June 1, 2007
Please consider commenting on a draft collective effort by the eight Great Lakes states and the two Great Lakes provinces to improve their water conservation programs.
The deadline for comment is Friday, June 8.
The draft effort – a list of "conservation objectives" the ten provinces and states are supposed to attempt to meet – starts the process of fulfilling one of the key elements of the recent "annex"
agreements to prevent water diversion and local water abuse. The bulk of the commitments made in the annex agreements await approval by the legislatures of the states and provinces. However, a few, including the commitment to write collective conservation objectives, went into effect as soon as the documents were signed in December 2005.
In summary, the draft conservation objectives are a tremendous disappointment and need extensive revision to make any serious difference in the region's water future. Please comment on the conservation objectives to help assure they are substantially revised before they are finalized later this year.
We have prepared a document that includes all you need to comment on the draft conservation objectives:
- detailed background information
- a letter and separate critique of the conservation objectives for sign-on by organizations or for use as a basis for separate comment by organizations or individuals
- the draft conservation objectives as released by the governments
We hope you can co-sign (if you represent an organization) or can find a few moments to comment separately.
May 3, 2007
The Big Picture
The eight Great Lakes governors and two premiers signed agreements in December 2005 to reform the rules for taking water from the ground, rivers, or lakes in their respective states and provinces around the lakes. The documents they signed, one among all ten jurisdictions, another just among the states, accomplish three important goals:
1) Diversions and very large withdrawals. The agreements set up a system for the ten states and provinces to ban most diversions out of the lakes, with a few limited exceptions, and to collectively make decisions about proposals claiming to fit those exceptions.
2) Small- and medium-size water withdrawals. The agreements also set up a system for each state and province to make decisions about proposals for smaller water withdrawals based environmental and water conservation principles.
3) Working together. The agreements set up means by which the states and provinces will standardize and share water information, establish consistent water conservation programs, and conduct studies of the impact that water decisions made by the ten jurisdictions are collectively having on the Great Lakes.
Conservation Initiative
In the working together category, the provinces and states decided to first tackle the programs they have all pledged to set up to increase water conservation. The first stab at that effort has been drafted by a committee of state and provincial representatives, and is available for comment until June 8. Find the draft plan at:
http://cglg.org/projects/water/ConservationEfficiencyInitiative_DraftObjectives.asp
The plan was drafted with stakeholder input in the form of an advisory committee made up of all interested sectors, including industry, agriculture, and environmentalists. Although Great Lakes United has not yet completed its analysis of the draft, an initial look shows that it is extremely general, and that key suggestions made by the full range of advisory committee members, not just environmentalists, were for some reason ignored.
Great Lakes United will have draft comments available by April 16 and will post them here.
New Basin Water Law
The most well-known aspect of the agreements is their purpose in preventing large-scale, damaging diversions of water out of the Great Lakes basin. This requires passage of new laws in all the jurisdictions. In the United States, each of the states must pass an identical version of the plan as a Compact between the states. That Compact can then approved by Congress and thereby become enforceable federal law.
The thing to keep in mind about this aspect of the annex agreements is it is all or nothing. All the states must pass the new plan, followed by congressional ratification, or the most important part of the plan effective legal enforcement will not be available.
The Canadian legal system, existing Canadian federal and provincial safeguards, and near universal Canadian public sentiment about Great Lakes diversions makes new laws about diversions north of the border nice, but not essential. Canada is very unlikely to ever be a source of major diversions out of the Great Lakes basin. Passage of the changes in law and regulation needed to come into compliance with the agreement is not controversial. Quebec and Ontario both have officials drafting law to do so, and are expected to enact them some time this year.
But weak existing U.S. and state laws and interest in some parts of the United States for Great Lakes water, on the one hand, combined with a generic reluctance to extend regulations whatever the reason, on the other hand, make for an entirely different situation south of the border.
Every state must approve the agreement between just the states, also called the Compact in order for Congress to be able to make it binding federal law. Approval by all the states and Congress provides enforcement for the compact in federal court, the key advantage of the Compact over the agreement between the states and provinces, and especially important in the United States, where there will someday be requests for large-scale diversions of water to distant places. Thus every state is key to the ultimate success of the Compact.
Although there is currently strong consensus around the basin in support of the Compact, its ratification can be stymied by the reticence of a single state. And in any given state, ratification can be stymied by even a small number of moderately well-connected opponents.
Ratification by the states will probably take at least two years. See below for a state-by-state assessment of progress.
State Compact Ratification
Indiana. Two pieces of compact legislation, SB 22 and SB 515, have been introduced in the Senate in 2007. Neither is expected to move this year. In 2007 the Indiana legislature is expected to pass a resolution in support of the Compact and forming a study committee to review the Compact and proposed legislation. implementing Compact commitments. Both will be introduced in 2008.
Illinois. Legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate in 2006 but did not move. Legislation has been introduced again in both houses in 2007 (HB 375 and SB 50). SB 50 passed out of the Energy and Environment Committee in February, and HB 375 passed out of the House Executive Committee in March. Passage of the both bills in the full Senate and House is expected any time.
Michigan. Bills have been introduced in both houses, but with uncertain propsects. The Compact was also introduced in the House in 2006 but was not acted upon, at least in part because unrelated legislation dealing with water withdrawals had recently been debated and passed. Prospects for passage of the new bills this year are uncertain.
Minnesota. Fabulous first passage of Compact legislation in the Great Lakes basin! The Minnesota legislature passed the Compact in February 2007. Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the legislation into law on February 20
New York.The Assembly approved the Compact in 2006, and, the the beginning of a new legislative session this year, again in late April. But the bill stalled in the Senate last year and has not yet been taken up this year, though it has a strong co-sponsorship lists and remains a good prospect for passage sometime in 2007. The problems in the Senate in 2006 were late introduction in an election year, and both last year and this year, a concern by Senate majority Republican caucus with the section 7.3 enforcement provisions of the Compact, among a few other considerations. The Compact is supported by the new administration of Gov. Elliott Spitzer.
Ohio. Compact legislation was introduced with good cosponsorship in both the House and the Senate in 2006. As in New York, the bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate, in this case due to concerns regarding state sovereignty. There is some skepticism about elements of the Compact among some influential business interests, but as of yet no outright opposition to the Compact. The new administration of Gov. Ted Strickland supports the Compact. Legislation is expected to be introduced in both the House and Senate again in 2007. Concerns in the Senate seem to have increased since last year.
Pennsylvania. As a large state with little basin acreage, the Compact is lower on the agenda in Pennsylvania than in most of the other Great Lakes states. No bill has been introduced as yet. The Compact does have the support of legislators from the basin portion of the state, and the impact of the Compact can be legislatively limited to that portion of the state. On the other hand, as in Ohio, some business interests are skeptical of the Compact, though none have announced outright opposition. There is no reason at this time to think that the Compact will not be approved by Pennsylvania. State officials say legislation should be introduced at some point in 2007. A continuing controversy over the confirmation of the director of the state's Department of Evnrionmental Protection could delay progress on the Compact in Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin. After a good start, Compact consideration has slowed in Wisconsin. In 2006, the legislature formed a study committee to work on drafting legislation to adopt the Compact and implement changes to state laws to bring Wisconsin into compliance with Compact commitments. The committee was scheduled to have finished its work by now, but has not, in fact, failing even to meet since late last year. Gov. Jim Doyle is considering convening his own study group, likely to also include legislators, that would similarly propose a bill. As in Michigan, water law in general -- specifically groundwater removals -- has recently been a matter of intense legislative interest, putting the Compact in the middle of a fierce, pre-existing debate with aroused constituencies. Propsects remain favorable for introduction of a bill sometime in 2007.
In Canada news, Ontario has introduced draft legislation to implement the Canada-U.S. Water Resources Agreement, the companion to the compact signed by all ten Canadian and U.S. provinces and states. This goes beyond the activity in the United States, which has so far been limited to passing, or proposing to pass, only the basic agreement document (in the case of the states, the compact) itself into law. So far the states have left the implementing language – all the details about how the jurisdictions will carry out their commitments under the compact – to a later date.
Ontario’s draft legislation and a related proposed regulation are available for inspection by all and open to comment by provincial citizens at the province’s Environmental Registry, http://www.ontario.ca/environmentalregistry .
The draft law can be pulled up by entering its registry number, 010-0163. The proposed regulation, which for the first time would charge large industrial and commercial users fees to help defray the province’s expenses in managing water, is listed under registry number 010-0162. Either number should draw u p both documents.
Under Ontario’s parliamentary system, in which the majority party in the legislature forms the executive government, there is far less suspense than in the United States over the fate of a bill that is introduced for legislative consideration. Under parliamentary systems, bills that are introduced theoretically already have the support of both the majority of the members of Parliament as well as the government’s executive officials, including the premier and the ministers of the relevant government departments. In this case the relevant departments are the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment. Thus passage of some form of the proposed legislation is considered extremely likely within the next few months.
