|
|
|
|
Plan to limit water exports from Great Lakes debated
Experts divided on proposals during session at UT
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041113/NEWS06/411130384/-1/NEWS
By TOM HENRY
BLADE STAFF WRITER
The only consensus that seems to have emerged about a
proposed set of agreements written to keep Great Lakes
water from leaving the region is that the status quo
is unacceptable.
Environmentalists, academic researchers, and lawyers
continued to express differing views at the University
of Toledo yesterday about the agreements known as
Annex 2001.
The differences of opinion even come within their own
ranks, as some environmental groups clash with others
over the potential effectiveness of the proposed
measures.
Some say Annex 2001 would protect the region from
intruders, while others claim it is a water-permitting
scheme to accommodate sprawling communities on the
American side of the U.S.-Canadian border.
Annex 2001 is a proposal that Gov. Bob Taft's
administration has led the last three years on behalf
of the Council of Great Lakes Governors in an attempt
to unite the region on a common water law policy.
About 100 people who attended the fourth annual
national water conference sponsored by UT's College of
Law first heard complexities of how a myriad set of
Western water laws has been applied to disputes in
parched states, such as Arizona.
Then they heard how the annex, touted as an effort to
bring the water-rich Great Lakes region into
compliance with international law, is hardly immune
from controversy itself.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Sam
Speck, who chaired the advisory committee behind Annex
2001, defended it as a substantial upgrade to current
laws.
But even he admitted a rift expressed by some factions
of Canada could be so difficult to overcome that the
governors eventually may have to decide if they should
just hammer out an agreement among themselves.
Officials are trying to do something almost
unprecedented: reach an agreement between eight states
and two provinces that neither nation's federal
government finds objectionable.
Many of the concerns expressed in Canada have come
from a group called the Council of Canadians, which
claims to have a membership of 100,000.
Sara Ehrhardt, the group's national water campaigner,
said they in no way support the status quo, but fear
Annex 2001 has too many exemptions for business,
agriculture, and sprawling communities on the American
side.
Marie Mason, spokesman for Sweetwater Alliance, an
activist group in Michigan, said those concerns are
not limited to Canadians. She and Cathy Rose, a member
of the Lake Michigan Federation and the Milwaukee
chapter of the Sierra Club, urged a reopening of the
public comment period. It started in mid-July and
lasted 90 days.
Annex 2001 would allow diversions of less than 1
million gallons a day over a 120-day average. Permits
would be required for net usage that exceeds 5 million
gallons a day. Communities within 12 miles of the
water basin would be exempt. Opponents claim the
120-day average would not encourage the agricultural
sector to conserve water.
There are no proposals pending to divert or export
Great Lakes water from the region in bulk.
Contact Tom Henry at:
thenry@theblade.com
or 419-724-6079.
|
|
