Loophole Feared in Great Lakes Accord

By Jerry Zremski

A historic agreement among eight states is supposed to protect the waters of the Great Lakes from shipments to more parched parts of the country. But now some environmentalists worry that the lakes will lose their water anyway, one bottle at a time.

The much-heralded Great Lakes Compact prevents large-scale water diversions via pipeline or ship, but it allows Great Lakes water to be bottled and sold in containers no larger than 5.7 gallons.

Many environmentalists say that’s no big deal, but a cadre of activists on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border seems to fear that "Eau d’Erie" and "Huron Streams" might find their place on grocery shelves next to Evian and Crystal Springs.

"Our bottom line is that water should not be a commodity," said Sam Finkelstein, Great Lakes organizer for Food and Water Watch, part of a coalition that has generated more than 7,000 letters to Congress from people concerned that the compact will turn the lakes’ water into a product.

Yet the most prominent Great Lakes groups are largely unconcerned, stressing that the compact bans a far greater danger: massive quantities of Great Lakes water headed southwest via pipeline or up the St. Lawrence Seaway via ship.

"The compact addresses the major challenges facing the Great Lakes in a proactive way," said Andy Buchsbaum, who heads the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office. "Major water diversions have a much larger significance than bottled water."

The Senate ratified the Great Lakes Compact on Aug. 1, and the House is expected to follow this fall.

Ratified by eight state legislatures and backed by President Bush, the deal is nearly identical to an agreement between Ontario and Quebec.

The vast majority of activists and lawmakers praise the agreement, which was eight years in the making.

"That Congress is moving so quickly on these historic water conservation standards is a sign that our nation’s leaders see the Great Lakes as important to more than simply those of us fortunate enough to live, work and play in the region," said Cameron Davis, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Congressional aides involved in the compact’s ratification downplayed the fears about bottled water, saying little evidence indicates that companies are rushing to the region to exploit the water supply.

The activists who are registering their concerns are deeply worried about that possibility.

By allowing water from the Great Lakes basin to be bottled and sold, the compact could create "a whole new front of private investment that undermines the very effort to protect the lakes," said James Olson, an environmental lawyer from Michigan.

By allowing water from the basin to be sold, the compact also undermines the long-standing concept of the lakes as a public trust that cannot be exploited for private gain, activists said.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., has become a lonely voice in Congress questioning the compact. He recently sent a letter to Susan C. Schwab, the U.S. trade representative, with a series of tough questions, including, "Will enacting the compact provide legal protections for international corporations to export Great Lakes water?"

Many of the Great Lakes’ most prominent advocates see no reason to worry.

"I wouldn’t say it’s a concern in the immediate time frame," said Derek Stack, executive director of Great Lakes United, which is based in Buffalo.

Negotiators from the eight states and two provinces had to come to an agreement that simultaneously protected the lakes from the most serious challenge of large-scale water diversions while complying with world trade laws, Stack said. And that meant some provisions had to be made for some commercial use for water.

Compact supporters note that breweries and soft drink bottling plants have used water from the lakes for years.

In addition, they noted that the relatively few American activists questioning the agreement come from Michigan.

"It doesn’t seem to resonate anywhere else in the Great Lakes basin," Buchsbaum said.

Stack agreed, adding, "I think some people look for reasons to complain."

Then again, environmentalists in Michigan don’t have to look far for such reasons. For years, they have been engaged in a legal battle over Nestle’s proposal to bottle water from the state’s underground streams.

Nestle won a partial court victory allowing the company to bottle 100 million gallons of water annually.

e-mail: jzremski@buffnews.com

Originally published by NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF.

(c) 2008 Buffalo News. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.