Great Lakes Blogger

Ohio close on compact, but...

UPDATE on post below.

I asked Jim Olson, who's fought a great fight on behalf of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, what he thought of the proposed Ohio compromise. Again, neither of us has read the proposed Ohio constitutional amendment:

The compromise amendment is a terrible direction for Ohio or anywhere.  The direction has been the other way.  Just how Ohio is treating the waters is unclear.  At the very least the amendment should reaffirm that all waters, including those listed, are a public resource that is managed by the State on behalf of and for the benefit of all citizens.  The way it reads, it implies the opposite:  that the waters identified are private and subject only to regulation like any private property.  This of course is like handing a public resource over to those who want to export it, so that they can resist state regulations for degradation or abuse under NAFTA and GATT, and claim the water for export under NAFTA and GATT for any use that does not violate such regulations.

 

It's a lousy balance.  Tips it toward likelihood of export and a loss for all citizens, businesses, property owners, and communities in Ohio.  The balance is already struck between the right to use water for reasonable use against public resource and public trust.  The public trust doctrine has never interfered with private reasonable use of water in connection with land, only its diversion or disposition to promote primarily a private purpose or gain.  Most common law cases acknowledge that the private right to reasonable use of waters sits side by side with the public trust and public uses protected by the public trust, and that the uses are basically correlative.  One cannot interfere with reasonable use of the other, except again for the diversion or export for private purpose  restriction which protects all private reasonable uses and the public trust within the state.

*****

As always, the meaning is best determined by reading the proposed constitutional amendment language. But to enact in a state constitution an exclusion from the public trust for certain classes of waters is to invite the privatization on a mass scale of water that feeds the Great Lakes. It appears highly risky at best.


The Ohio Senate unanimously agreed yesterday to put the question of water property rights directly before voters, breaking a logjam that long has blocked ratification of the multistate Great Lakes compact. Ohio is expected next week to become the seventh state to ratify the landmark agreement uniting eight states in opposition to diversion of Great Lakes water to other parched areas of the country.

Mr. Shaner said his group actively will support the amendment. He noted it will clarify that "these waters - groundwater, well water, or nonnavigable water as in a pond or tiny creek on someone's land - are not in the public trust. Nonetheless, the state retains the authority to regulate its use so that we can't have abuse, overuse, or degradation of those waters. It's a good balance.''

now here's a good idea

It's about time someone linked approval of water withdrawals to public values.

Manistee County commissioners recently added a resolution to their draft master plan aimed at protecting the county's surface and ground water resources by prohibiting withdrawals that "have no direct benefits to residents ... and which do not increase public safety, health or welfare."

"We want to keep away from bottling companies coming in or major withdrawals. I personally don't believe our Senate or Legislature has done a very good job ... protecting our waters," said Glenn Lottie, county commissioner.

nature and democracy (and the Great Lakes)

One of the most thoughtful and seasoned minds and voices in the Great Lakes region is Jane Elder. In Michigan and Wisconsin, with the Sierra Club and Biodiversity Project, and in many other venues Jane has shaped and seen a great deal of Great Lakes environmental progress. She's also observed how political and personal promises to the Lakes are generally not kept.

Jane is launching a new effort to pioneer methods of governance that cope with rapidly changing environmental conditions and capitalize on the will of the public for a Great Lakes system that we can pass on to our children and grandchildren with pride. The paragraphs below and at the link are the first steps down a path toward a community discussion on how to promote a new kind of Great Lakes governance that keeps pace with, or even gets ahead of, our changing Earth and human society. It's worth thinking about.

Over the last year I’ve been talking with many colleagues about these challenges, and have proposed that we organize a working group to provide a forum for wider discussion and collaborative work. We see the need for some serious thought and discussion as to how we link these challenges in governance and literacy to the growing body of scientific knowledge that continues to warn us of the fragile state of Earth’s ecological resilience. The outcome of such a dialogue (at least an initial outcome) could be to craft specific recommendations for new strategies in ecosystem governance and management, starting in the U.S., and potentially Canada.  We also see the need to develop pilot projects and identify opportunities for priority response in highly vulnerable ecosystems. We’re suggesting that a U.S./Canada Forum on Nature and Democracy could serve as a base and a catalyst for a dialogue on these and other challenging questions.

Minneapolis spending to promote its tap water

The source of the water is the Mississippi River, and after treatment it's as good as any water you can drink. Including commercialized, privatized bottled water.

is a $1.3 B environmental bond in Michigan's future?

The problem is real; and the cupboard is bare for most of the state's toxic cleanup funds.  No one appears to disagree on the need, just whether bonding (and resultant increased public debt) is the answer. Interesting that business seems more supportive of the approach than some in the environmental community.

LANSING — The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is laying groundwork for a $1.3 billion environmental bond proposal that would include money to clean up and redevelop contaminated sites, protect and restore Great Lakes water quality and preserve land.

the Congressman from Dow

Anyone wondering why Michigan Congressman Dave Camp eviscerated EPA Region V Administrator Mary Gade when the Bush Administration forced her to resign recently can get one good answer here.

water thoughts in Wisconsin and Michigan

An advocate challenges Michigan's House to shun special interests and legislate for long-term water protection this week:

Today, the Michigan House has a chance to lead Michigan into a more secure water future. The House should approve bills reported out by its Great Lakes and Environment Committee that provide another degree of protection against overuse of our rivers, lakes and streams while ensuring the public maintains control of our water.

And Wisconsin interests reflect on the newly-ratified Great Lakes compact:

Marvin Defoe of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa compares Lake Superior's life-giving properties to the amniotic fluid surrounding an unborn child in a mother's womb.

"That's how precious that water is, and we have to be careful with it," said Defoe, who also serves as a councilman for his tribe. "And through that nurturing, it provides life, life to whatever lives around the water. The lake holds no biases toward who is to protect it, and holds no bias to who drinks it."

MN enacts ballast water control requirement

In the final hours of this year's legislative session over the weekend, Minnesota lawmakers approved ballast water management requirements designed to curb the spread of invasive species. Whether or not the requirements will do much will depend on a close analysis of the language (below), but it's a clear sign of growing impatience with the 20-year delay since the zebra mussel onslaught -- and the 160-plus invasives in the Lakes, many of them the result of ballast water dumping.

Download mn_2008_ballast_water_legislation.doc

strengthen the proposed Michigan water protection laws

Eric Sharp began reporting on environmental issues for the Detroit Free Press in the 1970s. He is still one of the most thoughtful commentators on the outdoors in the entire Michigan media.

Both the House and Senate bills desperately need to be amended to provide more protection to smaller streams and the headwaters of rivers. Withdrawing two million gallons of water a day from the Detroit River is a drop in a bucket, but pulling that same amount of water from a smaller trout stream could wreak havoc.

Something that bothers me is the apparent assumption by some people that any company that wants to make a profit by exploiting the publicly owned natural resources of Michigan has a guaranteed right do to do so.

What’s more valuable – overpriced plastic bottles of water no better than the stuff that most people can get out of their kitchen taps or a river that offers unlimited recreational, aesthetic and emotional value to the people of the state?

MN legislative wrap up on conservation

Minnesota's part-time legislature finished its work for 2008 Sunday night. The last bits of good news were $20 million for a new state park at Lake Vermillion and $70 million to move forward on a light rail line linking downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul. Coupled with legislative placement on the November ballot of a constitutional amendment earmarking $300 million a year for conservation, clean water and heritage, that's a great funding year.

Disappointments included defeat of a clean cars bill and vetoes by Gov. Pawlenty of a toxic toys ban and paint stewardship legislation.

Download leg_passes_central_corridor_lakevermilion_nr.doc