The linked editorial below from the White Lake Journal is based on heartening sentiments, but it also shows the influence of the Western water lawyers that former Governor Engler and others hired to evaluate water export law a few years ago. The entire debate over the so-called "Annex 2001" flows from assumptions those lawyers made that the veto that all eight Great Lakes governors have over new water diversions is unconstitutional. But there's a strong case to be made that the veto is lawful and should remain.
Still, the editorial says:
"Under trade agreements and the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, water is considered to be a commodity or a product. Under their terms, we cannot just say no to those who want to use a product in the same fashion that we do. We use water for drinking, so under the commerce clause and trade agreements, others may be entitled to enter into trade for water to drink."
When we use water from the tap here in the Great Lakes Basin, it is NOT a product. Most of that water -- through obvious means -- is also returned to the Basin. Not so when water is bottled, sold and taken away from the Great Lakes.
The Western water lawyers did their job well -- of convincing us to draft rules that would let their thirsty states compete for our water. Some would say that's paranoid, but just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12961074&BRD=2052&PAG=461&dept_id=388728&rfi=6
Posted by Dave at September 25, 2004 10:58 AM