Why It Matters

What happens when an applicant violates an International Joint Commission (IJC) Order of Approval?

The IJC is a bi-national organization established between the United States and Canada to prevent and resolve disputes about the use and quality of boundary waters between the U.S. and Canada. A new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, updated September 30, weighs whether IJC recommendations should carry binding legal force, whether enforcement mechanisms for Orders of Approval are adequate, and what level of U.S. funding is appropriate.

The FY2027 budget request would maintain IJC funding at $10.9 million, matching the annual amount Congress appropriated from FY2023 through FY2026. By contrast, the Trump administration's FY2025 request had sought an increase for additional water quality, water level, and flow monitoring.

The Big Picture

The IJC's six commissioners, three appointed by the U.S. president with Senate approval and three by Canada's Governor in Council, are expected to act impartially and do not formally represent their governments. As of September, the IJC supervises 19 expert boards, studies, and committees.

Most IJC recommendations issued through the reference process are nonbinding. According to some prior commissioners, the two governments had never used the treaty's option to refer a question for a binding decision as of 2019, though other researchers concluded that most, but not all, recommendations had been accepted and acted upon as of 2020.

Orders of Approval, which govern physical works such as dams and diversions, are binding. However, the report states it is unclear how the IJC may respond if an applicant violates an order.

The Bottom Line

Congress's most direct levers over the IJC are appropriations and commissioner confirmations, and the report leaves open how violations of an Order of Approval would ultimately be addressed. Whether lawmakers move to codify binding recommendations, create enforcement authority for orders, or hold funding steady, the choices made in the current appropriations cycle will signal how seriously the U.S. intends to backstop a treaty framework governing shared North American waters for more than a century.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article