After months of debate in the state Legislature, the Great Lakes Compact had an easy romp through the U.S. House of Representatives on its way to the president’s desk Tuesday.
The Great Lakes Compact’s goal is to ensure the Great Lakes are not depleted of their water by other states.
The bill attempts to protect the economies of the surrounding states, especially in fields related to their natural resources, such as shipping, recreation and tourism, while also allowing the Great Lakes states to review proposed uses of the lakes’ water.
The compact was negotiated for over four years by the eight Great Lakes states: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec also participated in the negotiations.
In 2005, chief executives from the eight Great Lake states and the two Canadian provinces signed the compact. Earlier this year, all eight states passed the bill.
The compact, presented by Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, passed the state Senate in August. On Tuesday, it passed through the house with a vote of 390-25.
The bill’s next stop is the White House, where, according to a July statement from the White House, President George W. Bush plans to sign the bill into law.
State Rep. Ron Petri, R-Wis., co-sponsored the bill and supports the compact. Tyler Schwartz, spokesperson for Petri, emphasized the importance of the compact for the state of Wisconsin.
“[The Compact] is absolutely necessary to protecting the environment and economy of the Great Lakes states,” Schwartz said.
However, some representatives from the Great Lakes states voted in opposition to the bill, like Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
According to his press secretary Nick Choate, while Stupak supported the intention of the bill, he questions its wording. In particular, Stupak dislikes the phrasing of one section that refers to water from the Great Lakes as a “product,” thus making it subject to international trade laws.
“He doesn’t want to end up in a situation where corporations have sole claim to the lakes, leaving the states virtually powerless,” Choate said.
Schwartz, however, disagreed that any problems would arise.
“Any possible problems with the bill were ironed out in the four years of negotiations between the Great Lakes states and the Canadian provinces,” Schwartz said.
According to Choate, though the bill passed, Stupak believes the House should have spent more time debating the bill to make sure any potential snags are addressed.
“Eight Great Lakes states spent three years looking at the statewide and local implications of it, while the House spent less than 20 days going over the national and international implications of it,” Choate said. “That is something that is of great concern to him.”
