A Citizen's Primer to Protecting the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River
Organization: Sierra Club Canada
Type: Policy
The Great Lakes contain 20% of all the surface fresh water on Earth, providing essential services and drinking water to the forty million residents of the United States and Canada who live in the Great Lakes Basin. Human numbers in the Great Lakes Basin are projected to increase to fifty million people in the next three decades, creating increasing stresses on the Great Lakes. The wide variations and uncertain weather changes due to global warming threatens to compound this stress. Only about 1% of the total water is renewable annually and thus available for sustainable use.
How can the waters of the Great Lakes be protected from diversions? The Council of Great Lakes Governors and two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have been grappling with this issue. Many environmental groups, agricultural user groups, utilities and aboriginal peoples and First Nations have provided the Governors and Premiers with advice. The jurisdictions have been developing two kinds of agreements: a Compact among the US jurisdictions and an Agreement among the States and the two Provinces. A previous draft approach, released July 19, 2004 for public consultation, aroused a great deal of public comment.
On June 30, 2005, a revised, substantially different, version of both the draft Compact and the draft Agreement was released. The June 30 draft documents are not a consensus position from all the states and provinces.
The failure of all jurisdictions to support the drafts makes it difficult for the public to engage. Despite the uncertainty, environmental groups urge the public to engage vigorously. The public has only 60 days during the summer months to provide comment. For any of this to work to protect the environment, citizens on both sides of the border must be vigilant. Key areas on which to concentrate comments in the 60 day review period include:
1) Conservation: Water withdrawals and consumption are likely to increase as a result of economic growth and global warming, while net Basin supply is likely to decrease. Therefore efficient use of water and conservation are essential to ensure that exceptions are kept to an absolute minimum.
2) Science:There is an urgent need to have a better understanding of the amount of Great Lakes water resources that are currently available. Before any increased uses are permitted all of the jurisdictions need to begin immediately to track all water withdrawals and return amounts..
3) Chicago Diversion: It is recognized that the longstanding U.S. Supreme Court Decree already offers considerable protection to Great Lakes interests and the Great Lakes ecosystem. Nevertheless, another clause or clauses should be added requiring Illinois to fully respect the agreement rules and processes in any future application to have the Decree altered.
4) Straddling Counties: There is merit in including straddling and nearby communities in the Annex but the use of political boundaries could create a dangerous legal situation.11
5) Intra-Basin Transfers:Diversions of water from one Great Lake to another (called "intra-basin transfers" in the agreements) that are greater than 100,000 gallons per day and lose less than 5 million gallons per day should not be exempted from the requirement to return the remaining water to the original lake watershed.
6) Bottled Water: While the exceptions for near-by communities in straddling counties and in straddling communities limit any application for a diversion to water "solely for public use," the risk remains that bottling plants will access water from municipal supplies. This risk requires a serious discussion.
7) Ecological Restoration:More work is required to ensure an emphasis on ecological restoration.
8) Limits:The limited exceptions could be further limited by reference to a cumulative total for all diversions that should not be exceeded.
9) Relationship to the International Joint Commission:A major concern with the 2004 draft was its potential to undermine the Boundary Waters Treaty and the International Joint Commission. While the 2005 draft clearly has attempted to deal with these concerns through language acknowledging that the agreement should not denigrate from either the Treaty or the IJC, the effect of the separate and disconnected appellate procedures in the 2005 draft, could weaken the role of the IJC.
How can the waters of the Great Lakes be protected from diversions? The Council of Great Lakes Governors and two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have been grappling with this issue. Many environmental groups, agricultural user groups, utilities and aboriginal peoples and First Nations have provided the Governors and Premiers with advice. The jurisdictions have been developing two kinds of agreements: a Compact among the US jurisdictions and an Agreement among the States and the two Provinces. A previous draft approach, released July 19, 2004 for public consultation, aroused a great deal of public comment.
On June 30, 2005, a revised, substantially different, version of both the draft Compact and the draft Agreement was released. The June 30 draft documents are not a consensus position from all the states and provinces.
The failure of all jurisdictions to support the drafts makes it difficult for the public to engage. Despite the uncertainty, environmental groups urge the public to engage vigorously. The public has only 60 days during the summer months to provide comment. For any of this to work to protect the environment, citizens on both sides of the border must be vigilant. Key areas on which to concentrate comments in the 60 day review period include:
1) Conservation: Water withdrawals and consumption are likely to increase as a result of economic growth and global warming, while net Basin supply is likely to decrease. Therefore efficient use of water and conservation are essential to ensure that exceptions are kept to an absolute minimum.
2) Science:There is an urgent need to have a better understanding of the amount of Great Lakes water resources that are currently available. Before any increased uses are permitted all of the jurisdictions need to begin immediately to track all water withdrawals and return amounts..
3) Chicago Diversion: It is recognized that the longstanding U.S. Supreme Court Decree already offers considerable protection to Great Lakes interests and the Great Lakes ecosystem. Nevertheless, another clause or clauses should be added requiring Illinois to fully respect the agreement rules and processes in any future application to have the Decree altered.
4) Straddling Counties: There is merit in including straddling and nearby communities in the Annex but the use of political boundaries could create a dangerous legal situation.11
5) Intra-Basin Transfers:Diversions of water from one Great Lake to another (called "intra-basin transfers" in the agreements) that are greater than 100,000 gallons per day and lose less than 5 million gallons per day should not be exempted from the requirement to return the remaining water to the original lake watershed.
6) Bottled Water: While the exceptions for near-by communities in straddling counties and in straddling communities limit any application for a diversion to water "solely for public use," the risk remains that bottling plants will access water from municipal supplies. This risk requires a serious discussion.
7) Ecological Restoration:More work is required to ensure an emphasis on ecological restoration.
8) Limits:The limited exceptions could be further limited by reference to a cumulative total for all diversions that should not be exceeded.
9) Relationship to the International Joint Commission:A major concern with the 2004 draft was its potential to undermine the Boundary Waters Treaty and the International Joint Commission. While the 2005 draft clearly has attempted to deal with these concerns through language acknowledging that the agreement should not denigrate from either the Treaty or the IJC, the effect of the separate and disconnected appellate procedures in the 2005 draft, could weaken the role of the IJC.
Submitted by: WConnect Admin (June 09, 2009)
Last Reviewed by: WConnect Admin (June 09, 2009)
[Return]
Comments