Stupak: Proposal on Great Lakes water diversions falls far short In the company of a bipartisan group of U.S. House members from Great Lakes states, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, at a public press conference in July, 1999, outlined his legislation to impose a moratorium on bulk sales and diversions of Great Lakes water. Stupak told a panel of Great Lakes governors this week that a moratorium still needs to be part of their proposal to protect Great Lakes waters. (Photo courtesy Congressman Stupak’Äôs office) WASHINGTON ’Äì Annex 2001, a proposal to regulate Great Lakes water diversions, fails to include Native Americans, is not supported by two Canadian provinces and lacks a role for the federal government in developing diversion standards, United States Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, said Tuesday, Feb. 13. Stupak, who for most of the past decade has led the fight against Great Lakes water diversions, offered his comments on Annex 2001, a proposed amendment to the Great Lakes Charter of 1985, in a letter to Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, chairman of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. In addition his comments on the lack of support for the proposal, Stupak also noted Annex 2001 fails to put in place any kind of moratorium on diversions until diversion standards are established by the governors and adopted by the federal government. "The draft Annex 2001 allows governors three years to develop conservation standards, and a moratorium impels them to promptly finish this process," said Stupak, who introduced bipartisan moratorium legislation in the 106th Congress. "Without a moratorium, the impetus to complete development of conservation standards is diminished and could delay the standards' implementation for several more years," he added. Stupak said a moratorium should apply to all new and increased withdrawals until the standards are enacted. "Such an action would comply with international trade laws because this moratorium would be applied to both domestic and international diversion requests," Stupak said. Local members of the Lake Superior Alliance said they support Stupak’Äôs efforts to seek a moratorium on diversions. Vern Simula, chair of the Lake Superior Alliance Lake Superior Alliance Chair Vern Simula of Toivola spoke at a water diversion policy hearing sponsored by the International Joint Commission (IJC) on October 20, 1999, in Duluth, Minn. "I am extremely pleased that our Congressman, Representative Stupak, has assumed such a strong and assertive role on this issue," Simula told those present at the IJC hearing. "Knowing of the world's shortage of water, and considering the critical role water plays ’Äì not only for domestic needs but for a growing desperation among industrial and agricultural sectors as well ’Äì the political pressure to develop policy allowing export will be tremendous." Simula noted the proposed water export is not the way to solve the world's water shortage problems since furnishing these areas with more water will simply foster greater inappropriate industrial growth, greater population growth and an even greater dependence on water. "These water-starved areas are already living beyond the capabilities of their bio-region's capacity," Simula said. "Let's not compound the future, inevitable problem by now creating even a greater artificial dependency. Sound water conservation and use policy is a much more ecologically judicious and humane approach." Said Janet Avery, Lake Superior Alliance board member, "They can’Äôt make the program strong enough for me. In the future these Great Lakes are going to be so important because they constitute 20 percent of the world’Äôs fresh water. Lake Superior alone is 10 percent." Keweenaw County has approximately 87 miles of Lake Superior shoreline, shared by all five townships of the county. According to Ken Korhorn, Grant Township supervisor, the township’Äôs Land Use Planning Committee members who attended the recent Keweenaw Common Ground Workshop on land use planning held in Mohawk placed clean water and delicate shoreline ecosystems high on the list of their assets to protect. "I applaud efforts to stop any diversion of Great Lakes water," Korhorn said when he learned of Stupak’Äôs objections to the Annex 2001 proposal. Added Simula, "I believe that the citizens of the Great Lakes, and the Lake Superior Basin particularly, need to work hard in supporting our legislative representatives, like Congressman Stupak, to develop sound policy on the issue of water diversion. It will not be an easy task!" MTU Associate Professor Mary Durfee, co-chair of the Lake Superior Bi-National Forum Mary Durfee, co-chair of the Lake Superior Bi-National Forum and Michigan Tech associate professor of social sciences, said the Forum considers this proposal an improvement over an earlier version. However, the group is now composing a letter to the governors to express their concern about the fact that the present Annex 2001 draft allows diversions of up to a million gallons a day (enough for 20,000 people), which could lead to small but uncontrolled development. "This could become very problematic," Durfee said. In his critique of the proposal, Stupak initially praised the effort of governors to try to come up with standards to head off water diversion from the Great Lakes Basin, but he listed, in addition to the lack of a moratorium, four other major problem areas, including the one Durfee mentioned: Smaller diversions may continue with less scrutiny. "The draft Annex 2001 depicts new or increased diversions that have a net loss of less than 1 million gallons per day from the Great Lakes Basin as having minimal impact," the Congressman said. Thus, these smaller diversions wouldn't be subject to the conservation standards, but instead to less rigorous state regulations, he noted. "Although such withdrawals must meet five criteria, those could be liberally interpreted and allow many small-scale diversions, which would have a cumulative detrimental impact on the basin. Moreover, the amendment suggests that Great Lake governors could not exercise their veto, authorized under the Water Resources Development Act, for new or increased diversions under the one-million gallon loss threshold," Stupak explained. The draft Annex 2001 does not have the support of Ontario and Quebec. "The provinces' refusal to endorse the amendment indicates that their concerns have not been addressed, and failure to gain their support will subject the final Annex 2001 to further criticism and possible court challenges," Stupak said. "If the premiers do not endorse Annex 2001, then we will have failed to fully address the diversion problem. We must not create a situation wherein countries, states, and businesses approach Canadian provinces for diversion permits because, through our independent action, Canada has been left with different conservation standards than found in the United States." The draft Annex 2001 does not detail a role for the federal governments of the United States and Canada in developing conservation standards. "Conservation standards can only become binding through passage of federal legislation, and bypassing these important entities risks further delay of this process," said Stupak, who also urged inclusion of the International Joint Commission, with ties to the U.S. and Canada, in the process. The draft Annex 2001 has not included Native Americans. "Protection of the Great Lakes is a responsibility shared by all governments, and tribes are recognized as sovereign governments," Stupak said. First, he said, the Great Lakes are of immense cultural importance to the tribes, who consider the water's preservation of supreme concern. In addition, if tribes make claims on Great Lakes water, as they are entitled under various treaties, they could allow diversions from the Great Lakes. The council of governors is seeking input on Annex 2001 through a series of public hearings in Great Lakes states. At Stupak's request the state of Michigan held one of these hearings on Wednesday, Feb. 14, at Northern Michigan University in Marquette. ’ÄìMichele Anderson February 14, 2001