|
6y Ann McCabe
<br />"1'he governors' proposal implements the
<br />Great Lakes Charter Annex, also known as
<br />"Charter Annex" or "Annex 2001," signed by
<br />the eight Great Lakes governors and die
<br />premiers of Ontario and Quebec on June 18,
<br />2001. The A,lnex was developed to ensure
<br />the Creat Lakes are protected, consen-ed,
<br />restored and improved [or Future genera-
<br />tions. At a meeting in Chicago last July,
<br />\\-isconsin Governor )im Doyle said the
<br />agreements, once implemented, "will ensure
<br />that when other regions look toward the
<br />Great bakes to solve their problerr,s, we ~~ill
<br />have the legal authority to protect ourseh-es."
<br />Under the \~'ater Resources Develop-
<br />ment Act, any single Great Lakes state can
<br />veto a large water diversion request. 'Michi-
<br />gan vetoed a request for water from L,oweil,
<br />Ind. The governors' efforts to advance the
<br />Charter Annex are intended to create a new
<br />governance standard and procedure to man-
<br />age the basin as an ecosystem.
<br />"At no tune, at no place in the world
<br />have we had an undertaking of t},is magni-
<br />tude lll terlns of W'atP.r lnanagel7lent," said
<br />Sam Speck, head of the Ohio Department
<br />of ;;\atural Resources. Speck chairs the
<br />state and prowincia] \~'ater 'y'Ianagement
<br />\~'orking Gror.rp, which spent three years
<br />developing the proposed standard and dis-
<br />cussing issues with an advisory group of
<br />stakeholders. The \\%orking Group had one
<br />technical and one governor's or premier's
<br />representative from each jurisdiction.
<br />Stakeholders represented environmental,
<br />agriculture, municipal, shipping and indus-
<br />trial concerns.
<br />The comment period ended Oct. 19.
<br />The \~Vorking Group is reviewing the com-
<br />ments and will revise the proposal and
<br />submit it to the governors and premiers for
<br />final approval.
<br />under the proposal, the eight states
<br />would form a compact. The regional com-
<br />pact will require legislative approval in
<br />each state, the riao pro~~nces and the li.S.
<br />Congress. Phis process likely will take sev-
<br />eral years. Accompanying the proposed
<br />compact is a Great Lakes Basin Sustainable
<br />\~'ater Resources Agreement between the
<br />states and prop-inces, which further elabo-
<br />rates how decisions will be made and
<br />water-use data collected.
<br />A number of municipalities just outside
<br />of the Great Lakes basin are experiencing
<br />water shortages, including ilkron, Uhio;
<br />Rural Lorain Gounri_•, Ohio, Lowell, Ind..
<br />and \\'aukesha, \\-is. In what many view as
<br />a test case, \\%aukesha seeks access to Lake
<br />Michigan water due to radium-contami-
<br />nated ground ~+•ater. To obtain lake water
<br />from the city oI Milwaukee, there Will be
<br />issues concenring return Ilow to the Great
<br />Lakes basin.
<br />The following withdrawals would be
<br />subject to regional review b~• die Regional
<br />Council of 10 jurisdictions (:S states and 2
<br />provinces):
<br />• new or increased diversions of one mi}-
<br />lion gallons per day or greater over any
<br />1.20-day period, ~rluc•h would reduire unani-
<br />mous approval of the regional council, and
<br />• new or increased consumptive use of
<br />five rrrillion gallons per day or greater over
<br />any LO-day period, which would require a
<br />6-2 majority of the regional council.
<br />Other, smaller proposed diversirn~s wwould
<br />be reviewed by the relevant state or
<br />province.
<br />A diversion means a transfer of water
<br />from the basin into another watershed or
<br />from one of dle Great Lakes into anodrer. A
<br />consumptive use is water Withdrawar fi-om
<br />the basin that is lost or othertiaise not re-
<br />turned to tl-re Great Lakes basin due to
<br />evaporation, incorporation into products or
<br />other processes.
<br />In addition, new or increased diver-
<br />sions over one million gallons per day and
<br />consumptive uses over five million gal-
<br />lons per day must meet a number of
<br />criteria, including:
<br />• Demonstration that d~ere is no reason-
<br />able water supply alternative; including d1e
<br />efficient use and conser`-anon of e,asting Wa-
<br />tersupplies;
<br />• x111 water ~~nthdrawn from the. basin
<br />shall be returned to the basin less an al-
<br />lowance for consumptive use. \Vater
<br />withdraw~~ directly from a Great Lake or
<br />from the St. Lawrence River shall be re-
<br />turned to the Watershed of those
<br />respective waters;
<br />• The wid~drawal ~.~ill be implemented to
<br />ensure drat it ~2ll result in no significant in-
<br />di~idual or cumulative adverse impacts to
<br />the quantity or quality of the waters and wa-
<br />ter-dependent natural resources of the basin;
<br />• The withdrawal shall incorporate a con-
<br />servation plan;
<br />• The withdrawal proposal will he in
<br />compliance: with all state and {•ederal lati•s
<br />and regional and international agree-
<br />ments; and
<br />• The withdrawal shall incorporate a pro-
<br />posal for an improvement to the Waters and
<br />water-dependent natural resources of tyre
<br />b<uin, demonstrating how measures will be
<br />implemented to improve the physical, chem-
<br />ical or biological integrih~ of the waters of tyre
<br />G,-eat Lakes bztsin.
<br />The improvement standard is precedent-
<br />setting: in exchange Eor approval to ~+-itl,dra~~•
<br />Great Lakes basin wager, the applicant must
<br />implement an improvement project. under
<br />the agreement the improvement project's
<br />scope should be commensw-ate to t}re ~nith-
<br />drawal. Projects could include habitat
<br />restoration, streambanl< stabilization, ground
<br />~~•ater redrar,ge and wetlands creation.
<br />Potential issues include the different
<br />voting approval requirements-unanim-
<br />ity for one million gallons per day and a
<br />super majority for five million gallons
<br />per day wit}rdrawals; the 1'7.0-day averag-
<br />ing period for some uses (W•hich
<br />reportedly assists agricultw•al irrigation
<br />and others); acknowledgement of the
<br />Supreme Court-decreed Chicago alloca-
<br />tion, under which withdrawals will not
<br />be subject to the proposed standard;
<br />more clarity on the appeal process; and
<br />regional review of state and provincial
<br />economic development projects.
<br />wwwAPPAnei.org JANUARV-FEBRUARYZOOS r9
<br />
|