U.S. Water News Online
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- After four years of talks, negotiators have reached a deal aimed at preventing outsiders from raiding Great Lakes water and encouraging more efficient use of the coveted resource within the region.
"There were many difficult issues that required compromise, but a consensus has been reached,'' said David Naftzger, executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors.
The agreement was motivated largely by fears that states in the booming -- and arid -- Southwest will try tapping into the lakes, which hold 90 percent of the nation's fresh surface water, as their populations and political clout grow.
Governors and premiers of the eight states and two Canadian provinces adjoining the lakes agreed in 2001 to develop a legal framework for keeping their waters inside the drainage basin. Staffers have been working on details ever since.
The final version has been submitted to the governors and premiers, who are expected to sign it during a meeting Dec. 13 in Milwaukee. State legislatures and Congress will be asked to approve a binding compact carrying out the accord.
Because the states cannot make treaties with foreign governments, they signed a separate, nonbinding agreement with the provinces, which are expected to implement the compact's provisions on their own.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the agreement, which would outlaw most new or increased diversions of water -- including groundwater, inland lakes and rivers as well as the Great Lakes -- from the basin.
Exceptions could be made for communities and counties straddling the basin's boundary if they cannot meet their needs from other sources or through conservation. Such diversions could be only for public water supplies, and excess water would have to be returned to the basin.
Any of the states could veto a diversion to a straddling county.
Regulation of water use within the basin would be left up to each state and province, in keeping with standards designed to protect the ecosystem. They would be required to adopt conservation programs.
They also would set their own policies on bottling water from the Great Lakes region, a particularly contentious issue.
Many environmentalists say bottling water and selling it outside the basin is no less a diversion than shipping it away in tankers or through pipes. It sets a precedent for treating water as an economic commodity that could be privatized instead of a public resource available to all, they say.
Bottlers contend their water is no different that soft drinks, beer or any other food product containing water and shouldn't be regulated as a diversion.
The proposed agreement describes the basin's waters as "precious public natural resources shared and held in trust'' by the region's governments.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm imposed a moratorium in May on new or expanded bottled water operations in Michigan until the Legislature enacts a water withdrawal law.
That followed the state's issuance of a permit for Nestle Waters North America Inc. to buy water from the city of Evart for bottling at a plant in Mecosta County. The permit required that the water be sold only within the Great Lakes basin, prompting a lawsuit from the company.
Ontario's natural resources minister, David Ramsay, said he would discuss the Great Lakes agreement with representatives of Canadian industry, municipalities and environmental groups.
"Once we get their input then we'll make a final decision whether Ontario is going to sign on or not,'' Ramsey told Canadian Press.
Representatives of two environmental groups praised the agreement although they didn't get everything they wanted.
By ratifying it, the region will be "putting our own house in order and protecting the waters from diversions and misuse,'' said Molly Flanagan of the National Wildlife Foundation.
"It's better than the status quo, which means it's better for the Great Lakes,'' said Cheryl Mendoza of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.
George Kuper, president of the Council of Great Lakes Industries, said the latest version of the agreement looked better than previous ones. But he said his group needed to study the fine print before deciding whether to endorse it.
"It focuses appropriately on diversions. It seems to leave the sovereignty of the states intact so they're responsible for managing in-basin use and conservation,'' Kuper said. "I think there's a lot of common sense there.''
Return to the U.S. Water News' Archives page Or Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com
*Your Name:
*Your Email:
*Friend's Email:
Use a comma to separate e-mail addresses:
*Your Comments:
Hi, I thought you might like to read this article.
*Required Fields