IJC study on Saint Mary–Milk River signals administrative tweaks and costly infrastructure options

Commissioner Lance Yuhee of the International Joint Commission (IJC) told a cross‑border water panel that a study board examining the 1921 Saint Mary–Milk River order will publish recommendations to governments after public meetings in August and a final IJC review at the end of September.

The study, Yuhee said, was set up to reassess how the century‑old order performs under modern climate variability and to include indigenous perspectives. “We set up a study board … [with] people who don’t have a stake in the game in that area, but who have knowledge, and they’re experts,” Yuhee said, describing technical teams, indigenous and public advisory groups and an independent reviewer assigned to vet the board’s work.

Why it matters: the Saint Mary–Milk system moves glacial and prairie runoff across the U.S.–Canada boundary into irrigated lands on both sides. The IJC study aims to identify administrative changes (procedural or regulatory) and infrastructure options that could maintain equitable apportionment and reduce the system’s vulnerability to earlier snowmelt and hotter, drier seasons.

The study highlights both procedural and physical problems. Yuhee told the panel the canal has lost conveyance capacity—about 150 cubic feet per second—because of sedimentation, a loss that “is a big deal” but costly to fix. He said the study has been modeling administrative‑rule changes and infrastructure alternatives to see what combinations of changes would better balance water distribution under changed runoff timing.

Panelists emphasized data and governance reforms. Yuhee urged better transboundary data harmonization so modeling can be consistent across jurisdictions; he said IJC, USGS and other agencies are working to align metrics and datasets. “Models aren’t gonna work if we don’t have good data,” he said.

The study process and next steps: the study board is preparing public briefings in August and will submit its recommendations to the IJC; the commission will forward any agreed changes to Global Affairs Canada and the U.S. Department of State for governments to consider implementation. Any administrative adjustments or infrastructure projects would still require government approval, permitting and funding decisions.

Quotable: Yuhee said the study could show that “we could change administrative procedures a little bit and would balance the water, get so everybody gets their fair share the way they’re supposed to,” while cautioning that major infrastructure fixes carry high price tags.

What the panel noted but did not decide: panelists described ongoing work on adjacent basins (for example, the Kootenay/Elk River study board addressing selenium from mining), and stressed that IJC reports are advisory—implementation requires government agreement. The session closed with a reminder that “rivers know no boundaries,” a point used by the moderator to underscore the transboundary nature of the problems and solutions.

Next procedural step: the study board’s public meetings in August, the IJC’s review, and any government deliberations after submission.