The Great Lakes, which cover 290,000 square miles, constitute the largest surface freshwater system on earth, containing approximately 20 percent of the world’s supply of surface freshwater. With the Great Lakes drainage basin encompassing at least part of eight U.S. states along with two Canadian provinces, shoreline change could have great impacts across a large range of differing social conditions and communities (AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2006). With no federal ownership of the Lakes, the states are primarily responsible for managing the many and varied uses of the shoreline, including large port cities and population centers, economic activities, recreational uses, and unique coastal interests such as shipwrecks. It is clear that coordinated shoreline management is critical to many aspects of life in this region.
The Great Lakes were formed over time by major meteorological and geological processes, and these processes continue to affect the Lakes today. Water levels are highly variable and can change significantly based on short- and long-term weather conditions. Precipitation, snowmelt, ground water, and inflow from other lakes and rivers supply water to the Great Lakes; water is removed primarily by evaporation, which is dependent on the temperature and dryness of air masses over the lakes. This results in lake level fluctuation that averages between 12 and 18 inches depending on the season (AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2006); climate change impacts are expected to result in declining water levels, which can exacerbate erosion and threaten shipping due to shallower channels (ERG, 2010b).
Since 1990, the Great Lakes region has grown much more slowly (in terms of population and economy) than the other three regions. Nonetheless, in 2007 the eight states adjacent to the Great Lakes, from Minnesota to New York,2 were home to more than 80 million people, accounting for 2.1 million business establishments and more than $3 trillion of GDP.
The overall concentration of development along the shore is lower than in any of the other regions: shore-adjacent counties account for less than one-quarter of the region’s population, business establishments, and employment. Despite the slow growth, the economy of these counties is still very large—in 2007, second only to that of the North Atlantic region in terms of GDP. A selection of economic and demographic details from the region is displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Population, Establishments, Employment, Wages, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for Coastal Watershed Counties and Shore-Adjacent Counties as Percentages of Regional Total for the Great Lakes Region
States
|
1990
|
2000
|
2007
|
Population
|
76,258,214
|
81,332,027
|
83,266,358
|
Population per square mile
|
183.7
|
195.9
|
200.6
|
Housing
|
31,041,442
|
33,751,411
|
35,899,230
|
Housing per square mile
|
74.8
|
81.3
|
86.5
|
Land area (square miles)
|
415,153.3
|
415,153.3
|
415,153.3
|
Establishments (1,000s)
|
1,722.0
|
2,047.0
|
2,162.2
|
Employment (1,000s)
|
33,216.0
|
37,531.1
|
37,288.9
|
Wages ($1 billion, 2000)
|
$1,010.1
|
$1,376.4
|
$1,435.4
|
GDP ($1 billion, 2000)
|
$2,077.0
|
$2,889.9
|
$3,195.1
|
|
|
|
|
Shore-Adjacent Counties
|
1990
|
2000
|
2007
|
Population
|
18,792,007
|
19,583,042
|
19,477,123
|
Population per square mile
|
272.7
|
277.6
|
276.1
|
Housing
|
7,667,736
|
8,149,572
|
8,533,319
|
Housing per square mile
|
111.3
|
115.5
|
121.0
|
Land area (square miles)
|
68,911.0
|
70,542.5
|
70,542.5
|
Establishments (1,000s)
|
389.1
|
463.3
|
472.5
|
Employment (1,000s)
|
8,460.0
|
9,169.2
|
8,670.4
|
Wages ($1 billion, 2000)
|
$262.3
|
$338.8
|
$328.1
|
GDP ($1 billion, 2000)
|
$522.0
|
$718.6
|
$731.2
|
Source: The National Ocean Economics Program. Shore-adjacent counties are defined as those counties “touched in whole or in part by a state’s coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as defined by that state and which are adjacent to an ocean, Great Lake, or included river or bay.” This is the definition used by the National Ocean Economics Program
(http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Demographics/coastal_geographies.asp).
Relevant literature found
Most literature specific to the Great Lakes region focused on the reduction in property values due to episodic flooding and the loss of privately owned land due to erosion. This reinforces the concept that the risk and vulnerability of the area is predominantly physical in nature rather than social (Boruff, Emrich, & Cutter, 2005; Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley, 2003; Lawrence & Gordon, 1994). The risk extends beyond individually owned property to encompass infrastructure such as lakeside power plants, water intakes, pumping stations, sewage treatment plants, industrial plants, harbors, and marinas. Many of these shore-side facilities are routinely exposed to lake levels and storm conditions beyond the ranges for which they were designed, increasing the protection cost burden each year (Kellor, 2003).
Several older studies focused on how residents had responded to, and coped with, shoreline change in the past (Rasid, Baker, & Kreutzwiser, 1992; Rasid, Dilley, Baker, & Otterson, 1989). These studies provided evidence that suggested—certainly at the time—that residents only had limited success with shoreline protection methods such as shoreline armoring or the construction of sea walls. Since lakefront location has been shown to add approximately 50 percent to the value of Great Lakes residential shore property compared with the value of similar property at a nearby inland location (Kellor, 2003), it is important to recognize the very real economic threat of shoreline change to property owners in the region. Studies suggested that surveyed residents displayed a significant preference for the introduction of lake level regulations as a means for preventing property loss (Rukavina & Zeman, 1987). These strongly held attitudes toward preferred management actions have continued to manifest themselves in the form of conflict over time between residents and state government. However, in the majority of recorded cases, private residents are responsible for the economic costs associated with shoreline protection. Great Lake residents have turned to the courts for restitutions for loss of property, for example when shoreline residents of Lake Erie sued the Canadian federal government for property losses (Rukavina & Zeman, 1987).
Regulation decisions governing lake uses that are perceived to be leading to fluctuations in lake levels such as dredging and sediment extraction are also constantly under scrutiny in the legal arena (Lawrence & Gordon, 1994; Rasid, Baker, & Kreuzwiser., 1992). One issue that exacerbates the effect of shoreline change on residents and communities on the Great Lakes is the fact that there is no federal ownership of property around the Lakes themselves and so the incentive for federal management intervention has, in the past, been low. This, coupled with the complex governance arrangement involving several U.S. state governments and the Canadian federal government, has cast doubt upon private versus public rights and responsibilities when it comes to mitigating the effects of shoreline change (Kellor, 2003).
Share with your friends: |
