Governors of the eight Great Lakes states are considering a series ofproposals intended to keep the region’s water in the five Great Lakes. The plan by the Council of Great Lakes Governors would make it a lotharder for private firms or governments to sell water to anyone outsidethe region. But first, the governors need to convince two Canadianprovincial governments and a handful of environmental groups that theproposals are tough enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s BobKelleher reports from Duluth, Minnesota:
Transcript
Governors of the eight Great Lakes states are considering a series of proposals
intended to keep the region’s water in the five Great Lakes. The plan by the Council of
Great Lakes Governors would make it a lot harder for private firms or governments to
sell water to anyone outside the region. But first, the governors need to convince two
Canadian provincial governments and a handful of environmental groups that the
proposals are tough enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bob Kelleher reports
from Duluth, Minnesota.
Great Lakes residents were alarmed two years ago when a private company announced
plans to sell shiploads of Lake Superior water to customers in Asia. Few would have
missed the water. But if the plan had gone through, it could have established a precedent
for water sales… some of which might be a lot more elaborate than a few shiploads at a
time.
Since then, Canada’s two Great Lakes Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have banned any
water diversions from one watershed to another . essentially restricting any draw on
water from the Great Lakes to uses within the Great Lakes Basin. United States law is
less stringent . but it does require all eight Great Lakes Governors to sign off on any
bulk exports or diversions from the U-S side of the watershed.
The International Joint Commission – a bi-national body that works on water disputes
between the U-S and Canada – asked both countries to draw up a uniform set of
regulations on water use and diversions. The U-S Governors have responded.
It’s not as easy as it sounds to block water sales. Under the North American Free Trade
Agreement, water that’s been processed . like bottled water . could be considered a
commercial product open to free trade. U-S States are also limited in their ability to stop
water trade under U-S Interstate Commerce regulations. A business could challenge
attempts to stop it from selling legally obtained water.
But there is a method to circumvent free trade and commerce rules, according to Jeff
Edstrom, a Senior Planner with the Council Of Great Lakes Governors –
“Under free trade laws, and under U-S federal law, and U-S Federal court
rulings, you can protect the water as long as it is to protect natural resources.”
According to the Governors, their proposal would protect, conserve, restore and
improve the water and water dependent natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin. And
they say it would make it a lot more difficult to sell large quantities of water to the
highest bidder. But some diversions would be allowed, with limited review, if they’re
less than one million gallons a day and meet other criteria. Edstrom says the exemption
would be used when people outside the lake’s basins need fresh water with no other
feasible alternative.
“For instance, if you’ve got a contaminated water supply in a community. Uh,
that’s why there’s a little bit more latitude; it’s more for public health; it’s not for any
commercial enterprise.”
But the exemption is a problem for environmental groups, which had hoped for even
more stringent restrictions . like a total ban on water sales outside the basin. This plan
gives individual governors latitude on new diversion up to a million gallons. John
Jackson, a board member with an environmental coalition called Great Lakes United,
says that’s too much.
“Well that’s a significant amount of water – that’s every day diverting a million
gallons of water a day out of the basin – you know, 365 days a year. That adds up to a
lot. And if you think that there could be a lot of different applicants that come in just
under the million gallons per day, that’s a major slackening of the rules.”
And while the Governors say they need latitude to meet urgent water needs, Jackson
thinks the Governors have included the exemption so water can still be used to fuel
unbridled growth.
And Jackson says new diversions are not the only problem with the proposal. He says
there’s also too little emphasis on current water uses. He wants restrictions on
agricultural, industrial and home water uses across the great lakes. He says the region
will need to demonstrate conservation if it expects to convince the world that diversions
need to be limited to protect the watershed.
Across the border, the Governor’s efforts have drawn a mixed reaction.
The Canadian Premiers want a moratorium on any exports and diversions until the rules
can be adopted. Brett Kelly is with the office of the Ontario Minister of Natural
Resources
“We in Ontario have a policy of no net loss and we do not allow or permit
diversions across watersheds here in Ontario. So, we are reviewing the annex from that
standard.”
Meanwhile, if some scientists are correct, the need for Great Lakes water controls may
be increasing. Recent warm summers and dry winters, coupled with normal cycles in
annual rainfall, have helped push the lake’s levels downward. Lake Superior’s surface
dropped seven inches over the past year.
The Governor’s proposals are available for public comment until the end of February.
The Governor’s will then work with their Canadian counterparts to draft the final
proposal, called the annex to the Great Lakes Charter.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bob Kelleher.