy question is whether to withdraw certain land uses from the shoreline and to pay compensation. The frequency of participants mentioning damages to other groups was considerably lower, only 28%. As in 1973, all the affiliations continue to be preoccupied with their own losses, but in 1974 there is a slightly higher frequency in the private sector to acknowledge other people's hardships. In 1973, 32% of the presentations by the government groups mention damages to others, 22% of the private associations and 18% of the private individuals. The 1974 findings for the respective categories are 28%, 28% and 29%. While the detailed frequencies are difficult to interpret, the general pattern that emerges is that the majority of participants do not wish to strengthen the case of other interest groups by drawing attention to damages incurred by others. Of the 223 people who have suffered losses, only 128 chose to substantiate their claims with facts or figures. Surprisingly the federal and state/ provincial representatives omitted these facts more frequently than the other affiliations (19/24 and 17/24 respectively). This pattern is unusual since government officials and elected representatives should utilize data obtained by the various departments within their government to make their presentations more effective and persuasive. The private sector in contrast stated their monetary output to repair localized damages; facts and figures they need not research. The association of quoting damages and affiliations is highly signifi-

TABLE 9. Mentions damages and benefits by affiliations.

AffIliation Private Association Private Individual Federal Government State/Provo Government Municipal Government Total

Damages to Own Group No Yes

78 64 22 21 38 223

9 8 2 3 5 27

Damages to Other Groups Yes No

24 21 7 7 12 71

63 51 17 17 31 179

Benefits to Own Group No Yes

3 1 2 1 3 10

84 71 22 23 40 240

Benefits to Other Groups Yes No

21 15 6 4 8 54

66 57 18 20 35 196

254

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

TABLE 10. Blame for damages by affiliation of participant.

Blame

Private Association

Private Individual

Aff1liation Federal Government

No mention LJ.C. Federal Government Nature LJ.C./Power/Navigation LJ.C./Nature I.J.C./Combinations Other/Combinations

30 37 1 4 4 2 4 5

26 20 8 7 4 3 2 2

10 1 6 2 0 1 3 1

Total

87

72

24

Municipal Government

Total

7 7 1 2 2 3 1 1

20 10 2 3 1 2 1 4

93 75 18 18 11 11 11 13

24

43

250

State/Provo Government

2

Note: X = 44.972; df= 28; a = 0.022; C = 0.390.

cant statistically. Also the private sector repeatedly quoted their personal losses and compared them to the benefit/cost analysis in the report as a means to question its validity. The behaviour of the principal actor-groups with respect to substantiating claims of damages is an interesting example of the different mode of behaviour between the federal/ state/provincial government officials on one hand and the private sector/municipal government participants on the other. In this case rhetoric serves the purpose of the senior branches of government and factual data serves better the private sector/ municipal government. The affiliation types blamed various groups for the physical and economic damages incurred. The I.J.C. received the most criticism, 75 cases, with 57 of these coming from the private associations and individuals (Table 10). The government sector blamed the I.J.C. in fewer cases; 1 federal, 7 state/ provincial and 10 municipal. Since the federal government appointed the I.J.c. to examine the problem of the fluctuating levels, and the state/ provincial governments were consulted during the study, it is not surprising that these representatives do not want to criticize their colleagues on the I.G.L.L.B. or I.J.c. Similarly when the I.J.C. and another group such as power, nature, navigation etc. were blamed in combination for the damages, the highest proportion of criticism was from the private sector and the least from the government sector. The federal government is blamed for damages by 18 participants of which six are federal representatives. Since it is the federal government which has the responsibility of implementing and initiating plans, not the I.J.c., it could be expected that some blame be attached to the federal

government(s) including some blame from competing functions (e.g. elected representatives). Parallel to the 1973 results, almost 40% of the participants chose not to mention blame at all. In contrast to the 1973 findings, the municipal government had the highest proportion of 'no mention' (47%) in 1974, while in 1973 the federal and state/provincial categories made no mention of blame 42% and 30% of the time respectively. The I.J.C. seems to be the target for a lot of blame; 30% of all presentations blamed the I.J.c. and among the private associations the frequency is over 40%. The LJ.C. is in addition blamed in combination with power and navigation interests, nature and governments, increasing the frequency to 43%. Clearly the I.J.c. suffers from a poor public image even though it has only advisory powers in the sphere of land-use planning. An explanation could be provided in two parts. First, the LJ.C. relies heavily on technical personnel such as the Corps of Engineers and Environment Canada, and is mistakenly perceived as just another government agency. The I.J.c. is an independent Commission but the public is aware that the technical studies for the I.J.c. are carried out by personnel from on-line agencies in the senior governments. Second, the I.J.C. carries out, through its permanent Boards, some regulatory functions. For example in January of 1973, the I.J.C. had instructed its International Lake Superior Board of Control to reduce flow from Lake Superior to relieve conditions on the Lower Great Lakes (International Joint Commission 1973: 3). In this sense the I.J.C. is quite correctly perceived as the regulatory body of water levels in the Great Lakes. It may be worthwhile for the I.J.c. and its Boards to enlist more public support for planning

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS strategies that they consider to be essential. The present evidence suggests that at the moment the I.J.c. is perceived by a substantial minority as a regulatory body and therefore blameworthy. Again content analysis of the transcripts enables one to identify a problem and to provide some measure of its severity. Although participants repeatedly testified to damages, references to benefits resulting from the present or proposed regulations were rarely acknowledged. All affiliation types omitted any references to their own accrued benefits in over 90% of the presentations. The participants, particularly the private sector, were more willing to identify the benefits of the other groups (54 out of 250 cases). A dominant trend that emerged from the hearings was the almost universal emphasis of one's own damages and the identification of other people's benefits. This was probably an attempt to impress upon the I.J.c. the unequal distribution of costs and benefits and to underline the urgency for assistance for their particular concerns. There is no statistically significant association between affiliation and mention of benefits to one's group or other groups. In other words the principal actor-groups behave more or less similarly in this regard. The physical benefits most often discussed were reduced erosion and lower water levels. The economic benefits which were identified most frequently were higher power generation, more efficient shipping and reduction in flood losses due to regulation of Great Lakes levels. The participants from the federal governments referred to such benefits most often (about 20% of the cases). This recognition of benefits accruing to certain interests of the population surrounding the Great Lakes Basin indicates that at least one in five of the participants realize that the regulation of the water levels is not completely detrimental. These participants nevertheless feel that the benefits accrue to other interest groups than their own and that they should be distributed more equitably. The participants from the federal government seem to be keenly aware that the regulation of the lake levels must satisfy many objectives and interest groups and they try to put this point across to the I.J.C. and to the other actor-groups who represent more specific/localized interests. This is another example of the basic difference in the verbal behaviour of the federal/state/provincial governments on one hand, the rest of the groups on the other. While the federal and provincial/state sub-

255

missions identified the causes of benefits as the mode of operation and reduced range in level (29% in both groups), the private sector identified "low water" as the cause of benefits. Only 30 submissions credited an agency for benefits; in all cases the agency was the I.J.c. and its Boards. Even so the federal government and state/provincial government submissions referred to the beneficial work of the I.J.c. in 33% and 25% of the cases respectively. On the other hand the other actor groups acknowledged the beneficial work of the I.J.c. in about 8% of the cases (16 out of 202). Once again there is a highly significant association between affiliation of the participants and their readiness to give credit to the I.J.c. for any benefits accruing to the Great Lakes system from water level controls. It is worthwhile to refer to the discussion on blame above and to emphasize once again that the I.J.c. rather than the federal governments is perceived as the responsible agency for water levels regulation. Solutions to the Problem of Fluctuating Water Levels and Flows Out of the 250 presentations, almost 80% (199) presented solutions to the problem of the fluctuating water levels. The government sector was the most consistent in presenting solutions; the federal government in 100% of its presentations, the state/provincial governments in 92% and the municipal governments in 88%. The private sector also proposed their solutions but in a smaller proportion (72%). The test for association between the two variables is again highly significant, again emphasizing the difference between senior governments and other groups. The solutions presented were not restricted to one per presentation but instead ranged from zero to eleven. The pattern that emerged from the cross-tabulations was that as the number of solutions presented increased, the number of presentations in that category decreased except for the federal and state/provincial representatives who frequently provided four or more solutions. The federal and state/provincial officials also substantiate their solutions more often with facts and figures than the other affiliation types (12/24 and 10/24 respectively). Since these two affiliations omitted such facts for damages more often, it may be concluded that they are more interested in alleviating the problem by presenting plausible solutions rather than being preoccupied with damages in the past. The converse could apply

GRIMA and WILSON-HODGES

256

TABLE 11. Affiliation by solution presented by subjective appraisal for conveying solutions.

Affiliation Private Association Private Individual Federal Government State/Provo Government Municipal Government Total 2

Note: X

Solutions Presented Very Successful Fairly Successful Not Successful

Solutions Not Presented

Total

4 8 9 7

51 31 15 12 29

10 13 1 1 2

20 24 0 2 5

87 72 24 24 43

34

138

27

51

250

6

= 53.50; df = 12; a =0.005; C =0.42.

to the other actor groups. Effectiveness of Presentations As in the pilot study (Grima and Dufournand 1976: 426), the effectiveness in conveying concern and solutions was subjectively evaluated by the three coders. Only 6% of the participants failed to convey concern. Evaluation of the presentations on the basis of effectiveness in conveying solutions revealed a significant pattern among affiliations (Table 11). The federal and state/ provincial representatives, precisely the two groups incorporating facts and figures to support their solutions, were evaluated as being successful in conveying solutions (44 out of 48 presentations and 44 out of 46 presentations that had included solutions). They also had the highest percentage of presentations considered to be very effective in conveying solutions. In contrast, the private individuals were successful in 35 out of a total 72 presentations (or 35 out of 48 presentations that had included solutions to the problem). One explanation is that the private sector stated several solutions which were either small scale in terms of the problem identified or technically, socially or economically not feasible. CONCLUSION The public hearing is the principal mode for the interaction of the I.J.c. with the public, and the transcripts that are generated are expensive artifacts worthy of critical analysis. The 1974 public hearings on Great Lakes levels were subjected to content/contingency analysis with a view to providing selected summaries of the public input that convey precise information in contrast to the vague summaries usually provided. The technique also made it possible to note statistically significant associations between coded variables. In this paper the variable selected for analysis and discussion is the affiliation of the participants.

It is noted that the federal/state/provincial government participants exhibit consistently and significantly different verbal behaviour from the other actor groups, viz. municipal governments, private associations and individuals. The former group emphasize solutions to a greater degree, show more sympathy for the I.J.c. and acknowledge more often the benefits from its activities. It is also noted that affiliation groups tend to correspond to major concerns and that most participants were concerned mainly about one lake or stretch of lake; the policy implication is that it is not enough to generate net benefits to the system as a whole; one must satisfy local (and often vocal) interests. Another implication is that administrators of citizen participation activities should ensure that public hearings (and preparatory activities) are as widely spread as possible in order to provide local groups with the opportunity to speak up. The overwhelming perception of the I.J .C. as a "regulatory" agency, the frequency with which the participants blame the I.J .C., and also the credit the IJ.C. receives by some participants are patterns that emerge very clearly from the quantitative analysis. These patterns have important implications for the I.J.c. at a time when it is being engaged in more frequent public interaction and at a time when the public's support may become essential in order to help galvanize into planning action the political will of elected representatives at all levels.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research for this paper was supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to the Inter-University Cooperative Research Project on Lake Superior/Great Lakes. The support of the Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada (through a grant to the Water Resource Management Group at the Institute for Environmental Studies) and of Erindale College is also gratefully

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS acknowledged. Gul Alpar and Christian Dufournaud were research assistants on the project and their contribution is appreciated. We also thank S. Schulte for his advice on computer programming.

REFERENCES Borton, T. E. and Warner, K. P. 1971. Involving citizens in water resources planning, the communication-participation experiment in the Susquehanna River Basin. Environment and Behavior, 3:284-306. Clark, R. N. and Stankey, G. H. 1976. Analyzing public input to resource decisions: criteria, principles and case examples of the codinvolve system. Natural Resources Journal, 16:213-236. Grima, A. P. 1976. An assessment of the public hearings held by the International Joint Commission on Great Lakes Levels Regulation, 1973. University of Toronto Institute for Environmental Studies, W.R.M.G. Discussion Paper W-4, Toronto. Grima, A. P. and Dufournaud, C. 1976. Public participation in Great Lakes water levels regulation: further findings from public hearings held by the I.J.C. in 1973. Proc. Specialty Conference Environmental Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage, Am. Soc. ofCivil Engineers, Irrigation and Drainage Division, pp. 418-434. Heberlein, T. A. and Prouty, M. W. 1976. Public opinion for policy decisions: comparing the hearing, survey and jury workshop. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, New York. Holsti, O. R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., London. Ingram, H. M. 1973. Information channels and environmental decision-making. Natural Resources Journal 13: 150-169. International Great Lakes Levels Board. 1973 (a). Interim report on Lakes Superior and Ontario regulation. _ _. 1973 (b). Regulation of Great Lakes water levels, report to the International Joint Commission. _ _ . 1973 (c). Regulation of Great Lakes water levels, report to the International Joint Commission, Appendix A-Hydrology and Hydraulics.

257

1974. Regulation of Great Lakes water levels. A summary report. International Joint Commission. 1973. Special interim report on regulation of Lake Superior outflows to provide relief from high water levels on the lower Great Lakes. . 1976. Further regulation of the Great Lakes, an I.J.c. report to the governments of Canada and the United States. Lucas, A. R. and McCallum, S. K. 1975. Looking at environmental assessment. In Environmental management and public participation (ed. P. S. Elder), pp. 306-318, Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation, Toronto. Morley, C. G. 1975. The legal framework for public participation in Canadian water management. In Environmental management and public participation (ed. P. S. Elder), pp. 40-84. Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Law Research Foundation, Toronto. Report of the Solandt Commission, 1975. Transmission, a public inquiry into the transmission ofpower between Lennox and Oshawa. Sinclair, M. 1975. The International Joint Commission and its relationship with the public. In Institutional arrangements for water management: Canadian experience (ed. B. Mitchell), pp. 83-116. University of Water100, Department of Geography, Waterloo. United States Forest Service. 1973. Public involvement and the forest service: experience, effectiveness and suggested direction. A report from the United States Forest Service, administrative study of public involvement. White, G. F. 1973. Public opinion in planning water development. In Environmental quality and water development (ed. C. R. Goldman, J. McEvoy III and P. J. Richardson), pp. 157-169. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.