DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Tension & the Great Lakes Compact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Tension & the Great Lakes Compact Great Lakes Water Tension in the 21st Century Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan May 22, 2019 Peter Annin Director, Mary Griggs Burke Center for Freshwater Innovation Author, The Great Lakes Water Wars Thesis • The Great Lakes region, continent & world are entering a period of increased water tension • These tensions are primarily driven by water scarcity • There will be increased pressure on water-rich areas like the Great Lakes • The region created a modern, binding world-class water management system to protect this internationally significant resource as we enter an era of global water insecurity Photo By RJ & Linda Miller Compact’s 10th Anniversary • That new water management paradigm is the Great Lakes Compact. • What lessons have been learned during the first 10 years? World Water Woes “Extremely High” water stress in red. • Only 1% of earth’s surface water is accessible & drinkable freshwater • 800 million lack access to clean drinking water today • 2 million die annually from unhealthy water conditions • Global water demand will surge 55% by 2050 • Two thirds of the global population will be “water stressed” by 2025 Sources: The World Resources Institute and The Coca-Cola Company National Geographic, University of Wisconsin Aquatic Science Center, Peter Gleick, United Nations The Aral Experiment Randy Yeip, Knight Center for Env. Journalism • The Aral was once the 4th largest inland water body in the world • Starting in 1960, its freshwater feeder streams were diverted for agriculture to make the desert bloom Anti-diversion Poster Child • The desert bloomed, but at great cost to the Aral’s ecosystem. • At this spot, water was once 45 feet deep. Today the Aral has receded beyond the horizon in all directions. • Aral’s demise shows large lakes are vulnerable Aral Sea 1964-2014 Volume: -96% Surface Area: -90% 1964 1977 1987 1998 2007 2014 Photos courtesy of the US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Potential Water Supply Crises by 2025 Areas where existing supplies are not adequate to meet water demands for people, for farms, and for the environment. Water Supply Issue Areas Unmet Rural Water Needs Moderate Conflict Potential Substantial Conflict Potential Highly Likely Conflict Potential Adapted from U.S. Department of the Interior Continental Water Tension • Klamath River Basin • California year-round fire season • Colorado River oversubscribed • Rio Grande friction • Ogallala Aquifer • Apalachicola River Basin • Potomac River • Ipswich River near Boston Early 1960s Great Lakes Basin • Holds ~20% of global fresh surface water • Enough volume to cover the lower 48 states in 9.5 feet of water • But only 1% of the Great Lakes Basin’s water is renewable • Great Lakes nourish 35 million in U.S. & Canada as well as billions of creatures in a unique, fragile, cold- water ecosystem • The regional economy is world’s 3rd largest ($5.8 trillion) and much, though not all, of that economy is water-dependent U.S. EPA, IJC, Bank of Montreal Great Lakes Diversions 8 Inter-Basin, 6 Intra-Basin since 1825 Adapted from International Joint Commission Illinois Diversion at Chicago (1900) Chicago diversion canal Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago • Max capacity 6.5 billion gallons per day • Most litigated and controversial diversion • Longest running active file in the Michigan AG’s office Chicago Diversion (1900) Robert Cameron’s “Above Chicago” • 2.1 billion gallons per day, set by U.S. Supreme • Lowered Lakes Michigan & Huron by 2.5 inches The Nova Group (1998) • Plan to ship 158 million gallons/year • Could not be stopped by anti- diversion laws in the U.S. or Canada • Concern about international precedent • Highly controversial proposal • Nova raised serious questions about adequacy of Great Lakes water laws Nova Leads to Compact • Adopted by all 8 Great Lakes states and Congress in 3 yrs. • President signed Oct. 3, 2008 • Ontario adopted companion agreement in 2007 • Quebec followed in 2009 • Remarkable bipartisan agreement • Global model for international trans-boundary water management Compact’s Key Points • Ban on diversions • Limited exceptions: • “Straddling communities” • “Straddling counties” • No one else can even request a diversion Straddling community Straddling county “Straddling” Requirements • Must return water after use • Water conservation plan • No reasonable water supply alternatives • No adverse environmental impacts Waukesha: Compact’s First Major Test • First “Straddling County” application in 2010 • Waukesha is just beyond Basin line • Depleted & contaminated groundwater (radium) • State/federal pressure to improve water supply • Very controversial diversion • 11,000 comments, mostly opposed Regional Review Waukesha Diversion Area • Key hurdle: Applicants need the approval of all eight Great Lakes governors • Waukesha applied for 10.1 mgd in May 2010 • +5-yr DNR technical review • Then 6-month regional review by Great Lakes governors Historic Vote June 21, 2016 • Unanimous approval by Govs. • BUT, service area cut by +50% • Diversion cut from 10.1 mgd to 8.2 mgd • 100% of water to be returned • Does not set precedent for long-range diversions • G.L. mayors’ appeal of decision denied. Debate continues Milwaukee Journal Sentinel • Facility size of three Pentagons • Up to 13,000 employees in Mount Pleasant, WI • +$3 billion in state incentives • Problem: Location straddles the Great Lakes Basin line • Must divert Lake Michigan water from Racine Foxconn 2018 Foxconn architectural model. Mount Pleasant, Wis. Summer, 2018. Foxconn Site Straddles Great Lakes Basin Line Racine Applied on Behalf of Foxconn • Mount Pleasant needed to apply on Foxconn’s behalf • But Mt. Pleasant gets its water from Racine. • So Racine filed straddling community app Jan. 2018 • 7 million gallons per day • DNR approved in April, 2018 • MEA legal challenge filed in May, is still pending Racine to Foxconn Diversion Foxconn’s Key Compact Issue • Compact says diversions must be for “Public Water Supply Purposes” • “Serving a group of largely residential customers that may also serve industrial, commercial and other institutional operators” • Is the Racine/Foxconn app “largely residential?” Compact Authors Disagree on That Question • Some Compact authors say “residential” “public water supply” refers to the community delivering the water (Racine) • Other Compact authors say it refers to the community receiving the water (Mt. Pleasant) • Crucial legal difference in those interpretations Next: Book Exclusive— The “Pleasant Prairie Surprise” • Village received 3.2 mgd in 1989—pre-Compact • After the Compact’s adoption, states were required to report baseline for pre-existing diversions • In 2010 Wis. quietly increased village amount to 10.69 mgd when reporting baseline. Boost of 7.49 mgd • No public notification Pleasant Prairie in Context • Larger than Racine/Foxconn’s 7.0 mgd • Almost as much as Waukesha’s 8.2 mgd • Village of ~21,000 people v. Waukesha’s 70,000 • Enough surplus water to host Foxconn w/o needing to apply for a diversion Pleasant Prairie Why Was Diversion Tripled? • Wis. statute requires that water supply plumbing matches up with sewer plumbing • Pl. Prairie has expansive sewer system • In order to match sewer footprint, water diversion max was boosted from 3.2 mgd to 10.69 mgd • Paperwork filed with CGLG, but no announcement Pleasant Prairie Response “We’ve come under scrutiny because of this book and as a part of the book they’re trying to promote their sales so they have to make some things, that are not that dramatic, somewhat dramatic,” Village Administrator Nathan Thiel said. “I think it’s much to do about nothing.” - Kenosha News, Sept. 20, 2018 Much Ado About Nothing? • Front page of the Chicago Tribune • Front page of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel • Story ran coast-to-coast via Associated Press • Enviros are consulting attorneys • Michigan Governor’s Chicago Tribune Sept. 19, 2018 office is investigating Pl. Prairie Quietly Became State’s Largest Diversion Great Lakes Water War Frontline • S.E. Wis. has more diversion hotspots than all other states combined • Chicago is the largest and most litigated diversion • All are in the Chicago / Milwaukee Megacity • The Chicago/Milwaukee Megacity is the frontline in the Great Lakes Water War 10th Anniv. Take-Home Points • Overall the Compact is working as expected. • The few bumps we’ve seen are not unusual • The lakes have never been better protected from long- range, large-scale water diversions. • Unsustainable water practices elsewhere will prompt parched areas to continue eying the Lakes with envy. • So the region needs to remain vigilant to ensure precedents aren’t set that are regretted later. • S.E. Wisconsin is the new water diversion frontline • More return-flow diversions are inevitable. That’s an anticipated part of the process • Who’s next? We’ll see. Photo by RJ & Linda Miller Great Lakes & Climate Change Low water, Honey Harbor, ON, Lake Huron 2012 Photo by Terri Hodgson Climate Change v. Nat. Variability 2006 1986 USGS Hammond Bay Biological Station, Lake Huron • Most of the lakes have natural variability of +6 feet • The Great Lakes ecosystem thrives on this natural variability • But research now suggests we’re entering an era of water level extremes, breaking numerous records in the process • Higher highs, lower lows, longer lows and more rapid rises • Yet the overall average water level may not change much Going to Extremes • 1985-86 Superior, Michigan, Huron,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Perspective from the Great Lakes
    Buffalo Environmental Law Journal Volume 14 Number 2 Article 1 4-1-2007 Managing Resources with Interstate Compacts: A Perspective from the Great Lakes Jessica A. Bielecki Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Jessica A. Bielecki, Managing Resources with Interstate Compacts: A Perspective from the Great Lakes, 14 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 173 (2007). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj/vol14/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MANAGING RESOURCES WITH INTERSTATE COMPACTS: A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE GREAT LAKES JESSICA A. BIELECKI * I. INTRODUCTION The Great Lakes Basin is the largest fresh water system outside the polar ice caps,' covering 300,000 square miles,2 and stretching 750 miles from east to west.3 It holds ninety percent of North America's fresh water, which equates to six quadrillion 4 gallons. This is enough water to submerge5 the continental forty- eight states nine and a half feet deep. Despite its size, without protections, the Great Lakes Basin 6 7 could be in danger. Fresh water shortages both inside and outside B.S. 2004, University of Mary Washington, J.D. 2007, The University at Buffalo School of Law. The author would like to thank Professor Barry Boyer for his assistance in researching and drafting this article.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Indiana Five-Year Water Management and Conservation and Efficiency Program Review December 20, 2019
    State of Indiana Five-Year Water Management and Conservation and Efficiency Program Review December 20, 2019 1. Lead Agency and Contact Persons Indiana Department of Natural Resources; Chris Smith, Deputy Director, IDNR. 2. Implementing Laws, Rules, Regulations and Policies The following statutory provisions, Rules and Policies are applicable to the Water Management and Conservation and Efficiency Programs in the State of Indiana: • Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact under IC 14- 25-15: The State of Indiana’s implementation of the Interstate agreement on the use of water resources in the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River Basin. • Rule 312 IAC 6.2: Assists with the implementation of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (IC 14-25-15) for the registration and permitting of water withdrawal facilities; a voluntary conservation and efficiency program for water withdrawal facilities; and mandatory conservation and efficiency programs for new and increased withdrawals, diversions and consumptive uses. Rule 312 IAC 6.2 is applicable to the Water Management and Regulation provisions set forth in Article 4 of the Compact. • Water Resource Management Act under IC 14-25-7: Section 13 requires that an inventory of the water resource in Indiana be conducted and include an assessment of the following: 1) The capabilities of streams to support instream and withdrawal uses and of aquifers to support withdrawal uses; 2) Low stream flow characteristics; 3) Existing uses and projections of beneficial use requirements; 4) The potential in watersheds for managing flood water for beneficial uses; 5) Potential sources and amounts of surplus water for transfers; 6) Other assessment and information considered necessary to properly define water resource availability.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Lakes Water Agreements
    water brief 2 Peter Schulte The Great Lakes comprise the largest surface freshwater system on Earth, containing Theroughly 84 Great percent of the Lakes freshwater inWater North America Agreements and about 21 percent of the world’s total freshwater supply (see Figure WB 2.1). The Great Lakes Basin is home to more than 30 million people in the United States and Canada and accounts for 7 per- cent of American farm production and 25 percent of Canadian farm production (US EPA 2008). Freshwater is among the region’s most valuable and important resources— economically, ecologically, and culturally. In the last century, however, these resources have been subjected to heavy pollution and increased withdrawals and diversions often leading to adverse ecological and community impacts. In response, many have called for more effective and coordinated management of the Basin’s freshwater resources. The Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (not to be confused with the Great Lakes Basin Compact of 1968) is the most recent and comprehensive in a long series of legislative actions to strengthen and coordinate basin water management while protecting it from use by interests outside the region. Water management concerns in the Great Lakes Basin have for decades been largely centered on concerns about pollution and diversion of the water resources and how best to protect those resources from out-of-basin interests. Given the location of the basin at the border of the U.S. and Canada, many of these problems—and the policies Historydesigned to addressof Shared them—are Water transboundary Resource in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolutions 2020-1 Through 2020-10
    Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Water Resources Regional Body Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Council Compiled Declarations of Finding • Illinois • Indiana • Michigan • Minnesota • New York • Ohio • Ontario • Pennsylvania • Québec • Wisconsin Draft—For Discussion Purposes Only November 6, 2020 Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Water Resources Regional Body Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Council RESOLUTION NO. 2020-1 ADOPTING JOINT DECLARATION OF FINDING For the Water Management Program Review and Water Conservation and Efficiency Program Review State of Illinois I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Compact A. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (“Compact”) is by, between and among the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was effective on December 8, 2008. B. Section 3.4 of the Compact requires each Party State to submit a report to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Council (“Compact Council”) and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Water Resources Regional Body (“Regional Body”) on actions taken by that State to meet the provisions of the Agreement and Compact regarding that Party State’s Water management and conservation and efficiency programs. C. Following the Compact Council’s review of such reports in cooperation with the Provinces pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Compact, the Council shall determine whether that State’s programs (1) meet or exceed the provisions of the Compact; or (2) do not meet the provisions of the Compact and, if not, recommend options to assist the jurisdiction in meeting the provisions of the Compact.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Agreement: What Happens in the Great Lakes Won’T Stay in the Great Lakes
    THE GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN AGREEMENT: WHAT HAPPENS IN THE GREAT LAKES WON’T STAY IN THE GREAT LAKES Kelly Kane This article provides a discussion of the current protections provided for the Great Lakes, and calls for an international binding agreement to ensure their continued protection. All past agreements between the United States and Canada to protect the Lakes have been purely good faith, and have no binding effect on the parties. The Great Lakes states and provinces have committed themselves to a good-faith agreement that bans all major withdrawals or diversions, subject to three exceptions. This Agreement has no legally binding effect on the states and provinces. The states, however, have created a legally binding Compact that does not include the Great Lakes provinces. The Great Lakes states have the power to make decisions regarding major withdrawals or diversions of Great Lakes water without the consent of the provinces. Although the current protections are morally binding, they will not provide enough protection for the Lakes given the increased concerns over water quality and quantity issues across the world. The federal governments of the United States and Canada should enter into a legally binding agreement to ensure the long-lasting enjoyment and protection of the Lakes. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 430 PART I: BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 432 A.Federalism and Water Management Approaches in the United States and Canada ........................................................................ 432 B.Legal History of Protections Placed on the Great Lakes ............. 433 C.Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement .................................................................. 438 D.The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact Mark Squillace University of Colorado Law School
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Colorado Law University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2006 Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact Mark Squillace University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Citation Information Mark Squillace, Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact, 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347, available at http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/ articles/380/. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347 2006 Provided by: William A. Wise Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Tue Mar 28 15:59:48 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information RETHINKING THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT Mark Squillace" 2006 MICH.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here?
    Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Legal context • Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 -Attempt to prevent or resolve United StateslCanada water disputes over boundary levels and flows -Created International Joint Commission • Great Lakes Charter of 1985 -Voluntary, primarily non-substantive collective management agreement among Great Lakes states and Canadian provinces • Water Resources Devetopment Act of 1986 -Federal statute subjecting approval by Great Lakes standard • Great Lakes Charter Annex of 2001 -"Agreement to agree" contair binding agreement with decision-making standard Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Late 1970s - proposal to construct coal slurry pipeline from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to Duluth using Lake Superlor water to suspend |he coal Early 1980s - U.S, Army studies the feasibility of using Great Lakes Water to replenish the O, Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? 1998 - "Nova Group" proposal to ship Lake Superior water to private customers in Asia approved by Ontario Great Lakes Agreement Great Lakes Compact Great Lakes-St, Lawrence River Basin Great Lakes-St, Lawrence River Basin Water Sustainable Water Resources Agreement Resources Compact • Good-faith, nonbinding policy agreement between . Binding and legally enforceable agreement the American member states (lllinols, Indiana, administered primarily under the regulatory Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, authority of individual Great Lakes states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) and Canadian member consented to by Congress provinces (Ontario, Quebec) • Embodies same principles as Agreement with * Governed by Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Canadian provinces Basin Water Resources Regional Body • Became effective after final consent from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Compact
    Great Lakes Compact Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact Summary: > The Great Lakes Agreement and Compact seek to manage the Great Lakes watershed through a collaboration with all the states and provinces in the watershed. > Each state and province must pass a law to enact the Agreement or Compact, and that law will control diversions of water from the Great Lakes watershed. > The Sustainable Water Resources Agreement is an agreement among the Great Lakes States, Ontario and Québec. In Ontario it has been enacted into law through the Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario’s Water Act of 2007 and legislation has been approved by the National Assembly in Québec. The states are in the process of implementing the Agreement through the Water Resources Compact. Created the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Water Resources Regional Body that includes the Great Lakes Governors and the Premiers of Ontario and Québec. > The Water Resources Compact is an agreement among the Great Lakes States that is passed into law through an interstate compact. The Compact has been enacted into law in all 8 Great Lakes states. Created the Council of Great Lakes Governors composed of Governors from each Great Lakes State or their designees. History of Interstate and International Cooperation: Boundary Waters Treaty - 1909: Purpose - to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters and to ensure the equitable sharing of boundary waters between Canada and the US. Treaty created the International Joint Commission (IJC) to decide issues of water diversion in the Great Lakes, and placed Canada and the US at the forefront of international efforts to protect and manage natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 State of the Great Lakes Report Michigan
    MICHIGAN State of the Great Lakes 2019 REPORT 2019 STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES REPORT Page 1 Contents Governor Whitmer’s Message: Collaboration is Key ............................................................... 3 EGLE Director Clark’s Message: New Advocates for the Great Lakes Community ................. 4 New Standards Ensure Safe Drinking Water in the 21st Century ............................................ 5 Public Trust Doctrine and Water Withdrawals Aim to Protect the Great Lakes ........................ 8 High Water Levels Put State on Alert to Help Property Owners and Municipalities .................11 Asian Carp Threat from Chicago Area Looms Over Health of Lakes and Aquatic Life ............ 13 EGLE Collaborates on Research into Harmful Algal Blooms and Response Measures .......... 15 Initiatives Foster Stewardship, Raise Water Literacy for All Ages.......................................... 18 Michigan Communities Empowered to Take Action for Great Lakes Protection ...................... 22 EGLE Strengthens Michigan’s Sister State Relationship With Japan’s Shiga Prefecture ....... 24 Soo Locks Project Finally Underway with 2027 Target Date for Opening............................... 25 Great Lakes Cruises Make Bigger Waves in State’s Travel Industry ............................................. 26 MICHIGAN.GOV/EGLE | 800-662-9278 Prepared by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy on behalf of the Office of the Governor (July 2020) 2019 STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES REPORT Page 2 Collaboration is Key hroughout the Great Lakes region, the health of our communities and the strength of our T economies depend on protecting our shared waters. The Great Lakes region encompasses 84 percent of the country’s fresh surface water, represents a thriving, $6 trillion regional economy supporting more than 51 million jobs, and supplies the drinking water for more than 48 million people.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Water Law in Illinois
    AN OVERVIEW OF WATER LAW IN ILLINOIS CATHERINE JANASIE, RESEARCH COUNSEL II FEBRUARY 2020 NSGLC-20-04-02 Introduction The law regulating the diversion and use of freshwater in Illinois is complex. This complexity is due to a mix of court-created common law with statutory and regulatory law for both surface and groundwater in the state. Most surface water diversions in the state are regulated by the common law reasonable use doctrine. However, diversions from Lake Michigan are regulated by Supreme Court of the United States decrees, the Illinois Level of Lake Michigan Act, and the Great Lakes Compact. Similarly, the Illinois Water Use Act subjects all groundwater diversions in the state to a reasonable use rule. However, courts and commentators have interpreted the statute to mean that the surface water doctrine of reasonable use applies to groundwater in the state, and not the common law groundwater reasonable use doctrine. This is significant, as there are important differences between the reasonable use doctrines for surface water and groundwater. Further complicating things is the fact that the Illinois Supreme Court has yet to rule on this point. Finally, some geographic areas of Illinois are exempt from certain portions of the Water Use Act. Each of these nuances is discussed below. Surface Water States in the Eastern United States follow the riparian doctrine for surface water. Riparians are those who own property along waterways, which gives them certain rights, including the right to use water. This use right allows riparians to use the water abutting their property as long as the use is reasonable and does not affect other riparians.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact
    The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact Ohio Great Lakes Compact Advisory Board Table of Contents 1. Advisory Board Work Plan 2. Maps • The Lake Erie Watershed • Total Water Withdrawals • Withdrawal Facilities-Location/Primary Use • Ground Water Withdrawals • Surface Water Withdrawals 3. Am. HB 416 4. Water Withdrawal Registration Program • Program Summary/ORC 1521.16 • Notification to Registrants • Ground Water Withdrawal Facilities • Surface Water Withdrawal Facilities 5. Formulating Baselines 6. Water Conservation Goals and Objectives 7. Regulation of New or Increased Withdrawals 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Advisory Board Directory DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes ONLY Ohio Great Lakes Compact Advisory Board Workplan Background: The Ohio statute ratifying the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (the Compact), which became effective December 8, 2008, also established an Advisory Board, to be convened and chaired by the Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Section 3 of the Act establishes the membership and purpose of the Advisory Board. Objective: The Advisory Board’s objective is to develop recommendations for legislation & policy needed to implement the Compact, addressing but not be limited to the following: (1) the formulation of the baseline list of existing Ohio Lake Erie Basin water withdrawals, diversions, and consumptive uses; (2) the adoption of water conservation goals & objectives and the establishment of a water conservation & efficiency program; and (3) the development of a program for regulating water withdrawals and consumptive uses within the Ohio Lake Erie Basin. Expectations: The Advisory Board is expected to reach consensus on the issues it addresses. Advisory Board members will approach their deliberations in a positive, collaborative, and problem-solving manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2006 Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact Mark Squillace University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Citation Information Mark Squillace, Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact, 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347, available at http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/380/. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347 2006 Provided by: William A. Wise Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Tue Mar 28 15:59:48 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information RETHINKING THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT Mark Squillace" 2006 MICH.
    [Show full text]