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
>>> <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.