DOCSLIB.ORG

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The Advisory Board will conduct its work in an open and transparent manner, while using electronic means to help facilitate efficient communication and work product development. Final Deliverable: The Advisory Board will present a report of its final recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by June 8, 2010. Resources: ODNR staff will provide support in drafting Advisory Board documents, facilitating review & commentary, coordinating Committee activities, and conducting Advisory Board meetings. Proposed Timeline: Please see revised timeline on the Advisory Board web page. Comments Activity Submission Meeting Date Date Advisory Board Initial Meeting Establish committees to address (1) the baseline list of existing withdrawals, diversions, & consumptive uses, (2) water conservation goals & objectives and March 5, 2009 program, and (3) the program for regulating water withdrawals & consumptive uses February 10, 2009 1 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes ONLY Comments Activity Submission Meeting Date Date Committee Work Review proposed process/procedure for formulating baseline list of existing withdrawals, diversions, & March 26, April 2, 2009 consumptive uses drafted by ODNR, provide comments 2009 and raise issues of concern Committee Work Review regional (basin-wide) water conservation goals & March 26, April 2, 2009 objectives and provide comments regarding their 2009 applicability for Ohio Advisory Board Meeting Review final proposed process/procedure for formulating baseline list of existing withdrawals, diversions, & consumptive uses drafted by ODNR, provide final recommendations April 30, 2009 May 7, 2009 Review withdrawal regulation program issue paper drafted by ODNR and provide comments regarding (1) the type of regulatory program preferred and (2) the appropriate threshold level(s) Committee Work Review proposed water conservation goals & objectives May 28, 2009 June 4, 2009 drafted by ODNR, provide comments and raise issues of concern Advisory Board Work Review interim baseline list of existing withdrawals, June 25, 2009 July 2, 2009 diversions, and consumptive uses and raise issues of concern Committee Work Review proposed withdrawal regulation recommendations June 25, 2009 July 2, 2009 drafted by ODNR, provide comments and raise issues of concern Advisory Board Meeting Review final proposed water conservation goals & July 30, 2009 August 6, 2009 objectives drafted by ODNR, provide final recommendations Committee Work Review revised proposed withdrawal regulation August 27, September 3, recommendations drafted by ODNR, provide comments 2009 2009 and raise issues of concern Committee Work Review proposed water conservation & efficiency September 24, October 1, program drafted by ODNR, provide comments and raise 2009 2009 issues of concern February 10, 2009 2 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes ONLY Comments Activity Submission Meeting Date Date Advisory Board Meeting Review final baseline list of existing withdrawals, diversions, & consumptive uses prior to required state submission to the Compact Council (December 8, 2009) October 29, November 5, 2009 2009 Review final proposed water conservation & efficiency program drafted by ODNR, provide final recommendations Advisory Board Meeting Review final proposed withdrawal regulation December 28, January 7, 2010 recommendations drafted by ODNR, provide final 2009 recommendations Advisory Board Work February 25, Review proposed report of recommendations drafted by March 4, 2010 2010 ODNR, provide comments and raise issues of concern Advisory Board Meeting Review revised proposed report of recommendations March 25, April 1, 2010 drafted by ODNR, provide comments and raise issues of 2010 concern Advisory Board Final Meeting: April 29, 2010 May 6, 2010 Adopt final report of recommendations Submit final report of recommendations to the Governor June 8, 2010 and General Assembly February 10, 2009 3 . o C . Chautauqua-Conneaut o a l Lake Erie Watershed C u b e Watershed . k a ASHTABULA t o 0 5 10 20 Miles Raisin a CONNEAUT h L C . s o A L a k e E r i e a C g iv R a e Watershed bul o hta r e As h k GENEVA a Ottawa-Stony a y ON-THE-LAKE L u Watershed C FAIRPORT Pelee Is. HARBOR JEFFERSON d . PAINESVILLE e ver o o d Ri h o ran s C G MICHIGAN . C C r North Bass Is. s o e a a t r a LUCAS C a e v c w g WILLIAMS FULTON Ri . u a Middle Bass Is. o EASTLAKE MENTOR W d a n t CANADA w o i e L a t . h n tt h O C o a a a O A s TOLEDO r PUT-IN-BAY I g r C y i St. Joseph OREGON a o e WICKLIFFE h t u L w e N c a i C Grand i South Bass Is. a r Tiffin t A W EUCLID M t E . e e NORTHWOOD CHARDON k V i Watershed o a OTTAWA O . L r Kelleys Is. L Catawba Is. o E C Watershed ke Watershed MAUMEE LAKE Y a C L n er i iv S R e BRATENAHL a e i r WAUSEON e r PORT Ashtabula-Chagrin N er m o AVON v u PERRYSBURG E BAY i CLINTON N R a MARBLEHEAD L LAKE ASHTABULA Port River SHEFFIELD a VILLAGE E M ge h ARCHBOLD p BRYAN LAKEWOOD LAKE P e s Watershed o J r CLEVELAND . Lower Maumee r e t LORAIN e v Cedar-Portage ROCKY r S i e v B i R v l RIVER i R a n R i SANDUSKY c n f VERMILION i k y f r DEFIANCE i k r Watershed c R g e T o Watershed R a v HURON i i v h R e A C d r n ra N G NAPOLEON BOWLING GREEN ELYRIA A PARMA CUYAHOGA GEAUGA CORTLAND I r C e r D FREMONT iv u e DEFIANCE y iv R a N R n h TWINSBURG I o a r o g iver u g o R H MILAN a h ee a m ERIE R y u i u a Black-Rocky v C M NORWALK e Maumee SANDUSKY r SENECA Huron-Vermilion Watershed Cuyahoga Upper Maumee Watershed CUYAHOGA r e FALLS NILES v i Watershed PAULDING HENRY WOOD R Watershed r Watershed y e k iv s TRUMBULL R KENT u n RAVENNA d o n i MEDINA l a i S YOUNGSTOWN m TIFFIN r L e a AKRON V O k h e lanc i E B ha LORAIN o r rd R ie R Sandusky i W iv FINDLAY ASHLAND v erOTTAWA e at r W ers PAULDING at hed Watershed ers PORTAGE HURON MEDINA hed Auglaize WYANDOT CRAWFORD STARK Watershed Blanchard SUMMIT ALLIANCE M A H O N II N G VAN WERT Watershed ASHLAND PUTNAM WOOSTER CANTON T u r e HANCOCK s v c i ver a R i R r e HARDIN UPPER ky a z s w i u a SANDUSKY nd a l s g r a S R u e BUCYRUS A v i i R MANSFIELD v VAN WERT e LIMA d MASSILLON r S r COLUMBIANA t. a MERCER M h ary c s R n CARROLL ive e Ri a r ALLEN iz ve l la r g B u MORROW A WAYNE EAST MARION LIVERPOOL St. Marys L a Eri O ke e W AUGLAIZE h ate io River W rs LOUDONVILLE ate hed Watershed rs CARROLLTON CELINA h ed MARION W. VA. S WAPAKONETA cioto River RICHLAND HOLMES TUSCARAWAS MOUNT VICTORY STRATTON Sources: Lake Erie Watershed Boundaries - ODNR, USGS, OEPA, NRCS, 1999 Great Lakes Watershed Boundaries - USGS, GeoGratis (Canada), 1998 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bathymetry and Topography - ODNR Division of Geological Survey, 2004 County and City Boundaries - ODOT, 2003 Office of Coastal Management Indiana-Michigan Boundary - ODNR Office of Coastal Management, 2004 105 West Shoreline Drive State Boundaries (inset) - US Department of Transportation, 1998 Hydrology - USGS Digital Raster Graphics, various dates Sandusky, Ohio 44870 419.626.7980 2007 Total Water Withdrawals by Basin Chautauqua- Conneaut Watershed L a k e E r i e A L U I-90 Ottawa- E Raisin B K A A T L Watershed Stoney H S Watershed Ashtabula- A I-75 Lake Erie Chagrin Islands Watershed Grand A St.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]