Warning: Others want our lake water

HOLLAND -- Michigan and other Midwest states must act quickly to prevent new diversions of Great Lakes water before thirsty, powerful Sun Belt states try to tap the massive waterways, a state senator said Monday.

State Sen. Patty Birkholz, R-Saugatuck, said the eight Great Lakes states and Congress need to approve a water protection compact signed by the region's governors in 2005.

The compact, also known as Annex 2001, would prevent most new diversions of Great Lakes water to areas outside the lakes' drainage basin. The compact must be approved by all eight Great Lakes states and Congress to take effect; to date, Minnesota is the only state to ratify the deal.

Advertisement

"There are a lot of thirsty states and nations that want our water," Birkholz said during a meeting on Great Lakes water issues sponsored by the Holland League of Women Voters. "As technology evolves and those states and nations become thirstier ... there are going to be more opportunities for them to come in and take our water."

Birkholz said she has talked to legislators from Sun Belt states, whom she would not identify, who "have plans to take our water."

"Don't kid yourselves," Birkholz told a crowd of about 80 people, "this is a threat."

The Great Lakes compact was developed in response to a Canadian company's 1998 plan to fill freighters with Great Lakes water and ship it to Asia.

The compact would require greater water conservation, tighten regulations on the use of Great Lakes water and prevent most new diversions. The one allowable diversion: Water bottling companies to ship an unlimited amount of Great Lakes water out of the basin, provided it is packaged in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons.

Environmental advocate Dave Dempsey said passing the compact would be a good step toward protecting Great Lakes water. But he said the 5.7-gallon container provision should be changed to prevent Great Lakes water from being further exploited by water bottling companies.

"We need to worry about thirsty states, thirsty nations and thirsty corporations that want to see Great Lakes water in containers," said Dempsey, a policy adviser to Clean Water Action and the author of "On the Brink: The Great Lakes in the 21st Century."

Michigan's 2006 law regulating water withdrawals also allowed unlimited amounts of water to be shipped out of the state in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons. Dempsey said the state law also needs to be changed to prevent a rush to mine Michigan's abundant groundwater resources.

Michigan's water withdrawal law evolved from the controversy over Nestle Water North America's water bottling project in Mecosta County. Nestle last year bottled 226 million gallons of Michigan groundwater under its Ice Mountain label; all of that water was pumped out of the Muskegon River watershed.

Grand Valley State University scientist Alan Steinman, who also was part of Monday's panel, said water bottling operations in Michigan are a drop in the bucket compared to other uses of Great Lakes water.

The city of Chicago diverts 2.1 billion gallons of water out of Lake Michigan each day, far more than Nestle bottles each year, said Steinman, director of GVSU's Annis Water Resources Institute in Muskegon. Many Michigan industries and farms use more water each year than Nestle, Steinman said.

Michigan as a whole only uses about 2.5 percent of the groundwater available on a daily basis, Steinman said. "There's plenty of water in this state," he said.

Dempsey agreed that water bottlers are not the most immediate threat to Great Lakes water resources. He said thirsty Midwest communities just outside the Great Lakes basin -- such as the growing Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha, Wis., which is trying to divert water from Lake Michigan -- pose an "imminent threat" to the lakes.