|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
December 18, 2005EditorialGreat Lakes agreement may have sprung a leakVeteran environmental attorney Jim Olson of Traverse City and the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation say the issue of Great Lakes water diversions may seem convoluted but the message is clear: The fresh water we take for granted will be for sale if the Great Lakes Charter Annex agreement gets final approval.Olson and the Water Conservation group have been trying to get the attention of state officials and other environmentalists, but his message has so far failed to penetrate the hoopla surrounding the signing of the Annex agreement last week. Olson has broken down the wording of a few key portions of the agreement and makes a compelling case that the protections claimed by Annex supporters have been undermined. It’s a one-plus-one-equals-two argument that, once decoded, seems clear. - The Annex agreement makes water “diversions” outside the Great Lakes Basin illegal. But it also contains wording, added in just the past few months, that makes bottled water a “product” that can be bought and sold inside and outside the Great Lakes basin. Olsen says the “product” label trumps diversion protections in the agreement. - Because trade in products (or articles of commerce, which includes everything from automobiles to bow ties) is protected under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Act, so is trade in bottled water. Just as importing trash from Canada can’t be blocked because of NAFTA, exporting water can’t be banned, either. - Once trade in bottled water outside the Great Lakes basin is established as something other than a “diversion,” it’s just a matter of time before someone simply makes a bigger bottle. Olson wrote that the threat of water exports “is about legal precedents that could make it difficult if not impossible to restrict exports in the future.” Given the growing thirst for fresh water around the globe, these aren’t Chicken Little warnings. Some have pooh-poohed the idea that Great Lakes water could be sold by the tanker; in fact, however, a firm got Canadian permission not long ago to do exactly that. Olsen is also concerned that Annex agreement wording gives out-of-basin users the same rights to the resource as those of us who live here. That means Nestle, the Swiss food giant which has at least two bottling plants in the state, has as much right to use - and that now means bottle and sell - Michigan water as any Michigan resident. That’s a recipe for disaster. He is also concerned, and rightly so, that it is unclear just who wrote and insterted the revised wording into the Annex agreement before it was signed. That issue alone should send up red flags and prompt a thorough examination of the agreement from a legal standpoint. State officials absolutely must put the Annex wording to the test and take Olson’s concerns seriously. He has a long track record in environmental law, and this one has him worried. That should make us worried, too.
|
|
