Ask any Great Lakes state official if it is good public policy to assert public ownership over, and impose standards on and fees to compensate the public for the removal of minerals (iron or oil or others) by private parties and they say yes.
Ask him or her if it is good public policy to assert public ownership over, and impose standards and fees on the removal of water by private parties and you're treated as though you're speaking a foreign language. Which may be the case. Traditionally, the Great Lakes states have regarded water as a limitless resource that anyone can use in any quantity, subject to litigation.
But if water is indeed "the oil of the 21st Century," a term that actually understates water's importance, then the states need to change course.
Here's what they need to do to fix the compact that is currently pending (link below) and set to be signed in Milwaukee December 13. If they don't do this, they are signing the waters of the Great Lakes Basin over from public to private control -- and that ultimately means control by large private interests outside the U.S. and Canada.
http://www.ecobizport.com/AnxCompact111005Draft.pdf
1. The definition of “Product” must be modified to remove the possibility that it includes water itself as a product in any sized container or package. The first sentence would read, “Product means something produced in the basin by human or mechanical effort or through agricultural processes and used in manufacturing, commercial or other processes.” The remaining portion of the definition would remain the same.
2. The Bulk Water Transfer provision in the agreements must be deleted because it would be no longer necessary with the clarification of the definition of “Product.” It would be up to states or provinces to decide how to treat water exports, including water in bottles or smaller containers. All interested and affected parties would have equal rights and remedies to make whatever arguments exist under existing law.
However, in the alternative, if the definition of “Product” is retained, it must be revised to make it clear that states must authorize and license water for sale as an export before it qualifies as “Product” under the agreements: “‘Product’ means something lawfully produced in the Basin by human or mechanical effort or through agricultural processes and used in manufacturing, commercial or other processes, or authorized and licensed under state law and intended for intermediate or end use consumers.”
3. And, if the Water Transfer provision is retained, the savings clause should be clarified to read: “Each Party reserves the complete sovereign power to authorize, license, and permit (or not) the export of water as a Product in a manner it sees fit, so long as the exercise of such power is otherwise lawful.” This clarification is perhaps most important of all, because regardless of what the agreements say, the states expressly reserve their sovereign power to require authorization, licenses, or other requirements before the water in small containers can be exported or transferred. This would also minimize the risk of commerce clause or NAFTA challenges to subsequent state regulations or restrictions.
Thanks to public trust expert and leading environmental Jim Olson for these points.