Commentary
It’s one thing to tell thirsty folks outside the region that Great Lakes water is off limits. That’s easy.
The region did that in 2008 when the Great Lakes Compact became law.
But it’s quite another to hold yourself accountable and actually conserve water, especially when it’s in abundance here. In fact, the law requires us to conserve.
And that’s what we agreed to do when we embraced the compact.
In that summer of 2008 compact stories were prevalent not only in the regional media but in national publications too. It was all the buzz as Great Lakes states were on the cusp of demonstrating the will to prevent diversions of water to places like Arizona and Asia.
Inconvenient facts like the loophole to allow export of bottled water and a carve out for Waukesha, Wis. — which by geography and common sense shouldn’t have access to Lake Michigan water — were shunted aside for the benefit of what the compact would bring. (More on Waukesha in the coming weeks.)
Approved by eight states, Congress and with President George W. Bush’s signature, the compact became law.
Mission accomplished, right?
No! Not even close.
Lesser known but arguably more important than preventing diversions to Las Vegas, which were never likely, is that the compact requires the states to develop water conservaton plans by 2010 and implement them by 2013.
In other words, now.
How’s it going?
Michigan’s “weak” plan
Michigan sprinted out of the gate and passed its conservation laws at the same time it approved the compact. There was a complex and heated battle between competing plans in the legislature but the final product was closer to the weaker of the two proposals.
At the same time Michigan proudly touted and began using a new assessment tool to determine the sustainability of a water withdrawal. Over-reliance on technology is risky but knowledgeable professionals endorsed it so, que sera. But the relatively small amount of funding the technology requires is now on life-support as budgets have been cut.
In other words, Michigan’s will to conserve and preserve its water supply is already waning three scant years after middling regulations were passed and it told the world what a great device it had.
Writing in the Michigan Bar Journal, attorney and water adviser to the National Wildlife Federation Sara Gosman said this about Michigan’s conservation efforts under the compact:
“The conservation provisions… are weak and arguably do not meet the state’s commitment under the compact as of the 2010 deadline.”
Gosman summarized Michigan’s efforts by saying unless funding is restored to assess withdrawal requests “the state’s entire implementation of the compact and agreement are at risk.”
Ohio stuck in the past
And now comes Ohio which makes Michigan’s “weak” efforts look stellar.
The Buckeye state is just now dealing with Great Lakes conservation legislation and the news isn’t good. The Columbus Dispatch reports that pending bills “would raise the amount of water that could be drawn from Lake Erie without government review or a permit.”
No, that wasn’t a typo. “Raise” as in increase, not conserve.
Ohio’s proposal facilitates the use of more Lake Erie water than is currently allowed. And the Dispatch reports that the Ohio plan is more liberal than that of any other Great Lake state or province that touches Lake Erie.
That’s Lake Erie, the shallowest and most vulnerable of all the Great Lakes.
Why would they do that? You probably know the answer. To facilitate economic development, of course.
On its website the non-profit Ohio Environmental Council says Ohio’s approach is not science-based as required by the compact and the bills “breach the spirit and the letter of the compact and leave Ohio vulnerable to lawsuits and litigation costs.”
Toss in a plan by Milwaukee to provide discounts on water rates to businesses that re-locate and it appears that we just don’t get it.
We’re supposed to be conserving water, not marketing it.
What will we do?
In working for and passing the Great Lakes Compact we charged ourselves with the responsibility of conserving the greatest supply of fresh surface water on the Earth.
And now we’re going to blow the opportunity to protect this resource because we won’t provide minimal funding to support a withdrawal assessment tool?
Or we’re going to cave to weak Ohio politicians who use the jobs versus the environment canard as a crutch for their lack of vision?
I wasn’t the biggest fan when the compact passed in 2008. How, I thought, could the region sign-off on a water law for the ages and allow it to have a special interest loophole for one industry, bottled water.
Bottled water could easily be a Webster antonym for water conservation.
And had we lost our moral compass? No water for truly needy regions but plenty for Nestle.
But that’s in the past and we now get another chance to earn our conservation stripes. However we’re not off to a good start.
I’ve always said that when it comes to draining the Great Lakes the enemy is us, not parched regions in the south and west.
Recent events indicate I may be right.