<b>By ANN HINCH<br>
Assistant Editor</b></p><p>

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, on Feb. 20, became the third governor to sign the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. The proposed agreement between eight states and two Canadian provinces would prevent diversion of fresh water from the basin to other states and foreign countries.<br>
Daniels signed the compact after passing the Indiana House and Senate. Though governors negotiated the proposed compact through the Council of Great Lakes Governors (CGLG) without legislative input, their general assemblies are required to adopt it. Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich signed it in August, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed it last week.<br>
“Today, we celebrate an achievement that groups who don’t always see eye-to-eye came together to support. With this action, we’re renewing our commitment to put in place new protections for one of our greatest resources,” said Daniels.<br>
The Great Lakes contain nearly one-fifth of the world’s surface fresh water, and the United States and Canada have engaged in various agreements for a century to protect its use. Because a state cannot make international agreements, Ontario and Quebec passed their version of this compact last year, which nevertheless agrees with the CGLG proposal, according to Dave Naftzger, CGLG executive director.<br>
In the remaining states, the compact was awaiting gubernatorial signature in New York, had passed only one legislative chamber in Pennsylvania and Ohio, was a pending bill in Michigan and had no activity in Wisconsin.
Ohio and Wisconsin may prove the sticking points in passage of the compact; if passed, it would go to the U.S. Congress for approval before it could be enacted. Though Ohio’s House passed it, Sen. Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland) and 17 co-sponsors introduced on Feb. 14 a Senate bill to make two changes to the proposed compact, and one Wisconsin legislator is working on something similar.<br>
Though Grendell, an attorney, supports anti-diversion tactics, he is worried about this phrase in Section 1.3: The Waters of the Basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the States.<br>
In Ohio, the groundwater beneath each landowner’s property is considered theirs to drill and use.<br>
If Basin groundwater is transferred to the government in “public trust,” however – as are natural lakes and navigable rivers – he said the landowner would have fewer rights and no recourse if the state or federal government diverts the groundwater. He proposed a fix of a few words that he said would preserve landowner rights.
The problem is that any material change passed by one state must be approved by the others, including those that have already voted. “It’s not an insurmountable barrier, by any means,” said Grendell’s legislative aide, Beth Vanderkooi, of making the changes. “When we introduced (the Ohio Senate bill), only two states had passed (the compact).”<br>
She explained the CGLG has tried to reassure Grendell and Wisconsin State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford) that leaving the public trust language as is would not infringe on the rights of individual property owners.<br>
“If that’s true, why don’t we just fix the compact?” Vanderkooi asked.<br>
Michael Bruhn, Gunderson’s chief of staff, said the second suggested change is to require a majority vote of all eight governors to deny a diversion request for any city or county within the eight states, rather than making it possible to nix a request based on only one veto.<br>
He explained there are Wisconsin cities being “punished” by not being allowed access to the water, when they are prepared to return it – after treatment – back to the Great Lakes Basin.<br>
Right now, only those entities inside the Basin – the geographic area that drains into the lakes – have automatic access to lake water.<br>
Bruhn said Gunderson reached out, looking for other legislators who shared concerns about the compact, and found Grendell. Both agreed to introduce similar legislation into their respective legislative chambers.<br>
“We are trying to be forward-looking and making sure Wisconsin and Ohio aren’t left out,” he said, adding it is “egotistical” for a governor to authorize an agreement and then expect eight states’ legislatures to pass it with no changes. He noted this is why there is a separation of executive and legislative powers, and that Gunderson and Grendell are simply doing “due diligence” to protect their citizens.<br>
Bruhn said Congress may approve a finished compact – and then turn around the next day and authorize an out-of-region diversion anyway. “Congress doesn’t have to abide by this,” he said.<br>
Of Naftzger’s comment in a previous Farm World article that Congress has a history of respecting interstate agreements, Bruhn said, “They have a great history of doing it, until Nevada runs out of water” – noting the current Senate Majority Leader is from that state – adding it’s “problematic” that a city 30 miles from the Basin and in one of the eight states can’t get water, but a city a few states away possibly could.<br>
The Indiana Senate passed the compact unanimously. The House passed it 91-8; the eight dissenters are all Republican, and while State Rep. Tim Brown (Crawfordsville) said he can’t speak for his seven colleagues, perhaps they shared some of his reasons for voting “no.”<br>
One reason he gave is that when a state enters into a compact, it gives up some of its rights. Second, he was concerned about the potential administrative cost to Indiana (just under $250,000 annually for engineers and staff) and from where that money would flow.<br>
“I didn’t see in the bill how we’re going to pay for this compact,” Brown said, noting the legislature is being told to watch spending in an effort toward reduction of residents’ property taxes. “People don’t work for free.”<br>
Finally, he said the compact doesn’t provide a way for a single state to leave the compact in the future, and he was also concerned about some of the dispute resolution language. He said legislators were told by the bill’s sponsors that they couldn’t propose any changes, so he elected instead to vote against the compact.<br>
“(Indiana is) just a little tiny player in this compact,” Brown said.