Progress Illinois

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Great Lakes Compact, an eight state agreement designed to protect water from the lakes from being diverted outside the region. Lawmakers have been trying to fast-track approval of the compact, which has bipartisan support, including from President Bush. There had been some concern that legislators from drought-prone regions of the country would find fault with the conservation agreement, but so far that does not appear to be the case:

House and Senate leaders from the region have said they are not aware of any significant opposition to the plan, which is common among states. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia currently belong to at least one interstate water compact, and many states belong to more than one.

The question that remains is just how effective the compact will be. With confidence high over its prospects, some environmentalists and lawmakers are questioning whether it will do enough to prohibit the "commercialization" of Great Lakes water:

Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI] has spoken out with concerns that the compact's failure to regulate the export of water in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons is a loophole that could open up vast tracts of Michigan water to commercialization.

Continue reading »

On Friday, Ohio became the latest state to approve the Great Lakes Compact, joining Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, and New York. This leaves only two of the eight Great Lakes states -- Michigan and Pennsylvania -- that are yet to sign the agreement, which would ensure that the water from the lakes remains in the region. Michigan's bill just passed the state legislature and is currently awaiting Gov. Jennifer Granholm's signature. Pennsylvania's House has signed off on a measure joining the interstate compact, but it is yet to be taken up by the Senate.

With the compact so close to reaching ratification in all eight states, its supporters are now turning their sights on the final step: approval by Congress and President Bush. The AP reports:

[B]ackers have been conducting briefings for congressional staffers from the Great Lakes states in hopes of gaining quick approval.

But crucial questions remain unanswered, such as who will be the primary House and Senate sponsors, which committees will consider the compact and whether it will be structured as a bill, a resolution or an amendment to other legislation. Also unclear is when the pact would be introduced and whether it can get through Congress before the next president takes office.

"This has moved so much quicker than any of us thought," said Cameron Davis, president of the Chicago-based Great Lakes Alliance. "We're putting finishing touches on some of these strategic points but don't have our final thoughts quite ready yet."

With an accord reached Tuesday between Democratic and Republican state lawmakers, Ohio will become the sixth state to ratify the Great Lakes Compact:

Ohio had been a major obstacle to the pact because of a disagreement over whether the plan would inadvertently violate property rights for groundwater on privately owned land. House Speaker Jon Husted, a Republican, and Democratic Minority Leader Joyce Beatty, reached a deal Monday to affirm private property rights and set the stage for Tuesday's vote.

The Great Lakes hold about 90 percent of our nation's fresh surface water and 20 percent of the world's fresh surface water. As water resources become more scarce, the compact is viewed by supporters as a means of protecting the environment, and as a way for people in the region to protect their water rights. But some environmentalists say that the compact itself gives states too many options to continue the wholesale privatization of surface water.

Continue reading »

The state governments of Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and New York have all ratified the Great Lakes Basin Compact, an environmental agreement aimed at protecting the waters of the five Great Lakes. Earlier this month it looked like Wisconsin was close behind. The compact legislation passed in the state Senate by a 26-6 margin but was tabled in the state Assembly by Republican lawmakers. The state Legislature then adjourned for the summer.

But the fact that lawmakers aren't in session, doesn't mean the debate has ended. Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle has announced that he will call a special session to ratify the agreement if lawmakers can reach a compromise.

At issue is a provision in the compact that allows any governor from one of the eight Great Lake member-states to veto water diversions authorized by another member state. In plain English: if one state wanted to take water and give it to a region outside of the water basin, it would need the approval of all seven other Great Lakes states.

Wisconsin Republicans, however, have voiced their opposition to this provision and their foot-dragging might sink the entire compact:

Not bending on that point might destroy the compact because all eight governors likely would never relinquish their individual veto power, but nobody at this point is saying they want to kill the deal.

Meanwhile, those states that have already approved the agreement -- including Illinois -- are watching Wisconsin with fingers crossed. The governors of all eight states have issued a statement (PDF) decrying the last-minute efforts by Wisconsin Republicans to change the language of the compact. Environmental groups have also condemned the action.

In the end it might be the Wisconsin electorate that pressures their lawmakers into ratifying the contract. A poll conducted in January found that 80 percent of the state population wants to see the compact made into law. Considering it's an election year, that's a lot of voters for Republican lawmakers to cross.

A federal study on environmental health hazards in the Great Lakes Region was finally released last week after months of stalling from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The report -- titled "Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern" -- was obtained last month by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), a nonprofit watchdog group, more than half-a-year after its original release date. According to CPI, the report warns that:

More than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen "areas of concern"—including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee—may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants.

In many of the geographic areas studied, researchers found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer.

CDC's refusal to release the study recently gained the attention of journalists and lawmakers. A report by the Washington Independent found the CDC was possibly blocking the findings for political reasons:

Scientists at the agency told The Washington Independent that political appointees interfere with science that could benefit public health. The Washington Independent looked into this and found evidence of negligence and a lack of scientific approach in four ATSDR public health consultations it investigated. By suppressing health studies, downplaying or avoiding links between industry and environmental hazards and threatening agency whistleblowers’ careers, the agency may be failing to put science first in public health investigations.

To add to the controversy, one co-author of the report, Dr. Christopher T. De Rosa, says he was demoted after he pushed for the report to be made public.