Great Lakes Compact Signed by Every Great Lakes State – Now on to Washington
(This is a follow up post on the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement to stop large –scale, out of basin water diversions from the Great Lakes. Great Lakes United did several posts on the Compact in January. To see those posts, click here, and here.)
The eight Great Lakes states have sent a unified message to the rest of the country: our water is staying here. Along with our Canadian Great Lakes neighbors, Ontario and Quebec, the Great Lakes region has finally taken official steps to stop out of basin water diversions. This week, the last state, Michigan, has passed the Great Lakes Compact. The Compact is a legally binding mechanism to ban dangerous out of basin diversions from happening in the U.S. With Michigan’s approval, the compact must now go on to Congress for ratification and then finally the White House.
Timing is very crucial for the Compact. As we are all aware, upstate New York and many Great Lakes’ communities are losing population to areas like Arizona and Las Vegas. With a shift in population, goes a shift in Congressional representation. The 2010 United States Census will most likely lead to a loss in seats for our region and gain for the water thirsty arid regions with growing populations.
It is important that we let our federal congressmen and senators know of the importance of ratifying the Compact. While it may seem unlikely that Phoenix would ever get Lake Erie’s waters, diversions are not uncommon. In-basin diversions occur daily, with water eventually returning to the Lakes. But, if a community is one mile outside of the Basin and its water goes on to another watershed, like the Mississippi River, for example, it is a net loss. If a diversion to a community near the Lakes is allowed now, where can the line be drawn later? It is a dangerous slippery slope that could lead our water thousands of miles away.
For more information and what citizens can do to help the Compact, visit the Council for Great Lakes Governor’s website here.
Also, be sure to contact Senators Clinton and Schumer and all of our representatives in Congress. They were here last week to celebrate the Commercial Slip. Lets make sure they are committed to keeping water in it.
What Others Have To Say
What Do You Think?
Related Articles
-
My Favorite Buildings
After reading a recent Buffalo News story about funding and delays in renovation of the Buffalo State Psychiatric Hospital I was reminded of how much I love that building. This structure designed by H.H. Richardson is massive and I love the whole thing. However I really love the part that no one thinks of, the 1/4 mile long wings (or should I say wing since one wing was lopped off in the 60's). This building is not considered to be one of Richardson's best buildings. But, t …
- Sep 28th 2011, 11:02am
- Continue Reading
- 26 Comments
-
My Favorite Buildings
This house on Richmond Avenue is very unusual for Buffalo. It stands out among its wooden neighbors not only in material but also in detail and form. Buffalo is overwhelmingly constructed of wood with brick coming in a distant second as a material. Stone houses are very rare. Also rare is the Palazzo styling and shape of this house. Buffalo's Queen Anne Victorians are strong expressions of Buffalo's new money attitude in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Unlike staid Delawa …
- Sep 28th 2011, 11:00am
- Continue Reading
- 13 Comments
-
If You See This Posting, You're at the Wrong Site
We've updated Buffalo Rising. Some people haven't seen it yet, though, so if you're seeing this post, you need to refresh your browser to be taken to the new www.buffalorising.com. If hitting refresh alone doesn't do it, hold the *shift* key and hit refresh. If that doesn't work and you still see this old version of the site, try going to this story. That should certainly take you to the new site and from there, you can navigate around the new BuffaloRising.com.
- Feb 5th 2009, 9:21pm
- Continue Reading
- 3 Comments
-
The Wait is Almost Over - BR's New Site
As we mentioned in our previous post, we’re in the process of changing the Buffalo Rising site. We’re almost there as we expect to launch the new site on Friday, December 19th.
In the meantime, posting will be light as we log new stories in the new publishing system which will only be viewable when we launch on Friday.
As always, we appreciate our users’ patience as we make this transition but we promise it will be well worth it. With faster load times, a comment view … - Dec 18th 2008, 11:32am
- Continue Reading
- 6 Comments
Comment Options
carl
this is really good news, for both the economy, and the environment.
Report this
carl
this is great news for both the economy, and the environment.
Report this
RonR
Great news!
Report this
smythie
Damn right...You want our water? Then live here.
Report this
Ike
While this is great and all, it is largely superfluous
There's a treaty with Canada from the turn of the century that prohibits either side from doing anything that would "injure" the other
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Waters_Treaty
You can bet your ass that there would be a major international incident if any significant water diversion occurred to the southwest
Report this
smythie
Yeah, but do you think Canada would really take any action (like stop exporting beer and hockey players to us..the horror!) if we sent water elsewhere? Just wondering. In all seriousness, though, I'm glad to hear there's an actual treaty concerning this. thanks for the info, Ike.
Report this
TDSBLO
Smythie, I agree. Though I don't know how great the danger is or if there is any danger at all that water could be diverted.
Buffalonians and others have had to go where the resources are for decades (i.e. Jobs.) Now maybe it is time for the jobs and people to come back up to our resources?? Wishful and hipocritical thinking, maybe, as I am living in PA now anyways.
Report this
NateDrag
Ike - yes the bounday waters treat of 1909 exists, but there are two very important problems with it - first of all, it only deals with very large diversions - ones that effect the 'flow or levels or the Great Lakes' - it would do nothing with thousands of small diversions - death by a millions straws if you will - second - the treaty only deals with boundary waters, waters that are split between the united states and canada - and since lake michigan lies entirely in the united states, the treaty has no power over water diverted from that lake - which would effect the water in every lake
so no, i wouldn't say that this compact is superfluous at all - it is actually very important and necessary
for tons of great info on the threat of water diversions, read 'great lakes water wars' by peter annin - tells about the diversions that have been proposed, have occured, and all of the politics involved -
Report this
NateDrag
Ike - yes the bounday waters treat of 1909 exists, but there are two very important problems with it - first of all, it only deals with very large diversions - ones that effect the 'flow or levels or the Great Lakes' - it would do nothing with thousands of small diversions - death by a millions straws if you will - second - the treaty only deals with boundary waters, waters that are split between the united states and canada - and since lake michigan lies entirely in the united states, the treaty has no power over water diverted from that lake - which would effect the water in every lake
so no, i wouldn't say that this compact is superfluous at all - it is actually very important and necessary
for tons of great info on the threat of water diversions, read 'great lakes water wars' by peter annin - tells about the diversions that have been proposed, have occured, and all of the politics involved -
Report this
honda88
Is a mass water diversion even feasible? I read somewhere about a study that was conducted over 30 years ago. It estimated (back then) that it would cost between $100-300 billion dollars to construct. I don't have time to figure out the inflation adjusted numbers.
Report this