Great Lakes Compact, the Debate Continues

Joanie Sinkler: Purple Haze ~Enlarge

We're approaching a year since the Compact to prevent water from being diverted out of the Great Lakes region was signed into law.

It was just last August that, after a relatively easy approval by the states, Congress did a drive-by review and rubber-stamped the agreement. President Bush signed the legislation and it's the law. 

If you remember, when the legislation hit the House of Representatives, Bart Stupak of Michigan, with the support of Betsy McCollum of Minnesota, and Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, expressed a concern about the language that facilitates privatization of water and exposes the Great Lakes to export.

This despite the ongoing statements that the Compact provided "ironclad protections" for the Lakes.

Those four members of the House represent a lot of Great Lakes territory, but there was no time for a discussion. The Compact had to be passed now. It was approved without federal scrutiny by big margins and faster than anyone thought possible.

Questioning the lack of diligence by Congress, here's what Toledo Blade columnist Tom Henry wrote after the Compact passed. 

...the bill is barely around long enough for sponsors to have a coffee break. No hearings, no testimony. No windy speeches in Washington by our governors. With about as much controversy as a bake sale, the most complicated water laws ever written for the Great Lakes region get overwhelmingly approved, unanimously by the Senate on Aug. 1 and by a 390-25 vote in the House on Tuesday.

Case closed, right?

Well maybe not. Debate over the Great Lakes Compact won't go away.

The privatization and export concerns are still troubling to Congressman Stupak. So much so that he recently introduced a resolution (H. Res. 551) that would address those issues. The resolution wouldn't change the Compact, only clarify and strengthen it by expressing the House's "sense" that Great Lakes water is not for sale or export.

Response to Stupak from the environmental groups who ardently supported the Compact has been tepid.

Commenting in the Petoskey (MI) News-Review, Dr. Grenetta Thomassey of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council saw no merit in Stupak's resolution and was somewhat dismissive of his efforts. The full story is linked below.

Joel Brammeier of the Alliance for the Great Lakes declined to directly address the Stupak resolution, but indicated it's up to the states now to take control. "Congress asked the states for a plan to protect Great Lakes water, and eight states agreed on the Compact because it flexes its muscle state by state," Brammeier said. "States can and should use the Compact as the starter's pistol, not the finish line."

Here's what I don't understand.

Stupak's history is that he's a reasonable legislator, not an idealogical zealot.  I doubt that he's keeping this issue alive out of principle alone.  

This leads me to believe that he may be right. 

I doubt that the Great Lakes governors are going to pay much attention to Stupak. They were handed an easy win when the Compact passed so they won't look back. Even though Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry has said they need to address the problems.

But shouldn't the environmental groups who supported the Compact take a critical look at Stupak's resolution, instead of dismissing it. There's nothing preventing that, is there?

Collaboration  has been one of their watch-words. After finding a way to accommodate Nestle Water in Michigan, they could surely collaborate with a congressman like Stupak, who Dr. Thomassey referred to as a "solid champion for the Great Lakes," couldn't they?

gw

Here is the link to the resolution.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.551:

And to the the Petoskey News-Review article.

http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2009/06/22/news/doc4a3f7de0c1f4d388837916.txt