[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ No-growth movement fosters water panic



Folks,
 
Re: "No-growth movement fosters water panic," in yesterday's Detroit News (9/22/04).  http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0409/22/a15-280880.htm), I'd like to correct an error, as pointed out by Noah Hall, who works on water-use issues in the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office.  Thomas Bray writes that, in contrast to the exisiting policy, "Under the new agreement, only [the approval of] six of eight states would be needed to approve a diversion." 
 
However, the proposed agreement clearly preserves the requirement of unanimous approval for diversions.  See Section 3.3 (page 7) of the proposed interstate compact, available online at http://www.cglg.org/1projects/water/docs/GreatLakesCompact7-19-04-PublicRelease.pdf.
 
The approval of six states, or even seven, is insufficient if one of the eight states (Michigan, for example) rejects a diversion proposal.  This is no small matter, and Michigan's Governor has fought hard in negotiations with other states to preserve Michigan's ability to stop a bad diversion project.
 
We have asked for a correction on the matter.
 
Jordan F. Lubetkin
Regional Communications Manager
Great Lakes Natural Resource Center
National Wildlife Federation
213 W. Liberty, Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1398
734-769-3351 Voice
419-787-7744 Cell
734-769-1449 Fax
lubetkin@nwf.org

>>> <HAMILTREEF@aol.com> 9/22/2004 11:36:20 AM >>>
Bray babble for the day,
 
 
The anti-sprawl movement has had trouble formulating the case for stiffer land-use controls. So now the no-growthers are vigorously lobbying for stiffer controls over water use a backdoor means of blocking the development they hate.