And at least one group, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, fears other states might use that power to steal Wisconsin projects.

But supporters of the compact said the argument is just an attempt to kill the compact. They argue that other states already have veto power because of a federal law passed in 1986.

“Everybody’s looking for assurances in this compact that we’re not giving anyone unilateral authority to hamper economic development,” said Steve Baas, government affairs director for the MMAC. “You want to make sure the compact can’t be abused and the veto power can’t be used to say, ‘Ha ha, let’s make Wisconsin less competitive.’”

The Great Lakes Compact would regulate uses of Great Lakes water in areas outside of the lakes’ water basins. Water within the lakes’ basins flows back to the Great Lakes; water outside flows to other bodies of water.

As drafted, the compact gives any governor of any of the eight states bordering the Great Lakes the ability to deny a request to use water outside of the basin. So, for instance, if Wisconsin wants to use the water for a development in Waukesha, which is outside the basin, the governor of Michigan could reject that use.

But since the 1986 federal Water Resources Development Act already gives Great Lakes states that veto power, environmental groups questioned the sincerity of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and MMAC for criticizing the compact on that subject.

“It is not an aspect of the compact that can be renegotiated because it’s required by federal law,” said Jodi Habush-Sinykin, counsel to the Midwest Environmental Advocates. “What that reads as is, ‘We are going to oppose the compact because that is not negotiable.’”

Keith Reopelle, program director for Clean Wisconsin, agreed.

“It’s, how do I say this, really a somewhat disingenuous argument because it makes it sound like this compact is bad for Wisconsin,” he said. “It’s either disingenuous or they’re ignorant, and I don’t think they’re that ignorant. I think that they know that what they’re asking for is somewhat impossible.”

David Naftzger, executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, said renegotiating the one-state veto isn’t going to happen. He also said the compact would create new standards to give businesses and communities more certainty as to how they would be judged.

“The compact will not be reopened for renegotiation,” he said. “What this compact provides is more certainty, more clarity and a better decision-making process.”

Scott Manley, director of environmental policy for WMC, said there is a significant difference between the Water Resources Development Act and the compact. The federal act lets states define a water “diversion,” or use of water outside of the basin.

So states can decide which water uses would be subject to review by other states. But the compact defines diversion, and its definition is different and more inclusive than what Wisconsin’s been using, Manley said.

And, either way, the WMC prefers projects be judged by a simple majority vote without any veto authority.

“What’s a one-state veto when Michigan’s governors, on a bipartisan basis, have said Waukesha will never get water?” Manley said.

Manley also disagreed that the veto authority in the compact wasn’t open for debate. All eight states must pass local legislation ratifying the compact for it to take effect, and Manley said the agreement wouldn’t go anywhere if Wisconsin sticks to its guns on opposing the veto. So far, only Illinois and Minnesota have passed state laws ratifying the compact, and they adopted the one-state veto.

“I think it’s a little disingenuous for someone to say we’re not going to change the compact,” he said. “If Wisconsin says we’re going to get rid of the one-state veto in the compact, then other state legislatures that have to ratify this would have to make that same decision.

“It’s a bit naïve for anybody to think eight legislatures will be in 100 percent agreement. You just need to look at it pragmatically and say that if we want to have agreement between eight states, we have to do what it takes to reach agreement.”

But the southern states are already mobilizing on a rewrite of federal water regulations, noted Peter McAvoy, vice president of environmental health for the Sixteenth Street Community Health Center in Milwaukee. Delays in passing the compact open the window of opportunity for other states to write the rules, he said.

“The southern states are now starting to push for a national water policy,” he said. “If they get there first, we are really in a lot of trouble in the Great Lakes region.”