“Ratifying the compact could allow Great Lakes water to no longer be held within the public trust"

[DogPoundPup]

While congressional support for the Great Lakes Compact has so far been overwhelming, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is asking for more information about the deal designed to restrict large-scale diversions from the Great Lakes Basin.

The Upper Peninsula lawmaker is worried about how the agreement, which has already been approved by the eight Great Lakes state legislators and the region’s governors, might further lead to the “commercialization” of the region’s water.

The compact breezed through the Senate and House Judiciary Committees this week, but Stupak wants the International Joint Commission and two federal agencies to take a closer look at the deal.

“I am seeking to clarify if international trade law and obligations will have any jurisdiction should we enact the compact into federal law,” Stupak wrote to the IJC, a binational commission that oversees U.S. and Canadian boundary water issues.

The compact is the product of years of negotiation and compromise. One of those compromises, between conservation groups and industry, is the provision that allows water to be exported outside the Great Lakes region, provided it leaves in containers no larger than 5.7 gallons. Water also is free to leave the region in larger containers as long as it is incorporated into other products, such as paint or beer.

These practices are already occurring, but Stupak and some conservation groups remain worried about how folding it into the compact could limit the government’s ability to restrict future exploitation of the region’s water.

“Ratifying the compact could allow Great Lakes water to no longer be held within the public trust and instead be defined as a product for commercial use,” Stupak wrote.

Conservationists who support the agreement note specific language in the deal preserves the public trust doctrine, and they are confident it is restrictive enough to prevent massive, potentially lake-lowering water exports through pipelines and canals.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=778698

[MichiganVote]

1. Stupak is late to the game--as usual. This is a good compac as opposed to the alternative

meaning no compact at all.

[eridani]

2. More info please?

Those of us who don't live in the area are not up to speed.

[MichiganVote]

4. For local state news go to mlive.com and search. This has been in the works for a long time.

[dmr]

3. I'm happy about the Compact, but I'm with Stupak, I'd like to see

this agreement reviewed and studied. If there are loopholes, they can amend the legislation to further protect these beautiful lakes.

Whenever I find the Bush* administration agreeing on something I instantly become concerned (suspicious). Though when he visited Traverse City during his last campaign he promised to protect the Lakes. I didn't trust him then, and I don't trust him now.

When I read the paper this morning there were a couple of sentences in there that gave me pause. At this moment, I don't remember what it said. I just looked at the online version and those sentences are gone. I'll have to check later to see if we still have the paper version.

I'm hoping Stupak follows through. He's not my rep, mine's a pug, but I think I'll call Stupak's office and see what's up.

Thanks for posting this.

Edit: grammar