Published: November 20, 2008 09:50 am      

Editorial: Close loophole in Lakes pact

For years environmental attorney Jim Olson has been a voice in the wilderness.

Long before the Great Lakes states (including Michigan) and Congress approved the Great Lakes Compact, Olsen was warning that wording included in the final version of the pact created a massive loophole that would allow Great Lakes water to be considered a commercial product and sold as a commodity.

His warnings were often met with a shrug. Those writing the compact language disputed his interpretation. For many environmentalists and others, the most important task was simply to get the compact passed by the legislatures of the Great Lakes states, signed by the various governors, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

So an honest reading of the document that raises concerns even among laymen must be addressed.

While the compact generally prohibits removing water from the lakes or their tributaries for use outside the lakes' natural drainage basin, individual states can decide to allow bulk exports in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons.

The prohibition on diversions does not apply to water used in products like beverages and food. The pact defines "product" as something "intended for intermediate or end use consumers."

Olson fears that provision makes water itself a product, converting it from a public resource to a private commodity.

Both exceptions seem tailor-made for the bottled water industry. A limit of 5.7 gallons is no big hurdle. While that's no tanker-truck full, 5.7 gallons is a lot of water. At 8.34 pounds per gallon, that's a hefty 47 pounds -- just about the limit for one person to load or unload on a truck or off a production line.

Others say Olson is all wet. An official with the Council of Great Lakes Governors said the compact also says water "in its natural state such as in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, or water basins is not a product."

So why the conflicting language?

U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, who agrees with Olson, said he is considering a joint resolution to express congressional intent that Great Lakes water not be commercialized. Changing the pact itself is unlikely, he said.

So what's the problem? If the wording in question can be interpreted in more than one way and if there are honest disagreements about the legal ramifications, why not ensure the diversions can't happen? A bit of work now could solidify the compact for 100 years.

A coalition of environmental groups this week kicked off a campaign to secure the loopholes. Let your congressman and U.S. Senator know where you stand.