Dave Dempsey is waging a one-man campaign to a raise awareness about the flaws in the Great Lakes Compact, and, in doing so, to put conservation of this unique fresh water resource above its commodification.
When negotiations began in 2001 to upgrade the Compact with standards and uniform, rationalized diversion procedures, it seemed as if the emphasis was on water conservation.
But as the discussions produced Annex 2001, and, finally, the draft Compact finally approved by the eight Great Lakes states this summer, a great deal of attention became focused more on getting water out of the basin - - to communities like New Berlin and Waukesha, WI - - and less on validating the fundamental conservation and common ownership ethic that has underscored the Public Trust Doctrine since its US creation in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
The New Berlin diversion application is close to formal approval by Wisconsin authorities, and a tentative agreement has been reached between that small suburban city and a willing seller, the City of Milwaukee - - even though Milwaukee has yet to hire a consultant to advise it about how to value Lake Michigan water being transferred from the larger, land-locked Milwaukee to the fast-growing, upper-income suburbs.
Dempsey is also taking the lead in pointing out that the bottled water loophole is a serious flaw in the agreement because it allows for an unlimited diversion of water away from the Great Lakes basin in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons.
Dempsey, a writer and former environmental official in Michigan under former Republican Governor William Milliken, is pointing out the continuing problems with the Compact, regardless of the protections it offers.
He's looking to make the agreement stronger, and more in line with Great Lakes history:
Where are his counterparts in the region's environmental movement?
It appears that S.J.Res.45, A Resolution Consenting To and Approving the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, will sail through Congress. Bush is expected to sign it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I approve of what its sponsors proclaim it will do, I am concerned that, in its present form, the bill appears to contain "an exception that swallows the rule." Will you please take notice that exceptions are not limited quantitatively with respect to how much per year may be diverted. For example, Nestle will be free to withdraw from its wells and to export all the water it can sell in small containers -- and to keep all of the profit.
IMHO, the bill, if it were well written, would:
-- affirm that the subject water, all of it, is within the public trust;
-- define, objectively, specific indicia of overdiversion from natural flow, e.g. lake levels, water table levels. (I know this is difficult, but, with modern technology and reasonable funding, it is doable);
-- define carefully de minimus, exempt water usages;
-- set forth a license and permit procedure for allocating as much water diversion to personal property as will not affect the public trust adversely;
-- set forth a procedure for distributing the net revenue from water diversion permits among the respective governmental entities involved.
The crafty exception to which I object is that if the subject water is destined to be put into containers of less that 20 liters, it becomes exempt, de novo, from regulation by the compact.