Editorial: Plug Lakes compact loophole

September 28, 2008 09:39 am

—

It took 53 years, but the Great Lakes states finally have a federal mandate to prevent massive diversions of Great Lakes water -- such as to states in the arid west and southwest and the corn and wheat belts of the plains.

But there's a catch that must be addressed.

The U.S. House passed the Great Lakes Compact last week, and President Bush has said he will sign it. The Senate passed the measure in August.

The compact bars countries or states that do not abut the lakes from tapping into the lakes from their natural drainage basin with few exceptions. It also requires states to regulate their own large-scale water use and promote conservation. Two Canadian provinces that include Great Lakes shoreline have adopted similar restrictions.

Even as advocates were celebrating its passage, however, at least two people were warning that the compact, as welcome as it has been, has a potentially fatal flaw and must be fixed.

For years now Traverse City environmental attorney Jim Olson has been warning that because a portion of the compact refers to water as a "product," it opens the door to large-scale water sales, no matter what the rest of the document says.

The loophole allows water to be exported outside the Great Lakes basin in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons or in larger containers if the water is incorporated into other products; examples include steel or beer.

As an example, Olson points to Nestle Waters North America, which pumps more than 200 gallons of water per minute (313,000 gallons per day, 11 million a year) from four wells in Mecosta County and sells it all over the country, mostly in bottles much smaller than 5.7 gallons. Olson represented Mecosta residents who sued to stop Nestle's plans.

The key, Olson says, is that water that is collected or pumped to produce a product -- or as a product -- with the intent of being sold is not subject to the prohibitions on diversions in the compact.

Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat who represents the state's sprawling 1st District in Congress, has the same concerns. Stupak says the loophole reference would allow Great Lakes water to be subject to the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade pacts.

Despite the warnings from Olson and Stupak, however, the issue has not been adequately addressed, which should be a red flag in itself. Olson has said it has never been adequately explained where the loophole language came from or who inserted it into the document.

This cannot be allowed to stand. Congress must address that wording and ensure that the document does what it says it does, and is not subject to fine-print interpretations that open the spigots. Stupak has asked for wording to be added to the effect that "our water is not for sale," and that commercialization of water is exactly what the compact was created to prevent.

Congress' failure to do so would be, on its face, a sure sign that there are other agendas and other agents at work here. If it is clearly understood that the intent of the compact is to prevent diversions, Congress and the state should be anxious to plug up any holes.

Eight Great Lakes states spent four years in talks to hammer out the compact, starting some 50 years after Congress created the Great Lakes Commission to deal with such issues. Negotiations included testimony and input from businesses, scientists and environmentalists; after all that work, the compact must be fixed so it does what it was intended to do.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.