|
Great Lakes governors unveil tighter water plan WATER USE: The revised plan to regulate Great Lakes water prohibits most diversions. BY JOHN MYERS NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Great Lakes governors have tightened their plan to regulate water
diversions, hoping to lure Canadian and environmental support for an
international agreement.
The revised plan, unveiled Thursday, tightens the spigot on the governors' original water use plan announced last summer.
The changes were made after thousands of comments said the original
plan didn't go far enough to stop diversions out of the region or to
promote water conservation within the region.
While last year's version only limited diversions out of the region,
the new version effectively bans diversions, with limited exceptions.
The new plan also calls for the eight Great Lakes states and two
Canadian provinces to adopt common standards governing water use within
the states and increases commitments to reduce water use and bolster
conservation in the Great Lakes watershed. It further recognizes tribal
rights and involvement.
The plan allows exceptions for diversion to communities outside the
Great Lakes watershed but within counties that lie at least partly in
the Great Lakes basin.
Emily Green, director of the Sierra Club's Great Lakes Program, said
her group has suggested additional changes but that the revised version
is much better than last year's.
"This version is effectively a prohibition on diversions while last
year's version set out steps on how water could be diverted. And this
version has a lot more emphasis on responsible water use and
conservation," Green said.
"Communities not far outside the region already are experiencing
water shortages and water quality problem because they didn't live
within their means. We don't want that to happen here," Green said.
"And we don't want to have to send water to places that didn't live
within their means. We shouldn't ever send water so there can be golf
courses in the desert."
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, co-chairman of the Council of Great Lakes
Governors, said in a statement releasing the plan that it was tightened
to accommodate Great Lakes region residents who consider the lakes a
special resource to protect. "... their voices have been heard loud and
clear," Doyle said.
But others said the new version still doesn't go far enough to
protect water from being taken out of the region. Melissa Scanlon,
director of Madison-based Midwest Environmental Advocates, said one
little-known provision in the draft agreement with Canadian provinces
makes an exception allowing unlimited diversions of bottled water.
"It's a terrible precedent to treat bottled water differently," she
said. "This provision is buried and we don't think a lot of people are
going to notice it. But it needs to be dropped."
After reaching accord on the principles of a water-protection plan
in 2001 -- the so-called Annex 2001 agreements -- the Council of Great
Lakes Governors last summer released a blueprint for putting the plan
to work as an interstate compact, and as an international agreement
with Canadian provinces that border the lakes.
The original draft didn't prohibit diversions, but imposed limits on
diversions outside the Great Lakes basin. It still allowed projects to
pump more than 1 million gallons per day out of the region with some
restrictions.
After several public hearings, including one in Duluth in October,
plus 10,000 written comments, it was clear to the governors that their
plan needed work. The original draft was doomed when officials from
Quebec, Ontario and the Canadian federal government said it lacked
adequate protections. Several American Indian tribal leaders also
panned the agreement, saying they hadn't been given enough input.
The new version could be reworked again after the 60-day public
comment period. Eventually, a final version will be sent for all eight
governors and two provincial premiers to sign.
Even then, however, the water plan will be far from law. To make it
a viable interstate compact, all eight state legislatures must approve
the deal -- without amendment -- and then it must pass Congress, also
without changes. That could be well into 2006, or later, if at all.
To become a truly international agreement, Ontario and Quebec officials also must sign on.
|