Great Lakes Blogger

make water conservation a goal

Something we can all agree on.

a note on Congressman Bart Stupak

The Congressman from Michigan's Upper Peninsula is one of a few U.S. House members who voted against the Great Lakes Compact -- resisting importuning from mainstream environmental groups who embraced it.

The Congressman from Michigan's Upper Peninsula has opposed a toxic sulfide mine near Lake Superior in his district -- while mainstream environmental groups are not opposing it.

So what does his (weak) opponent say? 

"Bart has always, in my eyes, stood on the sides of the environmentalists," Casperson said, even when they're being "unreasonable and unrealistic."

Bart Stupak is an old-fashioned conservationist, and pragmatist. But he also has a feel for the land and water of northern Michigan that others might want to emulate, or at least respect.

CORRECTION:      The above post incorrectly says mainstream environmental groups are not opposing the U.P. sulfide mine. Most are opposing it. Apologies.

It's interesting, however, to note that Stupak's opponent claims he "helped author strong standards to bring the mine and about 150 associated jobs to the area while also protecting the environment." The groups referred to in the post supported the law that contains those supposedly strong standards, which makes siting the mine possible. Michigan would have done better to pass a law like Wisconsin's -- essentially a moratorium until and unless sulfide mining can be proven safe.

Council of Canadians on Compact

Great Lakes Compact must protect against all diversions, says Council of Canadians

The Council of Canadians is demanding that the Canadian government intervene to secure an amendment to the Great Lakes Compact which received U.S. Congressional approval yesterday. The organization is calling for an elimination of the loophole that would grant bottled water corporations unlimited access to Great Lakes water in 20 litre containers.

Toledo Blade piece on compact ratification

Probably the best collection of divergent views of any piece, including comments from the Toledo and Cleveland members of the House who voted "no."

Print and save for historical purposes -- like the next 2-4 years. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

banning diversion (not)

Can we at least get the headlines correct? This one is simply inaccurate.

"House approves Great Lakes compact banning diversions outside region." It is better than many other headlines, which say "Compact bans diversions." The Great Lakes Compact sets up rules under which water diversions are banned unless:

* They go to counties or cities straddling the Great Lakes watershed -- meaning a water rush is now on in SE Wisconsin, and before long in Ohio.

* They are made a "product" by being put in container. You can divert all the water you want from the Great Lakes; just put it in a package and mark it up 1000%, keep the profit and send the water anywhere in the world.

reaction

Today's approval of the Great Lakes Compact by the U.S. House is the culmination of a lot of work by a lot of good people. Congratulations to them for their their commitment to the health of the Lakes and all of us who depend on them.

Unfortunately, it may leave the Lakes more rather than less vulnerable by confirming in U.S. law that Great Lakes water is a product once placed in containers. Let's hope for the best.

It's a shame that advocates of the Compact, some with the best intentions, were not willing to secure Congressman Stupak's yes vote by the change of House committee language to assure the Congressional intent not to consent to commercialization of Great Lakes water for private sale and profit. That would have been worth a few days' delay.

an alternative view of what today's Compact ratification means

Courtesy of Congressman Dennis Kucinich:

"The language redefines water that is in containers of 5.7 gallons or less, as a product, not a natural resource managed by the public for the benefit of the public.  It therefore exempts bottled water from the ban on bulk water withdrawals.  In other words, in order to export a seemingly endless amount of water and make a handsome profit from it, you need only to put it in bottles instead of trucks or enormous tankers.

“Once Great Lakes water is legally defined as a commodity instead of a public resource, the door to private gain at the expense of public benefit is pried open a few inches.  After that comes the effort to swing it wide open.  Laws or regulations that may be designed to protect an essential natural resource like the Great Lakes can be challenged in court by businesses because they are restricting trade.

“For example, Ohio could decide that excessive withdrawals by a bottled water company were irreparably damaging the Great Lakes and the state could act to reduce or stop the withdrawals.  The bottled water company, knowing the water was a product and not a public resource, would be able to use a trade agreement like NAFTA to challenge Ohio’s efforts to protect the Lakes.  In fact, NAFTA gives companies the right to sue governments in situations like this for future profits they might lose.  That would have the chilling effect of discouraging all governments from trying to protect the Great Lakes.  Indeed, once water is a legal “product,” even the part of the Compact that provides worthwhile protection of the Lakes could be challenged.  We could be left with private control over much of a life-giving resource.

House passes Compact, news releases proliferate

U.S. House Approves Great Lakes Compact

Sierra Club Applauds Congress in Protecting a National Treasure

U.S. Congress Approves Historic Protections for Great Lakes

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Wildlife Federation and Alliance for the Great Lakes applaud the U.S. Congress for sealing historic protections for the Great Lakes that have been a decade in the making.

CONGRESS APPROVES GREAT LAKES COMPACT

Governors Applaud Historic Action to Protect the Lakes

 

Chicago, Illinois—The Great Lakes Governors today applauded members of Congress for boldly acting to protect the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin.  Specifically, members of the U.S. House of Representatives led by Congressmen John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan), James L. Oberstar (D-Minnesota), Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Michigan) and Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) passed a joint resolution providing consent to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. 

check the fine print

"Ban Near on Diverting the Great Lakes," headlines the NY Times.

Subhead should be: "But Commercial Exports of Great Lakes Water for Private Profit Sanctioned."

do it right

There is apparently fear in some quarters that asking questions in Congress about the Great Lakes Compact dooms it. Any proposed legislation of this significance that "must pass now" without fundamental concerns being answered harbors its own danger.

The Compact wasn't voted on yesterday for the simple reason that a handful of members of Congress want a paragraph or two changed in a House committee report to make it clear and sure that the Congress is not consenting to commercialization of Great Lakes water. That's hardly a major indulgence on behalf of 18% of the world's surface fresh water.