By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Legislation that would impose a near-total ban on diverting water from the Great Lakes to other regions passed the House on Tuesday, all but ensuring that the measure will reach President Bush's desk.

The Great Lakes compact passed by a vote of 390 to 25 despite opposition from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who opposed it because of a "bottled-water loophole" that allows water in containers of less than 5.7 gallons to be exported from the Great Lakes basin.

Legislators and advocates who started work on the compact a decade ago were surprised to see it move through Congress so quickly. The long-sought agreement cleared only two state legislatures -- Minnesota and Illinois -- in the first two years after it was negotiated but then sped through the remaining six Great Lakes legislatures earlier this year. It passed the Senate unanimously in August. The Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario have also endorsed a binding agreement that mirrors the compact.

"It was a struggle," said Wisconsin state Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Allouez), an early proponent. "There was definitely an attitude out there by a number of legislators that the lake is unlimited and you couldn't hurt it, you didn't need to pass this. But eventually we prevailed."

In Wisconsin, some legislators worried about ceding control over their water. In Ohio, fears raised by the compact led to a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would ban government seizures of private water rights.

Stupak, who voted against the compact, argues that it treats Great Lakes water as a product and hence could make it subject to international trade laws. He had asked legislators to delay approving the compact until international trade experts and officials could weigh in.

"The compact actually calls water a product, so under the international trade agreements, what would prevent anyone else from demanding our water as a product?" Stupak said. "It's not the size of the container that matters, it's the principle and the precedent."

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, as it is formally known, also mandates that each state develop conservation and water efficiency programs within two years.

Minnesota already had strict water conservation standards, and Michigan won praise from conservationists for instituting detailed rules that severely limit water withdrawal from streams in summer, when levels are lowest.

"Michigan did a good job coming up with a model of how to regulate withdrawals in cold water and warm water springs," said Marc Smith, Great Lakes water policy manager for the National Wildlife Federation. "The states can be as tough as they want. There's nothing holding them back."

There are no specific requirements in the compact outlining how much states need to conserve water within the basin, but it provides for stakeholder lawsuits if people think a state is not taking adequate measures. "The hard part is still to come; that's getting state water-conservation plans in place to make the compact mean what it says," said Cameron Davis, executive director of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

The compact does not address pollution and invasive species in the Great Lakes, but on Thursday, the House passed the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008, which authorizes $150 million annually for cleanup of toxic hot spots -- triple the current authorization level.