link to page 1 
October 23, 2017
U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission (IJC)
Overview
commissioners historically have been nominated about a
The International Joint Commission (IJC) was established
year following a new administration. Canadian
under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty (Treaty) between
commissioner terms usually vary from two to five years.
the United States and Canada. The purpose of the IJC is to
aid in the resolution and prevention of disputes between the
The IJC currently supervises 17 boards and task forces that
United States and Canada over uses of boundary waters,
oversee projects; these working groups draw upon the
including issues related to drinking water, commercial
expertise of around 300 representatives from academia,
shipping, hydroelectric power generation, agriculture,
government, and nonprofit organizations. The IJC actively
industry, recreational boating, and shoreline property
solicits input from all interested parties on any
(Figure 1). The IJC is a nonregulatory entity and makes
transboundary water and air quality issues that it is
nonbinding decisions on issues within its purview.
investigating and holds public hearings and invites public
Congressional interest in the IJC has focused on the IJC’s
comment before issuing a final report. The IJC is
scope of authority, its role in specific disputes, and funding
commonly assigned two types of tasks: references and
for the U.S. portion of IJC activities.
orders of approval, which are discussed below.
How the IJC Functions
Reference
The IJC functions as a nonpolitical research, advisory, and
A “reference” addresses a question or a matter of difference
mediation body for the two governments, which have
between the United States and Canada, with respect to
referred matters to it by mutual consent. Its decisions and
provisions of the 1909 Treaty found in Article IX or X. A
recommendations are the result of objective analysis, and
reference is usually submitted to the IJC by both countries,
are not intended to reflect U.S. or Canadian national
although it could come from just one country. If jointly
policies. Commissioners do not formally represent their
submitted, the reference contains specific questions for the
countries, and must declare in writing that they will be
IJC to answer and a time frame for a response. The IJC
impartial when carrying out their duties. The IJC needs a
generally appoints a board or task force to conduct
quorum of four to make decisions, and generally reaches
technical investigations to inform reference decisions.
decisions through consensus and not through formal votes.
Public hearings and other forms of consultation are held,
and a report with findings and recommendations is
The IJC has six commissioners: three are appointed by the
prepared. Once the IJC issues a report, the governments
U.S. President with the approval of the Senate. One
may request the IJC appoint a board to monitor progress in
commissioner from each country is selected as a chair; both
implementing that report’s recommendations. Although
serve concurrently. The U.S. commissioners do not serve a
reference recommendations are not binding, they are
fixed term; they serve at the pleasure of the President. New
usually accepted by the Canadian and U.S. governments.
Figure 1. U.S.-Canada Transboundary Watersheds
Source: CRS, modified from U.S. Geological Survey, at https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/4fb697b2e4b03ad19d64b47f.
Notes: The Boundary Waters Treaty covers the waters from the main shores of Canada and the United States that include the international
boundary between the two countries. This includes rivers, lakes, and connecting waterways, but not tributary waters into these areas. The IJC
covers boundary waters and sometimes addresses basin-wide issues.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission (IJC)
An example of a reference is the International Watershed
historically did not fully implement or respond to a large
Initiative (IWI), established in response to a 1998 joint
number of IJC recommendations. Some also contend that
reference requesting a framework for operating
the IJC’s investigative, reporting, and monitoring functions
international watershed boards to address water and
that lead to the recommendations are its most valuable
ecosystem issues on a watershed level. The reference
contribution. An illustration of this relates to Plan 2014,
contained several tasks for the IJC and direction to submit
which has been in focus due to flooding along the Lake
progress reports. Through a series of public consultations
Ontario shoreline. Plan 2014, as discussed earlier, was put
and inquiries, the IJC enhanced existing boards in
forth by the IJC and implemented by the United States and
transboundary watersheds and created new boards from
Canada in 2017. It aims to provide for more natural flows
existing ones.
that support shoreline ecosystems while continuing to
regulate flooding in Lake Ontario and its shorelines. Critics
Order of Approval
argue the Plan has led to increased flooding in the United
A government can submit an application seeking the
States, leading property owners to incur additional flood
approval of the IJC for proposed works or activities (such
damages and costs. Supporters of the Plan contend that it
as dams, diversions, or bridges) that would use, change
increases the health of coastal habitats, thereby improving
(with respect to water level), obstruct, or divert boundary
the economy of the area and enhancing the resiliency of
waters, with respect to Article III or IV of the Treaty. Once
natural shorelines. The IJC contends that the operations
a project application has been submitted, the IJC notifies
under the Plan did not significantly contribute to flooding
the public and creates a board or uses an existing board to
experienced in 2017, and that efforts guided by the Plan
review the application. The board analyzes the application
aimed to minimize flooding during precipitation in the area.
to determine whether the project should proceed and how it
should be operated. The IJC holds public hearings on the
Another potential issue is the level of funding the IJC
application and allows stakeholders to provide input either
receives to conduct its activities. IJC is funded by the
orally or in written statements. If the IJC decides to approve
United States and Canada, with expenses for projects and
a project with conditions, it will issue an Order of Approval
reports shared equally between the two countries (U.S.
(Order). The IJC also has the authority to amend an Order.
funding is in Table 1). Some contend for more funding to
conduct greater oversight over projects and actions in the
An example of an Order is the recently updated regulation
boundary waters. Others suggest that the IJC should fund
of water levels and flows in Lake Ontario and the St.
grant programs to support transboundary projects. Some
Lawrence River. In 1952, the United States and Canada
counter this proposal by contending that the authority to
filed an application to the IJC to build the Moses Saunders
finance projects should be limited to states and provinces.
Dam and for two electric companies to jointly construct and
Table 1. U.S. Funding for the IJC ($ in millions)
operate the facility. The application was approved in 1952
through an Order. Concurrent to the filing of the
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
application, a reference was submitted by both governments
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
to study whether outflows from Lake Ontario could be
regulated by the dam to achieve certain objectives. In 1963,
$7.66
$7.66
$7.51
$7.49
$7.50
the two governments approved Plan 1958D, which
Source: U.S. State Department Congressional Budget Justifications.
developed criteria to regulate flows through this dam. A
study by IJC found that the 1958D regulations harmed
Role of Congress
coastal wetland ecosystems leading to Plan 2014, which is a
Congress can have a direct role in the issues addressed by
new plan for determining flows through the dam. Plan 2014
the IJC. Congress could pass legislation that supports or
went into effect in January 2017, replacing Plan 1958D.
detracts from IJC’s recommendations on issues addressing
boundary waters. Congress also may play an indirect role in
Other IJC Activities
the IJC decisionmaking process. At times, Members of
In addition to resolving transboundary disputes under the
Congress have addressed issues related to IJC deliberations
Treaty, the IJC also helps implement the 1972 Great Lakes
by writing letters expressing their views to the
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) last updated in 2012,
commissioners, conducting oversight (e.g., holding
and other mandates and treaties. Under the GLWQA, the
hearings), and working with the U.S. Administration to
IJC assists the two governments by assessing program
jointly express their views on an issue. The United States
effectiveness, reporting on progress toward meeting
has the choice to implement many of the recommendations
GLWQA objectives, and strengthening public engagement.
posed by the IJC or work with Canada outside of the IJC if
both countries agree to do so. Congress can also weigh in
Potential Issues for Congress
on boundary water issues by directing agencies to address
The IJC largely makes nonbinding decisions for both
these issues separately from the IJC, through oversight or
countries to consider. Some contend that the nonbinding
legislation.
and nonregulatory nature of the IJC hampers its ability to
effectively address issues involving the boundary waters.
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Others maintain that the nonbinding nature of IJC
Marnie Kremer, Research Assistant
recommendations allows each country to decide how to best
IF10761
handle issues and retain sovereignty over its lands and
resources. Some observers have noted that U.S. agencies
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission (IJC)
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10761 · VERSION 3 · NEW