Coalition Comes to Bottled Water Agreement

A conservation group and an industry coalition have come
to an agreement on one of the stickiest issues hanging up a regional water use agreement. The question is whether bottled water exports are considered a diversion of Great Lakes water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

A conservation group and an industry coalition have come to an agreement on one of the stickiest issues hanging up a regional water use agreement. The question is whether bottled water exports are considered a diversion of Great Lakes water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


Officials from the Great Lakes states and provinces are trying to hammer out a regional water use agreement known as Annex 2001. They’ve been trying to come to a deal for the last four years. So the National Wildlife Federation and the Council of Great Lakes Industries agreed on some of the most contentious issues.


One of those is bottled water. The groups recommended that bottled water exports be allowed in the agreement, but that states be allowed to enact their own limits or bans. But some environmental groups are unhappy about the proposal. David Holtz is Michigan director of Clean Water Action.


“We don’t care how water leaves the basin. What’s the difference if it leaves in twelve-ounce bottles or a pipe? I mean, it’s still gone.”


The Council of Great Lakes Governors has a December deadline to agree on a plan.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Point: Agreements Will Help Protect Great Lakes

  • The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)

In 1998, an Ontario company wanted to sell Lake Superior water overseas. Their proposal raised fears that Great Lakes water could be diverted with little oversight. Now, officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have come up with two proposed agreements that would regulate new water diversion requests. The proposed agreements are known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis says the agreements are a good first step in protecting a cherished resource:

Transcript

In 1998 an Ontario company wanted to sell Lake Superior water overseas. Their
proposal raised fears that Great Lakes water could be diverted with little oversight.
Now, officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have come up with
two proposed agreements that would regulate new water diversion requests. The proposed
agreements are known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Cameron Davis says the agreements are a good first step in protecting a cherished
resource:


When I was growing up, my family and I used to go to the beach every Sunday. As I stood
looking out over Lake Michigan, I was awed at how it seemed to go on forever. Today I know
better. The Great Lakes are a gift left from the glaciers thousands of years ago. That’s
because less than 1% of Great Lakes water is renewed every year from rainfall, snowmelt,
and groundwater recharge.


Two proposed agreements by the states and provinces would make diversions of Great Lakes water
to places outside of the Great Lakes a virtual impossibility.


The agreements look to be a vast improvement over current laws. First, federal law in the U.S.
allows a diversion only if every Great Lakes Governor approves. That seems like a tough standard
to meet, but in fact, it’s already allowed two diversions of Great Lakes water to take place. In
the 1990’s, diversions were approved to Pleasant Prairie in Wisconsin and another one to Akron,
Ohio. The water was used for municipal supplies.


Second, the proposed agreements are an improvement over the Boundary Waters Treaty – a pact
signed between the U.S. and Canada almost 100 years ago. The treaty doesn’t cover one very
important Great Lake: Lake Michigan. Because Lake Michigan is solely within the U.S. and not
shared with Canada, the treaty leaves the lake unprotected. This is a problem because Lake
Michigan is directly connected to Lake Huron. So water diverted out of Lake Michigan means
water diverted out of Lake Huron.


The agreements are a good first step, but they need to be stronger. For example, they require
regional approval for diversions of water that go outside of the basin of more than one million
gallons per day, but they don’t require regional approval for withdrawals of up to 5 million
gallons per day that stay in the Great Lakes. In addition, the draft agreements need to do a
better job at requiring water conservation before potential water withdrawals can be considered.


We have a choice. We can be against the agreements and keep the status quo or work to make
them even stronger. We need to work to protect our region’s water so that our kids can continue
to look out over the Great Lakes and see them for what they are: vast, magnificent, but fragile
natural treasures.


Host Tag: Cameron Davis is the executive director of the Lake Michigan Federation.

Related Links

Ijc Asks States for Asian Carp Barrier Money

  • The Army Corps of Engineers' new barrier will be similar in design to the demonstration project in place now. (Diagram courtesy of USACE)

Officials from a joint U.S./Canada Commission that monitors the health of the Great Lakes is asking states and provinces in the region for help. The International Joint Commission wants the governments to chip in money to make sure that Asian carp don’t invade the Great Lakes and decimate the fishing industry. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:

Transcript

Officials from a joint U.S./Canada Commission that monitors the health
of the Great Lakes is asking states and provinces in the region for
help. The International Joint Commission wants the governments to chip
in money to make sure that Asian carp don’t invade the Great Lakes and
decimate the fishing industry. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill
Cohen reports:


A temporary experimental electronic barrier in the Chicago Ship and
Sanitary Canal is the only thing keeping Asian Carp from swimming into
Lake Michigan. That’s why the federal government and Illinois have
allocated 6.7 million dollars to build a new permanent fence.


But now, the builders say they need an extra 1.8 million dollars to complete
the work. That’s why the International Joint Commission is asking all the
states and provinces that have a stake in the dilemma to come up with
that cash. John Nevin is a policy advisor for the IJC. He says if the
older barrier fails or the new one doesn’t work right, the carp will
wreak havoc with the Great Lakes:


“What they do is they swim along with mouths wide open and they filter
feed. They eat all the plankton and all the little stuff that little fish eat,
so they would potentially rob all the other fish in the lake of their food.”


Ohio’s Governor Bob Taft heads the Council of Great Lakes Governors.
He’s seeking input from other governors so he can issue a response soon
to the plea for money.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Cohen in Columbus.

Related Links

Report Highlights Environmental Threats

A two-year study from the World Wildlife Fund has found Canada is facing a myriad of serious environmental problems. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has more:

Transcript

A two year study from the World Wildlife Fund has found Canada is
facing a myriad of serious environmental problems. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has more:


The report says much of Canada’s vast forestland has yet to be
protected.


Animals are threatened by the loss of tallgrass prairies.


And invasive species are wreaking havoc in the Great Lakes.


Kevin Cavanaugh is the director of biodiversity conservation for
World Wildlife Fund Canada.


He says the wide diversity of problems presents a significant
obstacle.


“One of the big challenges is that what is needed in one part
of the country is often quite different than another so this was
our attempt to try and help prioritize the kind of activities that
would need to take place in order to conserve nature.”


The provinces are the primary protectors of the environment in
Canada.


The reports says they must cooperate with the federal government
and industries to address Canada’s environmental problems.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Bureaucracy’s Bright Side

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the right of Canadian municipalities to restrict the use of pesticides within their boundaries. The decision marks the end of a 10 year lawsuit between the town of Hudson, Quebec and two companies – Chemlawn and Spraytech. The companies had sued the town, claiming municipalities did not have the power to control pesticide use. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that Canada’s unique political structure has set a challenging precedent:

Transcript

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the right of Canadian municipalities to restrict the use of pesticides within their boundaries. The decision marks the end of a 10-year lawsuit between the town of Hudson, Quebec and two companies – Chemlawn and Spraytech. The companies had sued the town, claiming municipalities did not have the power to control pesticide use. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that Canada’s unique political structure has set a challenging precedent.


In Canada we have so many different levels of government each with its own area of responsibility. The problem is these areas frequently overlap, causing a bureaucratic nightmare. This particularly Canadian phenomenon has been dubbed jurisdictional gridlock.


Look at how we handle pesticides. They have to be registered federally in order to be manufactured and marketed. Provincial permission is required for companies to sell or apply them. And at the local level, municipalities can enact by-laws concerning their application.


In the U.S., by contrast, the handling, distribution and licensing of pesticides all falls under federal jurisdiction. So at least you only have to deal with one level of government, which should save time and effort.


But a recent victory by the town of Hudson, Quebec has demonstrated that sometimes a lot of red tape can actually be a good thing. The town’s battle to control the use of pesticides within its borders went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court not only upheld their right to protect local health and the environment, it also encouraged other municipalities to follow the Hudson example within the broad domain of Canadian and international law.


This wasn’t just a victory for community activists in Hudson. The Supreme Court decision gave all Canadian communities the power to take action on their own behalf. And believe me, they’re seizing that power. In the wake of the Hudson decision, towns and cities right across the country are in the process of enacting legislation that would severely restrict the use of pesticides within their borders.


This is a remarkable turn of events. And it clearly demonstrates the power that one small community can have. Jurisdictional gridlock may be a pain to wade through, but in light of what happened in Hudson, it can also be a really good thing.