E-M:/ Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation Press Release on Annex

["Terry Swier" <tswier@hotmail.com>]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Terry Swier" <tswier@hotmail.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE


From:  	Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation

Contact:	Terry Swier, President		231 972 8856
Jim Olson, Attorney		231 946 0044 office - 231 499 8831 Cell


	Proposed Great Lakes Plan Would Convert Water into Product for Export

November 22, 2005, Traverse City, Michigan.  Michigan Citizens for Water 
Conservation, the citizen group that won a major court victory against 
Nestlé Waters North America over the export of bottled water out of 
Michigan?s watersheds and the Great Lakes Basin against, announced it can 
not support the current version of two agreements for the future protection 
of waters of the Great Lakes.  The agreements, Great Lakes Water Resources 
Agreement and Compact were negotiated for nearly four years.  Last week 
copies were released, leaving a short three weeks before the governors are 
slated to sign them on December 13, 2005 in Milwaukee.

?These two agreements may save the Annex process that so many have worked 
hard for, but they will not save the Great Lakes,? Terry Swier, MCWC?s 
President said.  ?There is a hole in these pacts, and over time the 
agreements could sink under the national and global demands for our Great 
Lakes water,? she said.  ?The negotiators and Council of Great Lakes 
Governors should be commended for how far they?ve come, but these agreements 
should not be signed in their present form.?

?The court case reaffirmed that water is a commons, that these waters cannot 
be diverted for sale where it violates common law principles that protect 
the integrity of lakes and stream and the public trust in these waters,? 
said Jim Olson, the environmental lawyer who won the successful court 
victory, now before the Michigan appellate court.  ?Unfortunately, the two 
proposed agreements could seriously undermine these common law protections,? 
he said.

MCWC applauds the negotiators for the progress on some issues, but calls for 
its rejection on other key issues. The Agreements seek to ban all diversions 
from the Basin except for those that would help cities that straddle the 
Basin extend water service lines to their residents and businesses.  They 
also would impose environmental and conservation measures for those who use 
the water here ? such as manufacturing, generating electrical power, golf 
courses, tourism, and importantly farming.  They even reinsert the idea of 
public trust in the waters.  ?But the agreements collapse when it comes to 
guarding against exports of water as a product, ? Olson said.  ?In fact, the 
agreements appear to bore a gaping loophole in favor of those who want to 
profit off these public resources as private products without authorization 
or license from the states on behalf of their citizens.  This is simply too 
large of a hole to accept.  The governors need to insist that the agreements 
be clarified and changed to correct this major failure.?

The revised agreements provide that water withdrawn by mechanical means for 
use elsewhere is a ?product,? not a diversion.  That means any amount of 
water put in any sized containers or packages ? bottles or bags for example 
? is a product not subject to the ban on diversions.  ?Basically, the 
agreements are illusory when it comes to preventing the sale and export, as 
opposed to diversion, of water from the Basin,? Olson said.  ?The agreements 
can be interpreted as making water a product at the point of withdrawal for 
those who intend to wholesale or retail it somewhere else.  This is not the 
kind of stewardship intended by the public trust as recognized in the 
agreements themselves.?

The agreements also provide that the export of water in containers over 5.7 
gallons would be prohibited.  But this prohibition conflicts with the 
agreements definition of the export of water as a product. The agreements 
allow export of water in containers less than 5.7 gallons, what some have 
labeled the bottled water exemption.  ?But this is not about bottled water, 
it?s about the private capture of water for export,? Olson said.  ?You can 
export hundreds of millions of gallons of water a year in a bottle from 
watersheds, as much as in a ship or large containers.?  The agreements 
provide a savings clause that states can determine different treatment for 
bottled water exports, but it is unclear what ?treatment? means.  ?Clearly, 
the savings clause does not reserve the right of states to determine whether 
the water should be authorized or licensed in the first place.  Once it?s a 
product, it will be very difficult to turn-back the clock to regulate or 
control it in the future,? Olson said.  ?It?s better to correct this flaw 
now rather than be sorry later over such a momentous decision.  We?re 
talking water for the ages, both present and future generations, here.?

?Despite what other industry and well-intended environmental groups may say 
in favor of adopting the agreements we don?t? think they speak for most 
citizens and businesses,? Swier said, ?and these groups have not addressed 
the product export loop-hole.? MCWC is urging citizens to contact Governor 
Granholm and the other Great Lakes states governors with their concerns.

####



==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================