Momentum for Great Lakes Compact?

  • Color satellite photo produced from NOAA-14 AVHRR satellite imagery. (Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)

A delay in the approval of the Great Lakes water
diversion compact might be ending. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A delay in the approval of the Great Lakes Water
Diversion Compact might be ending. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

The compact, agreed to by eight Great Lakes Governors and Canadian Provincial Leaders, aims
to discourage other areas from seeking Great Lakes water. Four states have ratified the
agreement. But various disputes in Wisconsin over water conservation and getting water to
communities that straddle the Great Lakes basin delayed the compact there.

A new, bipartisan deal apparently headed to approval in the Wisconsin legislature pleases the
Council of Great Lakes Governors, and its executive director Dave Naftzger.

“This could really be the tipping point that pushes the region over the edge and enables the deal
to finally get done so this region can take the finalized compact to Washington for final approval.’’

Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania are the other states still working on ratifying the Great Lakes
Water Diversion Compact.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Southwest After Great Lakes Water?

  • This billboard was displayed along several major highways in Michigan. The sponsors were hoping to raise awareness about water diversion, but do these arid states really pose a threat to the Great Lakes? (Photo courtesy of Central Michigan Life )

We’re continuing our series on the Great Lakes. One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes that experts identified was water withdrawals. Our guide in this series, Lester Graham, says the next report looks at one of the myths of water withdrawals:

Transcript

We’re continuing our series on the Great Lakes. One of the Ten Threats
to the Great Lakes that experts identified was water withdrawals. Our
guide in this series, Lester Graham, says the next report looks at one of
the myths of water withdrawals.

Environmentalists and policy makers say a thirsty world could pose a
major threat to the Great Lakes. Water wars have been predicted in arid
parts of the globe, and some say the laws of supply and demand might
one-day lead to a raid on the region’s fresh water. Reporter Mark Brush takes a
closer look at one claim: that states in the southwest will one day come
after the Great Lakes water… and finds that it might just be H2O hype…


Taking water out of the Great Lakes is a hot button issue, and no one is
more aware of this than politicians looking for votes. In the 2004
campaign, President Bush used the issue to rally a crowd in Traverse
City, Michigan:


“My position is clear. We are never going to allow the diversion of
Great Lakes water.”


(Sound of applause)


The issue taps into people’s emotions. People get outraged when they think
of someone taking water out of the Lakes – especially when they’ve seen lake
levels dropping over the years, and the region’s political leaders have listened
to those concerns. The states and provinces that surround the world’s largest fresh
water system are working on a compact that will prevent water diversions.


But where is the threat to Great Lakes water coming from? We
conducted an informal poll on the streets of Ann Arbor, and we asked
people: “who wants water from the Great Lakes?” Six out of the ten
people we talked to pointed to the west:


(Sound of street)


“Las Vegas, the Southwest.”


“Probably the dry states in the West. Arizona, Nevada.”


“I think the west should keep their damn hands off our water.”


But do the arid states in the West really pose a threat to Great Lakes
water? It turns out – this same question was asked more than twenty
years ago.


In the 1980s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied the possibility of
moving Lake Superior water to the Missouri River. It’s a distance of
about six hundred miles. Farmers in the High Plains states were hoping
to use this water to irrigate their crops.


Jonathan Bulkley is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at
the University of Michigan. Bulkley and his colleagues analyzed this
diversion plan, and he says the whole project would have been too
expensive:


“We found it would take seven 1000 megawatt power plants dedicated to
lifting the water, because water needs to be lifted to reach these distant
locations, and in addition there would have to be conveyance structures
built to transport the water, and our conclusion was the total cost would
far exceed the value of the water.”


In other words, Bulkley found that it would be cheaper for these states to
find other sources of water – or to find ways to conserve the water they
had left, and this was a diversion of only 600 miles. A diversion all the
way to the Southwest would mean piping the water almost twice that
distance.


“We are always looking for extra water – everyone in the Southwest is
looking for extra water.”


Bob Barrett is a spokesperson for the Central Arizona Project. It’s one of
the biggest water suppliers in the Southwest. The Project pulls water
from the Colorado River and delivers it to southern Arizona. Barrett
says he can’t imagine a situation where Great Lakes water is pumped for
more than a thousand miles to the Colorado River:


“Most people don’t realize it, but a gallon of water weighs about eight
pounds, and if you’re going to push that up and over the Rocky
Mountains you’re going to need a lot of power. (Laughs) So, it’s a good
idea, but I don’t see how anybody could pay for it.”


But some observers say even though it might not happen today – it could
happen in the future. They point to a fast-growing population and a fast-
dwindling fresh water supply in the southwest. They say that
combination could drive engineers and policy makers to devise a way to
get Great Lakes water.


But Barrett says for states like Arizona, California, and even Texas – it
would be cheaper for them to build desalinization plants… these plants
convert ocean water into drinking water:


“I mean why should Texas build for a canal and then have to maintain it
from the Great Lakes down to the state of Texas when they can go to the
Gulf Coast and build several desalinization plants, and then just pipe it
wherever they need it?”


So, a large-scale water diversion to the southwest seems unlikely.
Experts say water from the Great Lakes is much more likely to go to
cities and towns right on the edge of the basin, but as legislators move to
tighten restrictions on diversions – even these places will
have a hard time getting access to the water.


For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Diversion Agreement Clears Next Hurdle

  • The first draft of the Great Lakes water diversion compact, which allowed for some water diversion, wasn't popular. (Photo courtesy of the DEQ)

A proposed agreement to protect the Great Lakes from water diversion has cleared one more hurdle. The second public comment period for the Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact ended last week. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

A proposed agreement to protect the Great Lakes from water diversion has cleared one more hurdle. The second public comment period for the Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact ended last week. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:


Ten thousand comments were recieved about the first draft of the compact, which permitted water diversion, within limits.


That wasn’t a popular idea. David Naftzger is head of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. He says the second draft is more restrictive about water diversion than the first. It recieved about three thousand comments.


“The changes that were made were intended to make the agreement more reasonable and workable and it’s likely that the improvements that were made are one factor that contributed to the number of comments we recieved this go around.”


The compact still has many hurdles to go. Governors and Legislatures of the eight Great Lakes states must sign on to the final version. It must also be approved by Congress.


For the GLRC, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Diversion Debate Focuses on Bottled Water

  • Some consider shipping bottled water to areas outside the Great Lakes basin a form of water diversion. (Photo by Cris Watk)

Governors throughout the region are talking to their constituents about proposed Great Lakes water rules. They hope to have the so-called Annex 2001 rules ready to go by the end of the year. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports that bottled water has entered into the diversion debate:

Transcript

Governors throughout the region are talking to their constituents about proposed Great Lakes water rules. They hope to have the so-called Annex 2001 rules ready to go by the end of the year. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports that bottled water has entered into the diversion debate:


Michigan just concluded its final public hearing. The state’s grappling with the potential impact of a growing bottled water industry, and the question of whether shipping bottled water should be considered a diversion of Great Lakes water.


Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak’s district touches on three of the Great Lakes. He says the simplest solution would be to simply ban any use that allows significant amounts of water to be moved out of the Great Lakes basin, whether that’s by ship, pipelines, or bottles.


“As we move towards a growing population worldwide, by 2025, water will be the most sought-after commodity in the world. We’d better have our act together, have one standard, and let’s ban the sale or diversion of Great Lakes water.”


But business groups are lobbying for less restrictive rules. They say water bottling has a tiny impact on the Great Lakes, and tight restrictions will hurt business development in the region.


For the GLRC, I’m Rick Pluta.

Related Links

Great Lakes Leaders Worry About Water Dispute

Great Lakes governors and mayors are worried about a dispute between the U.S. and Canada and its effect on international water policy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

Great Lakes governors and mayors are worried about a dispute between the U.S. and
Canada and its effect on international water policy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Shawn Allee reports:


Devils Lake in North Dakota sometimes floods homes and farms. So, the state planned
to divert lake water into a river that flows into Canada. But Canada worried pollution
and invasive species would flow across the border.


It turned to the International Joint Commission.


The IJC reviews water disputes between the U.S. and Canada… including Great Lakes
issues.


The U.S. government didn’t want that review.


Great Lakes mayors and governors wanted North Dakota and the U.S. government to
relent. At the last minute, the U.S. agreed to a review, but only after the project’s
underway.


Blair Seaborn was Canada’s top representative to the IJC.


“We worry a little bit when we see these rather unilateral positions rather than the very
good bilateral work that we’ve normally operated under.”


Seaborn says the larger water agreements … like ones affecting the Great Lakes … are
still intact.


But he says Canada feels stung by the rift.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Second Annex 2001 Draft Released

  • A second draft of an international water agreement deals with the diversion of water from the Great Lakes basin. (Photo courtesy of Indiana DNR)

The second draft of the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements
has been released. The document will ultimately dictate how water from the Great Lakes will be used. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:

Transcript

The second draft of the annex 2001 implementing agreements has been
released. The document will ultimately dictate how water from the Great
Lakes will be used. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley
reports:


More than ten thousand public comments were received after the first draft
was released, many of them about conservation and diversion of water
outside the Great Lakes basin.


As a result, this version strengthens water conservation measures for new
and existing users. It also bans diversion to communities outside the
basin except in limited circumstances.


Sam Speck is chair of the water management working group. The group in
charge of drafting the Annex. He says the measure is far from complete.


“Really none of the governors or premiers have said, ‘We think this is the perfect
document that we would like to have put before us to sign in its final form
today.’ It’s a work in progress.”


Speck says lots of compromise has had to occur to get this far in the
process. He says the effort is breaking new ground, as nothing like the
Annex 2001 has been written before.


For the GLRC, I’m Christina
Shockley.


HOST TAG: The public can now review this second draft until August 29th. It will
then go back to the Great Lakes governors and Canadian premiers.

Related Links

Interview: Children’s Book Author on Great Lakes Woes

  • The new book outlines a cause of Great Lakes water levels dropping while entertaining kids with silly, though not entirely improbable outcomes. (Photo courtesy of Mackinac Island Press)

The Great Lakes were flowing with water
On every Great Lakes Day;
Until something frightful happened
And made the Great Lakes drain away.

That’s how the new children’s book, “The Day The Great Lakes Drained Away” begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:

Transcript

The Great Lakes were flowing with water
On every Great Lakes Day;
Until something frightful happened
And made the Great Lakes drain away.

That’s how the new children’s book, The Day The Great Lakes Drained
Away
begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently
spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:


Nebbe: “Charles, in your book, all of the water disappears from the Lakes and you take us on a tour of all the lakebeds, so we see landforms and shipwrecks and a whole lot of mud… What gave you the idea to show kids what the Lakes would look like without water?”


Barker: “Well, actually, it was from looking at some maps that are put out by the National Geophysical Data Center that show, basically, what’s on the lake floors, and I, for one, had not given it much thought ’till seeing these maps. But these maps have some really cool features like ridges of rock and all kinds of neat stuff and I thought this would be a great idea for a children’s book.”


Nebbe: “What do you think some of the coolest features that you’ve been able to put into the book are?”


Barker: “Um, well, there’s a suspected meteor impact crater on the east side of Lake Ontario, and it’s not confirmed as a meteor impact crater, but a lot of other things it could be have been ruled out. So that’s pretty neat. There’s also, to me, what’s most exciting is the ridge of rock, or ridges of rock underneath Lake Huron, that, in some cases, have maybe four hundred feet of relief. And most of the maps we see of the Great Lakes are basically just a flat blue, so seeing what’s under the Lakes I thought was really exciting.”


Nebbe: “When I was reading the book, I thought, you know, if I were a kid, this would be pretty scary to me because all the water goes away from the lakes and, you know, there are fish dying in at least one picture. Why did you decide to show us the bottom of the Lakes in that way?”


Barker: “Well, actually, that’s pretty much how… the only way I could figure out how to show them, I mean, if we’re talking about features that are on the lake floors, then somehow we’ve got to get rid of the water to see those, and sort of… it’s a fanciful sort of draining away of the Lakes, if you will. The purpose of the book is almost twofold: one is to show that the lake floors are pretty cool, and there’s some neat features under there, but also to sort of reinforce that hey, we’d better make sure this never happens, you know, so it goes to the protection of the Lakes as well.”


Nebbe: “The culprit in your book is water usage among communities in the Great Lakes Basin and there are rules that govern water usage among those communities, one of them is that they have to return the amount of water that they use and that communities outside the basin can’t use the water without approval. Why did you pick that as the culprit?”


Barker: “Well, that’s a good question and it sort of goes back to the original manuscript draft, and I thought, well, gosh, the villain could be actually just everybody taking a little bit of water thinking that it doesn’t matter, but the cummulative effect of that mindset causes a problem, and I think that’s true, I work in environmental consulting, and I can attest that that’s basically how major contamination sites are created is that everybody thinking, ‘Oh well this one little thing won’t matter, this little drop of tetrachlorethyline won’t matter,’ but if everybody has that mindset, then, yeah there’s going to be a problem.”


Nebbe: “You’ve been talking to some of the kids who are reading the book, do you think that message is getting across?”


Barker: “Yeah, I think, you know, initially, they really kind of like to sort of see the pictures and hear and learn about the lake floors and whatnot, but I think it’s important to, you know, relay to kids that they’re actually going to be the ones making decisions down the road about Great Lakes withdrawals and whatnot, and recently, I was just talking to somebody and remembering back to when I was a kid, we used to sail a lot on the Great Lakes, and I remember being in the middle of Lake Erie, sort of out of the sight of land, and sailing through soap suds. It was terrible. I mean, Lake Erie was horrible. This was in the early seventies. And it was like you’re in a bath tub with soap suds. That’s more of a water quality issue, but I think it sort of became a problem because of nobody really, um, paying much attention. So, I think the more attention we pay to the Great Lakes, in terms of just making sure no wacky ideas about withdrawal go through, then that’s good. That’s what we need to do.”


Nebbe: “Charles Ferguson Barker, thank you so much.”


Barker: “Thank you.”


HOST TAG: Charles Ferguson Barker, author of The Day the Great Lakes Drained Away speaking with the GLRC’s Charity Nebbe.

Related Links

Stricter Diversion Rules in Next Annex Draft?

  • Annex 2001 is being reviewed by the public, and many are saying they want tougher restrictions on water diversions from the Great Lakes. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Proposed rules on taking water out of the Great Lakes are being re-written …and the new language might be tougher against water diversions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Proposed rules on taking water out of the Great Lakes are being
re-written, and the new language might be tougher against water
diversions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach
reports:


Officials who wrote the first draft of the so-called Annex 2001 rules
say they’ve received 10,000 comments on the proposal in the last
few months. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle co-chairs the Council of
Great Lakes Governors. Doyle’s chief aide on the diversion issue ,Todd
Ambs says many of the comments call for stronger water conservation by cities that want Great Lakes Water. Ambs says people
also want the rules to be simpler and tougher against diversions
out of the Great Lakes basin.


“So all those messages have been heard loud and clear by the
group and we’ve been working on a variety of adjustments to the
proposed plan to respond to the public comment.”


The Council of Great Lakes Governors says it’s also heard from farmers
and heavy industries that want to use more water inside the Great
Lakes Basin. Another draft of Annex 2001 could be ready this
spring, to be followed by another chance for people to comment.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

LOOKING AHEAD TO 2005’s GREAT LAKES ISSUES

  • The Great Lakes is the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world. Preservation and usage of the Lakes is a hot issue for 2005. (Photo courtesy of michigan.gov)

This coming year will likely see some major policy decisions regarding the Great Lakes. Because the lakes stretch out along eight states in the U.S. and two provinces in Canada, getting all the governments to agree on issues is a long and sometimes trying process. But… those involved think 2005 will be the year that some real progress on Great Lakes issues will be made. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham recently talked with the Chair of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission, Dennis Schornack. The IJC deals with disputes and advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on issues regarding the Great Lakes:

Transcript

This coming year likely will see some major policy decisions regarding the Great Lakes. Because the Lakes stretch out along eight states in the U.S. and two provinces in Canada, getting all the governments to agree on issues is a long and sometimes trying process. But those involved think 2005 will be the year that some real progress on Great Lakes issues will be made. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham recently talked with the chair of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission, Dennis Schornack. The IJC deals with disputes and advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on issues regarding the Great Lakes:


The International Joint Commission and the Government Accountability Office both have been critical of the U.S. government for not finding clear leadership on Great Lakes issues. Different agencies sometimes find their efforts overlap or conflict with others. At times, it seems there’s no organized effort to restore the health of the Great Lakes. Dennis Schornack says he thinks things were starting to get better because recently appointed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt took a real interest in the Great Lakes. But now Leavitt is leaving to become the new Health and Human Services chief.


“It’s going to be hard to beat the enthusiasm of Mike Leavitt. He spent literally about fifty percent of his time as EPA Administrator in the Great Lakes throughout. He was everywhere this past summer. But it does fall to the new administrator, whomever he or she may be; but in the meantime, the governors and mayors are proceeding forward on the priorities that they set over a year ago, and fleshing those out into very tight kinds of recommendations.”


Countless studies and reports on the Great Lakes point out one of the biggest threats to the lakes is invasive species. Those are foreign critters such as zebra mussels and round gobies that hitchhike in the ballast water of cargo ships, or are introduced unintentionally. Often the invasives damage the native fish, plants, and ecosystems of the Great Lakes. Nothing has been done to effectively stop importing the invasives, and some have gone so far as to suggest that the St. Lawrence Seaway connecting the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean should be closed. The IJC’s Dennis Schornack says he’s hopeful that we’ll soon see laws that will do more to help prevent invasive species from getting into the Lakes.


“In the United States, at least, there is pending legislation that has been pending for over two years now called the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. This legislation is overdue. It’s time for Congress to act on it. And in the ’05 legislative Congressional year, it’s time for them to act. And that’s the place where the standards get set, the authority gets established and where all of the rubber really hits the road. Now, that’s just in the United States. Bi-nationally, because the Great Lakes are a shared resource, the IJC, that I’m the chair of the U.S. section, has continued to advocate cooperation and collaboration between the two countries in terms of at least setting a common standard, a common rule, common regulation on the Great Lakes. Because, obviously, setting it on one side of the boundary line doesn’t do any good if the other side doesn’t follow.”


Another issue that’s recieved a lot of attention in the Great Lakes region recently is water diversion. A document called Annex 2001 tackles the issue of how much water can be used or withdrawn from the Lakes. The various state governors and province premiers put together draft agreements for public comment. Schornack says there’s been a huge response, and a lot of it hasn’t been positive.


“They recieved, I think, over ten-thousand public comments. And there is differing viewpoint, a growing difference between the view taken in Canada and the view taken in the United States on this effort. Canada, the province of Ontario, has come out and point-blank opposed the existing documents. There are concerns in Canada that this is just some kind of a ruse to somehow allow diversions of the Great Lakes waters to occur. I’m not part of that viewpoint, to tell you the truth. What’s being done right now and what will happen in 2005 is that the comments are being digested, we’ll see new draft documents come out from the governors and premiers and hopefully begin the process making those agreements stick.”


Schornack says 2005 will also see some important reports on the economic costs of invasive species. Studies on the logistics of shipping, cargo ship traffic and alternative freight haulers and design plans that look at the total cost of shipping – including the infrastructure costs and the environmental damage caused by invasive species. It should be an interesting year for the Great Lake if Congress moves on key issues, and then finds money to make the Great Lakes more sound.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Tribal Governments Demand Role in Annex 2001

  • Water diversions from the Great Lakes concern many people, including Native Americans. Some are worried that their voices aren't being given equal weight. (Photo by Bartlomiej Stoinski)

Tribal and First Nation governments from the Great Lakes region say they’re being left out of negotiations to craft a sweeping new framework for regulating Great Lakes water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

Tribal and First Nation governments from the Great Lakes region say they’re being left out of negotiations to craft a sweeping new framework for regulating Great Lakes water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


Representatives from about 75 Native American communities in the U.S. and Canada are demanding a more prominent role in the decision-making process for the agreement known as Annex 2001. The agreement aims to limit Great Lakes diversion. But many tribal groups say the draft agreement is weak.


The Council of Great Lakes Governors says it plans to invite tribal groups to a forum shortly after the New Year. Frank Ettawageshik is the tribal chair of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, in northern michigan. Ettawageshik says he has yet to see the offer. But he says tribal governments don’t just want to be consulted as Indian communities.


“Of course, the governments are made up of many communities. But it’s not just a matter of wanting community input. It’s a matter of wanting input at a government-to-government level.”


The Council of Great Lakes Governors is handling Annex negotiations. The eight governors and two premiers are expected to sign the agreement sometime next year.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links