a 'minor' objection misinterpreted

This Grand Rapids Press editorial is off-key in at least one respect:

The historic nature of the agreement, and the new protections it would provide, make the concerns raised by some members of Congress all the more puzzling. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, has objected that the compact allows bottled water to leave the basin. Individual state laws can still regulate withdrawals for bottled water and other purposes, just as Michigan has done. That minor objection is no reason to oppose the major progress represented by the compact.

First, Rep. Stupak has not said he opposes the Compact. And most advocates concerned about the giant, not 'minor' (as in unlimited) Compact exemption for commercialized water are calling for a clarification in the Congressional consent resolution that the Compact does not abrogate public trust protections or otherwise promote water as private property -- they are not 'opposing' the Compact.

Second, and most important, the Press just doesn't get the fact that all the 'major progress' supposedly provided by Compact protections may be negated by this unscientific, non-resource-based water commercialization loophole. It's a poison pill, GRP, not a little technicality. Do your homework.

The song of celebration the Press refers to was authored, in part, by the commercial water industry.

Comments

[greenmullet]

Dave
I've spoken to Stupak and he has said he's opposed to the compact. Sorry.

[Gary Wilson]

The Green Bay Press-Gazette gets it right by calling for a response to Rep. Stupak's questions about the Compact, before action is taken by the full House.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080811/GPG06/808110538/1269