NEWS
Doyle, Legislature come to agreement on Great Lakes
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Michael Evert:
- Court denies new defendant access (April 3, 2008)
- State officials propose expanding state arts education (April 1, 2008)
- Senate holding firearm restrictions legislation (March 13, 2008)
- Senate passes Great Lakes Compact (March 7, 2008)
- Cheese! Bill requires UW to use state products (March 4, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Senate passes Great Lakes Compact (March 7, 2008)
- Wisconsin only state without Great Lakes plan (September 11, 2007)
- Legislators look to join water protection pact (February 7, 2008)
- It’s quittin’ time: Legislators halt (March 14, 2008)
- Alderman discuss lake cleanup efforts (April 8, 2005)
by Michael Evert
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Gov. Jim Doyle announced Wednesday he is ready to sign a compact that would keep Great Lakes water within the Great Lakes Basin.
The compact, which faced some opposition in earlier rounds of debate, now has almost complete support from both sides of the aisle after a compromise was reached over certain provisions in the proposal. Doyle called for a special session in the state Assembly April 17 to vote on the agreement.
Mike Bruhn, spokesperson for Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, said the agreement was vital to ensuring the protection of the abundant natural resources the Great Lakes provide.
“Over 20 percent of the freshwater on earth comes from the Great Lakes,” Bruhn said. “We need to make sure we can protect Great Lake waters for future generations.”
Previous opponents to the bill have decried Waukesha County’s exclusion from the area protected by the bill, depriving it of easy access to water only a few miles away.
Areas such as Mukwonago in Waukesha County, which are designated as “straddler communities” — municipalities that have land both within the Great Lakes Basin and outside it — will still be able to obtain Lake Michigan water.
Other areas in Waukesha County, or any other county in Wisconsin outside of the Great Lakes Basin, will be subject to the same restrictions on Great Lakes water as non-Great Lake states. Some state Republicans believed this provision would inhibit growth in those areas.
Another point of contention was the use of the “Governor’s Veto,” which would cancel out any request of a region outside the Great Lakes Basin for water if a governor objected to it.
Details involving the new provisions of the compact that fostered the bipartisanship are scarce, but will likely become public after the special Assembly session April 17. At this time, the new agreement includes the controversial “Governor’s Veto.”
Bruhn said implementing the agreement had negligible economic costs, adding the compact is “mostly a social benefit.”
Robert Chappell, a spokesperson for Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton’s office, said the long-term economic costs of selling water to other states would be far greater than any short-term gain.
“Not protecting these waters would have a devastating impact on the economy,” Chappell said. He added many industries are integrally tied to the health of Lake Michigan, and selling the water would likely decimate them.
Sen. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkorn, said he hopes the bipartisan support will translate into votes.
“We all know this day would soon come and I am pleased it came sooner than later,” he said in a statement. “The full Legislature should stand ready to do the right thing without hesitation.”
Doyle’s decision to sign the compact into law comes five years after the initial compact was ratified by governors and prime ministers of 10 Great Lake states and provinces.
The compact provides a standardized governing body that may decide how Great Lakes water will be used outside of the Great Lakes Basin. Specifically, it prohibits the use of water to all areas outside the basin unless that area can assure the water returns to the basin.
Currently four out of eight states and both provinces that originally signed the compact have fully implemented the bill into law.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 10:13am):
They should fill in the Welland Canal and close the St. Lawrence Seaway. The problems with invasive species and the extra water spilling into the ocean outweigh any benefits of ocean-going ships access to the Great Lakes.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
