TRAVERSE CITY -- An interstate water compact designed to prevent thirsty regions from tapping the Great Lakes could be sunk if legislators seeking changes in Ohio and Wisconsin are successful, supporters of the deal said Friday.
Influential lawmakers in both states are proposing last-minute revisions that critics say might unravel the pact, crafted by governors of the eight Great Lakes states in grueling negotiations that lasted nearly five years.
"They say they're making minor changes, but in fact they're blowing up the agreement," said Noah Hall, a Wayne State University law professor who advised the governors.
Not so, replied Mike Huebsch, speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. "We are making sure the Great Lakes compact is done right," he said.
The pact, signed by the governors in 2005, needs approval from all eight legislatures and Congress to take effect. Supporters fear prospects will be less favorable if ratification is delayed until after the 2010 census, which will give Southern and Western states more seats in the U.S. House.
Minnesota and Illinois have endorsed the deal. Lawmakers in Indiana and New York have passed ratification bills, which await their governors' signatures. Bills have cleared the Pennsylvania House and await floor votes in the Michigan House and Senate, where they have strong support.
The Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec have approved separate but similar agreements.
The compact is being sharply debated in Ohio, where some fear it would erode landowners' water use rights, and in Wisconsin, where critics say it unfairly would prevent communities just outside the drainage basin from using the Great Lakes.
It would prohibit removing water from the basin, except within counties or communities that straddle the boundary line. It would require each state to regulate water use and develop conservation programs.
Backers say it would help the region fight off attempts to ship or pipe water to dry areas.
Any substantive changes would need approval of all the states, which could mean reopening negotiations. The Council of Great Lakes Governors opposes that, executive director David Naftzger said.
"The compact reflects a delicate compromise between varied and diverse interests," he said.
Resuming bargaining would "do little but open a can of worms," said Chuck Ardo, spokesman for Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.
"If any state does anything different than the other states, then it's basically dead," said Rep. Tom Huntley, who sponsored the compact in Minnesota.
Govs. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Eliot Spitzer of New York oppose changes, spokesmen said. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana will sign the document as approved by the legislature, his office said.
The campaign to rework the compact is led by Republicans, although some GOP lawmakers favor the compact as written.
It would allow any state to veto water diversions within counties that straddle the basin line. Huebsch, the Wisconsin speaker, and Ohio Senate President Bill Harris -- both Republicans -- want to permit such diversions if approved by a majority of the states.
The issue is crucial in Wisconsin, where the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha wants to tap into Lake Michigan for drinking water. Waukesha is about 15 miles west of the lake but just outside the natural divide, although it is part of a straddling county.
"Wisconsin deserves better than putting the needs of growing businesses and communities at the mercy of neighboring states," he said.
But Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, said Huebsch and other Assembly Republicans "know this is a fake issue." Federal law already lets any Great Lakes governor veto proposed diversions, he said.
In Ohio, the House and Senate -- both led by Republicans -- have feuded for two years over a provision declaring waters within the Great Lakes basin "precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the states."
Harris and allies contend that would trample private property rights by designating groundwater as publicly owned. They have introduced a different version.
"We don't want to risk giving away -- or having Washington give away -- Ohio's water rights," said Sen. Tim Grendell.
Supporters of the current version insist it safeguards property rights.
They say the alternative proposed in Ohio also appears to let each state withdraw as much water from the lakes as presently diverted from Lake Michigan at Chicago. That would drive levels down even further, said Molly Flanagan of the National Wildlife Federation.
Chicago is allowed to divert about 2.1 billion gallons daily under a longstanding U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It's a sore point for the other states but was debated at length during the negotiations among the governors, as were the other issues critics are raising, Hall said.
"Just like in a marriage, it's not good to keep bringing up old fights that were resolved," he said.
------
Associated Press writers Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., Deanna Martin in Indianapolis, Mark Scolforo in Harrisburg, Pa., Martiga Lohn in St. Paul, Minn., and Michael Virtanen in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.
Print this story
E-mail this story
