The Lake Erie-Niagara River Ice Boom

Abstract

An ice boom has been operating in Lake Erie since 1965 to reduce runs of ice that disrupt hydroelectric generation on the Niagara River. Resultant increases in power have been measured in millions of dollars annually, and studies indicate no negative environmental effects from the boom. The findings are contradicted by perceptions of local inhabitants who argue that it has caused climatic cooling. In spite of continued efforts to involve the public, regulatory agencies have been viewed with suspicion and distrust. A series of floating timbers has been installed annually since the winter of 1964-65 in the eastern end of Lake Erie to reduce disruptions to hydroelectric-power generation caused by discharges of ice from the lake into the Niagara River. The ice boom has functioned entirely to the satisfaction of the utility companies that maintain it, but inhabitants of the area adjacent to the eastern end of the lake have argued that the boom has retarded the seasonal dissipation of the ice. Among the adverse consequences attributed to the boom are cooler spring temperatures, higher heating bills, shortened growing seasons, and rising water levels on the lake. The opposing interpretations of the performance of the ice boom are not particularly unexpected. Members of the public often hold markedly different viewpoints of reality than do environmental professionals. Moreover, professional decision makers generally have considered public involvement as an unnecessary impediment to effective decision making. The desire of professionals to exclude the public from a decision-making process has been cited as a common cause of environmental conflict.1 However, in the case of the ice boom, public involvement was sought before the structure was first installed. When public concerns emerged after several years of operation, efforts were made to evaluate objectively the contentious issues, but there is little evidence to suggest that the efforts in any way mitigated the * Many ideas expressed in this article took shape in discussions with colleagues on the National Academy of Sciences panel that investigated the ice-boom controversy. Susan Hanson, Phillip Frankland, and Marc Riess provided suggestions that improved the text. T. F. Saarinen, Environmental Planning: Perception and Behavior (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976), pp. 155-156. * DR. CHURCHILL is an assistant professor of geography at Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont 05753. Copyright ? 1985 by the American Geographical Society of New York This content downloaded from 157.55.39.27 on Mon, 05 Sep 2016 06:14:44 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW controversy. The ice-boom issue illustrates the difficulties of public involvement in environmental decision making, particularly when perceived costs and benefits are distributed differentially in space and time. In this article I trace the emergence of the controversy about the ice boom and describe the problems that have been attributed to it. The problem is examined from the viewpoint not only of public responses but also of activities by utilities and regulatory authorities. An analysis of the controversy provides broadly applicable insights into public perception and behavior.