The state Senate today approved the Great Lakes Compact. I am a strong advocate for a Compact that protects the quantity and quality of the Great Lakes. Because this document comes up short, I voted against the Compact.

For a year and a half, I served on the Legislative Council Special Study Committee on the Great Lakes Compact. The committee was outstanding, the most rewarding committee I have served on during my years in the Legislature. The makeup of the committee was amazing in that such a varied group of individuals including legislators from both parties, interest groups, businesspeople, environmentalists and university officials worked for countless hours on a critical issue of enormous magnitude. The debate and shared information was of an exceptional quality.

During today’s floor debate, I posed four questions about the Compact to Democrat state Senator Mark Miller. Senator Miller chairs the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, and was instrumental in crafting the Compact legislation.

I asked Senator Miller who would resolve issues about the one state veto, communities in straddling counties, public trust doctrine, and the effect of the Compact on Indian tribes. Senator Miller answered that the federal courts would resolve questions. Legislation that lacks certainty and relinquishes authority to federal courts is not in the best interests of Wisconsin. On the question about the effect on the tribes, Senator Miller replied that he didn’t know.

Senator Miller’s answers sent a strong signal that if the Compact still had many unresolved issues, why should the Legislature endorse it? That prompted me to make a motion to refer the Compact back to the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee for the proper work needed to improve the Compact. The motion failed.

The Compact contains the very problematic one state veto provision. Allowing one governor from another state to deny a water diversion to citizens that cannot vote for that governor is a very serious flaw in this document. To surrender our sovereignty to a regional body of governors that can make changes after the Compact is adopted is unacceptable. I do not support a document that gives up our sovereignty to another state.

The Compact as written contains page after page of language that lacks definition, as outlined by our highly respected Legislative Council. The significant amount of language lacking definition in the Compact indicates this issue almost certainly will wind up in federal courts for years and years to come.

I was a guest on the Joy Cardin program on Wisconsin Public Radio. I discussed the concerns I have with the Great Lakes Compact.

You can hear the program by going here.

Scroll down to 3/11/08, 6:00 a.m., and click “Listen.”

My interview is during the second part of the hour.

I was interviewed for an article about the competition for water that appears in the March issue of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ magazine, “State Legislatures.”

The article, entitled, “Hot Water,” discusses the Great Lakes Compact:

Supporters of the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact note that it still needs to be ratified by the legislatures of six more states and that the going may not be entirely smooth. In Wisconsin, Senator Mary Lazich says she has concerns that the effect of the compact may be additional bureaucracy. “I think it has the potential to be make-work for the government and private sector attorneys who will be involved in defining all of this down the road,” says Lazich.

But even with such reservations, Lazich acknowledges that momentum is in the compact’s favor, and for a compelling reason. “All of us are reading about the water issues across the country and it makes us even more determined to preserve our Great Lakes. We want to see the language of the compact tweaked a little, but ultimately the only thing that matters is making sure that nothing detrimental happens to the lakes.”

Here is the entire article.

Today, I voted against the Great Lakes Compact bill on the floor of the state Senate. The legislation, Senate Bill 523 passed the Senate, 26-6.

For a year and a half, I served on the Legislative Council Special Study Committee on the Great Lakes Compact. The committee was outstanding, the most meaningful committee I have served on during my years in the Legislature.The makeup of the committee was amazing in that such a varied group of individuals including legislators, interest groups, businesspeople, environmentalists and university officials managed to work diligently for countless hours on a critical issue of enormous magnitude. There is not an issue that is more important than the Compact. 

The way the committee ended its work is telling because more time was necessary to develop the best Compact possible. The sheer length of the Compact was a signal the document needed further study.

Once the Compact is adopted, its policies will remain intact for generations to come, so the job must be done right. Unfortunately, the Compact as written contains page after page of language that is broad and vague, as outlined by our highly respected Legislative Council.

I have already blogged this week about how 33 amendments were proposed to the Great Lakes Compact bill with little time for legislators, the press, interested parties and the general public to review.

It is frustrating to me as the most vocal opponent of the Compact that so many amendments were dropped at the last minute onto a bill that totals over 150 pages. This is no way to run a ship.

The heavy amount of broad language in the Compact indicates this issue almost certainly will wind up in federal courts for years and years to come.  The Compact constitutes make-work for attorneys. 

I agree that there needs to be a Compact. While I am the biggest opponent to the Compact, I am also the strongest advocate for a Compact that manages our water resources wisely. It’s important for the states to come together, develop an understanding, and come to a compromise.

However, the current Compact has major flaws, including the one state veto provision. Allowing one governor from another state to deny a water diversion to citizens that cannot vote for that governor is a very serious problem with the Compact as written. To relinquish our sovereignty to a regional body of governors that can make changes after the Compact is adopted is unacceptable. Where else do we have a dictatorial or totalitarian form of government where we give up our decision-making authority?  

I could never support a document that relinquishes our sovereignty to another state. I also cannot support legislation that is jammed down our throats at the last minute without appropriate time to examine the bill’s complex details.

The Great Lakes Compact bill, Senate Bill 523 now goes to the state Assembly. The current legislative session ends next Thursday, March 13.

Tuesday, Senate Democrats scheduled an executive voting session for the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on the Great Lakes Compact. There are over 150 pages in the Great Lakes Compact bill, Senate Bill 523, and 33 amendments were added to the complex bill late Monday.

Late Tuesday night, the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources recessed until 11:00 a.m. today without taking votes on the amendments or the bill. This morning, the Senate Committee on Organization met to schedule the calendar for Thursday’s Senate floor session. Committee members were informed a ballot would be sent to members later today to add the Great Lakes Compact bill to Thursday’s Senate calendar after it is passed out of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

I am told the 33 amendments are being combined into one comprehensive substitute amendment. The question is, when will legislators get to see the amended bill?  Will most state Senators get their first look at this large bill when they go to the Senate floor Thursday? Are state Senators expected to vote on such a massive bill without time to review and research the contents?

There’s more on the Senate Democrats’ list of bills to ram through in the final days of the current legislative session that ends next week Thursday, March 13. Stay tuned.

Unbelievably, Senate Democrats scheduled an executive session today in the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on Great Lakes Compact legislation, less than two weeks after the bill was introduced on February 21, 2008.  

There are over 150 pages in the Great Lakes Compact bill, Senate Bill 523.  Yesterday afternoon, March 3, 2008, 33 amendments were unreasonably added to the already massive bill. That leaves less than 24 hours to examine close to three dozen amendments.

It is unconscionable to expect the members of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, concerned parties and the general public to review and comprehend this complex bill in such a short amount of time.

Last Thursday, February 28, 2008, Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker informed the press there would be an upcoming public hearing on the Great Lakes Compact legislation.Wispolitics.com reported on February 28, 2008, that, “The Great Lakes Compact will get a hearing in the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday (March 5), and it could come to the Senate floor next Thursday (March 6) or March 11, Decker said.”

Instead of scheduling a public hearing, an executive session of the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources has been scheduled today to begin at 4:00 p.m. If the state Senate is still in session at 4:00, the executive session is scheduled to begin immediately following the end of the Senate floor session. The public has been all but locked out of the process, deprived of an opportunity to address the many issues involved in legislation of this magnitude.  The public is denied a chance to speak to the 33 amendments added to the bill late yesterday afternoon.

I served with seven other legislators and 11 citizen members for over a year on a special Legislative Council Study Committee on the Great Lakes Water Compact. Senate Democrats   are now attempting to rush a product through the Legislature before the current legislative session ends in less than two weeks. I continue to maintain that due diligence is necessary to produce the strongest Compact possible rather than abrupt approval of a Compact just for approval’s sake.

For months I have been recommending that Wisconsin refrain from approving a Great Lakes Compact that is flawed and should instead work with officials in other states that share my concerns, like Ohio to achieve a strong document.

That is why I am encouraged to hear that Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch and State Representative Scott Gunderson have written a letter to the President of the Ohio state Senate, Senator Bill Harris, stating they want to collaborate with the state of Ohio on changes to the Compact.

Representatives Huebsch and Gunderson correctly state they desire a strong Compact to protect the waters of the Great Lakes, that private property rights must be protected, and that one state should not have the power to impact the economic development efforts of another Great Lakes state.

I support Speaker Huebsch and Representative Gunderson in this endeavor. Here is a copy of their letter to Ohio Senate President Harris.

I also concur with state Representative Jim Ott who has also expressed concerns with the Compact in its current form.  Representative Ott appropriately points out that the current Compact would deny cities like Waukesha access to Lake Michigan water, and that there should not be a rush to adopt a Compact. A strong Compact is necessary for many reasons, including the fact that the Compact will be in place, as Representative Ott states, for “generations to come.”

Here is a copy of Representative Ott’s statement.

Here is a link to all of my blogs on the Great Lakes Compact.

I agree that Wisconsin should proceed cautiously and work to adopt a Compact that is the best document possible for the Great Lakes, Wisconsin, and the other Great Lakes states.

The Great Lakes Compact is headed to the state Legislature for consideration.

We need a Great Lakes Compact, but as I have stated so many times in the past, it has to be the right document, free of flaws and trap doors. Passing a Compact just to pass a Compact is the wrong approach.

I was interviewed by Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel reporter Stacy Forster for today’s article on the Compact.

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel Editorial Board has written an excellent editorial in today’s edition, stating the sale of much-needed public drinking water from the city of Milwaukee to New Berlin should not be predicated on approval of the Great Lakes Compact.

The editorial position by the newspaper is right on the money and I commend the Editorial Board for taking this stance.

Here is the editorial.

Several elected officials, representatives of conservation organizations, and private citizens held news conferences Tuesday calling for quick approval of a Great Lakes Compact. I continue to urge caution to avoid approval for approval’s sake that might result in a flawed Compact.

Some of the comments made to endorse a fast Compact resolution are disturbing.

Milwaukee Alderman Michael Murphy issued a press release that, “the (Milwaukee Common Council’s) Public Works Committee unanimously passed a resolution that Milwaukee will not sign final agreements relating to the sale of water to communities outside the Great Lakes basin until all eight state legislatures in the Council of Great Lakes and two Canadian provinces ratify the compact.”

Murphy’s blunt statement is a direct shot across the bow, a clear indication that the city of Milwaukee doesn’t have any intention of assisting communities like New Berlin or Waukesha in dealing with their need for water.

Murphy’s press release also states that, “Once the compact is ratified; the City of Milwaukee may enter into agreements for the sale of water to neighboring communities outside the Great Lakes Basin.” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made similar statements, threatening to withhold water.

This amounts to pure extortion, and it’s very sad that Milwaukee officials would use a public-health issue as leverage to extort a vote.

Here are the facts.

Milwaukee's role as it relates to water to the suburbs is only technical infrastructure, not denial or approval of access to Lake Michigan water. Milwaukee doesn’t have authority to say yes or no. It doesn’t have exclusive ownership of Lake Michigan or control of Lake Michigan water.

New Berlin has received approval from the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to negotiate with the Milwaukee Water Works for infrastructure access to Lake Michigan water.

The DNR told New Berlin they could negotiate with Milwaukee to access water, and those negotiations are taking place. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is telling mayors in the Senate district that I represent that they will not get water until I and other suburban legislators approve the compact.

The communities are under a radium enforcement issue.  I do not take kindly to extortion, and I find it appalling that Mayor Barrett uses public health, denial of safe drinking water to my constituents as leverage.  I am told that Mayor Barrett is telling Mayors he wants them to develop low income housing and give him a share of all growth that results from Milwaukee giving the communities water. 

If he wants to be the Mayor or city planner for the communities that I represent, then he ought to apply for the job.  Why does government regional cooperation not work?  Because it is never cooperation; it is the City of Milwaukee using any means available to get control of suburban growth and get revenues from communities surrounding the city of Milwaukee.

The broad language of the compact and the problematic provision that allows a single Great Lakes governor to veto a proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes basin are major sticking points about the Compact that remain. One state enjoying dictatorial power is not consistent with the concept of majority rule our country is founded on, not to mention the issue of a governor of another state having the power to veto actions of people that do not elect that governor.  

I spoke with a senator from Ohio and he informs me that Ohio is not going to ratify the Compact in its current form.  Wisconsin should work in partnership with Ohio to address similar concerns and develop a more effective Compact.  I continue to interact with Ohio Senator Tim Grendell as he drafts legislation in Ohio.

Now the discussion on the Compact shifts to the state Legislature where the issue could very well get bogged down in partisan politics rather than focusing on scientific evidence and expertise. Only two states that have little at stake, Minnesota and Illinois have ratified the Compact. It might be best for the Compact to be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct the fatal flaws. Approving the Compact just to attain a Compact is not the solution.

I was interviewed by Wisconsin Public Radio about my reaction to concerns about the Great Lakes Compact.

From the Wisconsin Public Radio website: 

Local Officials Call for Great Lakes Protection

10/31/07

A committee working to protect the Great Lakes against large-scale water diversions disbanded recently in Madison. But with the state budget debate over, local officials are calling on the Legislature to pick up the pieces of the Great Lakes Compact.

Chuck Quirmbach reports. --…

running time 1:27
Listen to this story now using RealPlayer

 

Last weekend, Great Lakes Legislators met in Michigan to discuss the great Lakes Compact, an issue I have been extensively involved in as a member of a special Wisconsin Legislative Council Committee reviewing the Compact.

Because I could not attend the meeting, I sent the following letter to Michigan State Senator Patty Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators that outlines my many concerns about the Compact:

Dear Michigan State Senator Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators:

Currently I serve on a Wisconsin Legislative Council Study Committee that has been meeting since September 7, 2006, to study and recommend whether the Wisconsin Legislature should adopt the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact.

Each of the eight Great Lakes states has a different stake in the Compact and the status of legislation to ratify the Compact varies from state to state. I have followed this issue closely both on and off the committee, and I am very disappointed that I will not be attending the meeting in Traverse City. Prior family plans with people attending from other states keep me in Wisconsin .

The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact implicates conflicting public policy issues. The Great Lakes hold about one fifth of the world’s freshwater. It is undisputed that freshwater is a valuable resource that must be preserved. Some people may argue that water should not be removed from the Great Lakes or from the Great Lakes Basin.

However, it is also undisputable that freshwater is used now to meet current needs and those needs will continue to grow. We Great Lakes states do not want to be at a disadvantage by agreeing to a compact that denies our constituents and our states reasonable use of Great Lakes water.

There are various problems with the Compact including, but not limited to:

ONE STATE VETO
Under existing federal law, the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), one state’s governor can veto an application for a diversion of Great Lakes water. The parties negotiating the Compact failed to remedy this twenty year old flaw in totality. Instead, it still exists in the Compact in relation to some diversions. Allowing one state to veto an application gives one state power out of proportion with that state’s interests in the Basin’s resources. Giving dictatorial power to one state is not consistent with majority rule. Our country was founded on majority rule and our country exists to this day on the principle of majority rule.

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY
Proponents of the Compact may say that it should be enacted so that the states in the Great Lakes Basin can determine the future management of Great Lakes water. However, Congress has the final legal authority to interfere with the operation of a compact. The ultimate check on Congress is political and unfortunately the eight states that are party to the Great Lakes Compact have a minority of seats in Congress. Historically Congress has rarely interfered with compacts it has approved; however; with water becoming a scarce resource and the Great Lakes states status as a minority in the U.S. Congress, there is a lot at stake for the Great Lakes states. I am concerned that over time Congress might enact changes to water law that are not in the best interest of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes states.

GOVERNORS MIGHT CHANGE COMPACT
Once approved by Congress, there is a provision of the Compact allowing the Governors of the Great Lakes states, sitting on the Council, to amend key provisions of the Compact regarding standards and reviews. There is the risk that they may amend the Compact so that it provides less protection for the Great Lakes , or at the other extreme, onerous regulations. This uncertainty always invites the possibility of litigation.

PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Adopting the Compact raises the specter of extending the Public Trust Doctrine to all waters in all Great Lakes states, including groundwater. Specifically, the trust language in the Compact, “The waters of the basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the states.” For example, Ohio Senator Timothy Grendell has already noted that the Public Trust Doctrine language of the Compact would also have negative results in Ohio .
The Trust language in the Compact has been identified as language that cannot be modified by the states. The Public Trust Doctrine has various meanings in the states, and the Compact may affect each state differently. What will it mean in the State and Federal courts, how will this get resolved?

FISCAL IMPACT
State and local governments will incur a fiscal cost for implementing the Compact, including the costs associated with litigation. The broad language of the compact is ripe for extensive litigation and state costs.

REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY
If ratified by all eight states and adopted by Congress, the Compact will be federal law. The results of litigation over the Compact may be unanticipated and unintended regulations, and states cannot change the Compact.
The states do not have discretion to change substantive Compact language. Early in the process, the Wisconsin Legislative Council staff provided our Study Committee with a memorandum that among other things identified examples of the broad language of the Compact. That memorandum is attached. The broadness of the Compact’s language invites litigation over its meaning and application.

CONCLUSION
The governors of the eight states and the premiers of the two Canadian provinces signed the Compact in 2005, and only Minnesota with very little at stake, and Illinois with massive special diversion protection in the compact, have ratified the Compact. The Compact should be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct fatal flaws in the Compact.
I hope the meeting in Traverse City is filled with healthy debate. I am very disappointed that I will not be in attendance, and I look forward to knowing the information presented in Traverse City. If you have questions, comments, concerns, or advice for me, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Mary Lazich
State Senator
Senate District 28

For the past year, I have been serving as a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact. My efforts have been focused on the Compact’s ideal goal to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters. That is the large picture.

I have also been concentrating on gaining access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, a need that is critical for those communities. The work has translated into hours upon hours of meetings, exhaustive research, and numerous correspondences with other concerned officials and water experts from around the Midwest.

That is why I was very surprised to read the off-base comments of New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero in today’s Milwaukee Shepherd-Express Metro weekly newspaper.

Reporter Dennis Shook writes in today’s Shepherd Express-Metro:

Chiovatero, who has meetings this week with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to discuss water access details, said he sees Lazich as the major obstacle to solving the city's water woes.

"These are her people ... she lives here," Chiovatero said of Lazich, who could not be reached for comment. "She has Lake Michigan water herself and she's enjoying it. So let everybody else [enjoy] it. This is just a political thing going on that has me upset," he said of her opposition to the compact.

Chiovatero’s rationale and line of thinking is small-minded and simplistic. His criticism is misdirected. Instead of cozying up to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who opposes access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, Chiovatero should be working with me, the state Senate representative of the area most affected by the Compact, to ensure our communities get the water they so desperately need.

How ironic that Chiovatero would call me an obstructionist on the Compact when he sits down at a meeting with Milwaukee’s Mayor who has been steadfast in his opposition to our area getting Lake Michigan water. Barrett’s threat to prevent the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water will result in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells. Withholding water from our area will endanger public health and will damage economic development.

Consistently, my opinion has been that the current Compact is a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy. I am in no rush to approve a Compact that allows a single Great Lakes Governor to veto any diversion of water to New Berlin. Apparently Chiovatero fails to understand that provision alone would put the city of New Berlin that he is supposed to be representing in serious jeopardy of obtaining much-needed water.

The Compact that Chiovatero and Barrett say we should approve immediately is filled with flaws. Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact. Squillace maintains the Compact is so problematic that chucking it entirely and starting from scratch might be the best option.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact. This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin. Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development.

Chiovatero believes approving the Compact will be tantamount to waving a magic wand and like a panacea, our water troubles will conveniently be over. I have done a lot of homework on this issue and it is far more complex than that. Sadly, Chiovatero doesn’t get it.

I will not endorse a Compact that puts our communities in the precarious position of having water access stripped away by the whims of a single Governor in a neighboring state. Furthermore, I will continue to speak out against the many defects in the document as long as they pose a threat to the welfare of residents in New Berlin and Waukesha.

On Tuesday, a group formed by Governor Doyle to work on the Great Lakes Compact met for two hours in the Governor’s office.

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, and as the state Senator representing New Berlin and the Waukesha area that will be affected by the Compact, I should have been notified about the meeting and invited. I was not.

Darryl Enriquez of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel interviewed me Tuesday about the meeting and writes about it in today’s paper:

“Lazich (R-New Berlin) is fighting a key detail in the compact, one of several that show the deep political and economic divisions that have brought work to a standstill.

The legislative group headed by state Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) has a Sept. 15 deadline to complete its work. It is reconvening today after a lengthy lull.

Lazich's beef with the federal version of the compact is that any proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes drainage basin can be vetoed by a single governor. As outlined in the accord, a diversion must be unanimously approved.

Lazich is working to change that provision so that only a simple majority vote of the eight Great Lakes states governors is needed for approval of a diversion project.

Her stance is viewed as an obstruction to compact approval.

"The compact is so flawed that it gives one governor veto power and no recourse," Lazich said. "I'm very much an obstructionist to the single veto. I'm very much a supporter to preserving the Great Lakes."
Lazich said she was upset about not receiving an invite to the governor's working group.

A governor's spokesman said that seven members of the Kedzie committee attended the working group, along with governor's staff, state Department of Natural Resources staff, environmentalists and others.

"Was there a meeting of the Kedzie committee and I wasn't notified?" Lazich asked. "I am very, very concerned, and I will make this an issue at the start of the compact group meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) morning."

You can read the entire Journal/Sentinel article here.

At the beginning of today’s meeting, I asked for a show of hands of those committee members who attended Tuesday’s meeting at the Governor’s office. Seven people raised their hands, many of whom are members of the same Great Lakes Compact subcommittee that I serve on.

I reiterated my concern that I represent an area that has a great deal at stake on this issue, and yet was not notified or invited to Tuesday’s meeting. I then respectfully asked some of the members who did attend to give a brief summary of what transpired so I could have the same frame of reference before today’s committee proceedings began.

There was a quorum of members of the subcommittee I serve on at Tuesday’s meeting in the Governor’s office. That is very troubling, especially since I have been critical of the compact. I have referred to the Compact as a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

At today’s committee meeting, I requested that Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School be invited to speak to the Great Lakes committee. Squillace has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact. The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters. Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal.

The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch. The research paper published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.

Committee chair, Senator Kedzie said he will consider my request to add Squillace to a future committee agenda.

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, I readily admit that I am not in a hurry to ratify the Great Lakes Compact. I cannot support a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact. The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters. Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal. The research paper to be published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.

With surgical precision, Squillace dissects the Compact components, illuminating the reasons the document is far from being ready for prime time. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact. This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin. Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development.

In conclusion, Squillace says the Compact will not achieve its goal of protecting and conserving the Great Lakes. I agree. Riddled with too many problems, the Compact is bad public policy.

Meanwhile, the need for New Berlin and Waukesha to obtain Lake Michigan water remains serious. Because both communities must reduce the concentration of radium levels in their drinking water, their need for increased access to Lake Michigan water is in the interest of public health. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made it clear he is going to stand in the way. Barrett is threatening the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water, resulting in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells.

I am very concerned about allegations James Rowen posted on his blog, The Political Environment, on February 28, 2007. Barrett is threatening not only to delay Waukesha’s access to Lake Michigan water but also to impose a tax on access to water.

The need for Lake Michigan water in New Berlin and Waukesha is critical and undeniable. It is unconscionable that Barrett would attempt to profit from this public health crisis by extorting these communities to pay a huge new tax. Withholding water will endanger public health and will damage economic development. Barrett needs to reconsider his ill-conceived notion to take economic advantage of the public health plight in our communities.