UPDATE: If you want to get a full-fledged argument for the legislation discussed below, read this editorial from the Bay City Times:
http://www.mlive.com/news/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1099930506249080.xml
The "lame-duck" session of the Michigan Legislature is underway. One is tempted to resort to the old cliche that no one's life, liberty or property are safe until it adjourns, but some good could come of this session. There's always a chance the lack of immediate recrimination from the voters that is possible in the lame-duck session could lead to passage of a water protection law that would actually help, rather than hurt the region's ability to stop Great Lakes water exports. You can urge your state legislator with the following arguments:
* Convince elected officials that the Great Lakes basin needs greater protections --Some representatives of the regulated community think that due to the abundance of water in the basin that there is no need to regulate water use. Of course, it is the same thinking that doomed commercial fishing in the Great Lakes and crippled our timber industry for decades at the turn of the century. Water is too critical to the basin’s future to leave decisions regarding its use unregulated. We need greater protections – and we need them soon.
· Require the efficient use of water -- require the use of conservation practices that minimize our use of water, and thus our impacts on water resources. It is our ability to use water efficiently that will allow the Great Lakes states to fight wasteful diversions to other regions of the country.
· No adverse impacts--It is critical to focus standards evaluating water use on the potential impacts that a withdrawal will have on water resources. Standards that are designed to protect natural resources are more likely to hold up to legal challenges, and focus decision-making on the impacts most likely to affect other local users. It also ensures non-human uses such as fisheries and wildlife protection are taken into consideration.
· Require water users to make lasting improvements to our water resources --Too many laws designed to protect the environment allow some “minimal” impact on natural resources. The Great Lakes Governors and Premiers agreed three years ago that protection of the Great Lakes deserved better – and that all withdrawals should be subject to the improvement standard. Given a population within the basin of 33 million people and growing, they agreed that a law should be designed to require restoration of the Great Lakes by those who were benefiting from its use. By exercising this heightened stewardship, we would be sending a message to other potential users around the country and to future generations – that the Great Lakes is a wonderful and unique resource that deserves our highest level of respect and protection.
· Strictly limit any diversion of water out of its watershed --The common law in Great Lakes states has for hundreds of years recognized the concept of “reasonable use” when it comes to water. Many jurisdictions have also acknowledged that withdrawals that take water out of its basin of origin can be limited as unreasonable due to their obvious potential impacts. Any regulatory scheme should strictly limit the conditions under which water could be shipped out of its watershed of origin for use.