Responding to the urgency of Michigan's failure to enact Great Lakes protections, an unprecedented coalition of groups proposed in May strong new measures to regulate water exports and to protect lakes, rivers and streams from the impacts of water withdrawals.

The groups said bipartisan support is being sought for the proposals in order to end nearly two decades of delay in enacting Great Lakes water withdrawal legislation.

"The goal is to end this delay and more than a year of gridlock between Republicans and Democrats that has left Michigan's waters exposed to unregulated exports from multinational corporations and other states and countries," said MEC Policy Director James Clift. "Today we want to start with a new set of ideas and a comprehensive approach. We will be taking our ideas to lawmakers and the public with an eye toward legislative action before the end of the year."

From residential wells in Monroe County going dry to diminishing lakes, rivers and streams in Mecosta County to expanding privatization of Great Lakes water by multinational corporations, irresponsible water use is having an impact on the Great Lakes State. "Michigan's rivers, lakes and wetlands rely on inputs of cold, clean groundwater. We cannot allow water withdrawals that harm our precious water resources," said Wil Cwikiel, program director of Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council.

In 1998, a Canadian company called the Nova Group received a legal permit to ship more than 150 million gallons of water annually in a tanker from Lake Superior to Asia. The permit was rescinded, but no Michigan law exists that would prevent a similar proposal from happening.

Nine groups in all were involved in various stages of drafting the proposals during the past three months. The groups briefed Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the package.

"Our lakes, rivers and Great Lakes are what make Michigan a great place to live. For the health of our families and our quality of life, we need to protect these waterways," said Kate Madigan, PIRGIM environmental advocate. "Without strong water use laws, our state is leaving our most crucial natural resource vulnerable to abuse."

In March 2004, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm proposed the Water Legacy Act to address water exports while Republicans initiated a study of groundwater and are awaiting those findings.

"Right now it's still 'anything goes' with our Great Lakes waters," said Cyndi Roper, Clean Water Action Great Lakes policy director. "To date there has been no legislative action to protect Great Lakes water from overuse or exports. Meanwhile, multinational companies are making plans to ship millions of gallons of Great Lakes water out of our state.

"There is urgency to this because we could soon reach the point where the Great Lakes will be viewed as just another commodity like oil. That's not what the people of the Great Lakes State want to see happen, but it will unless we act to prevent it."

"Michigan needs to be a leader in caring for this national treasure now," said Cheryl Mendoza, program manager for the Alliance for the Great Lakes (formerly the Lake Michigan Federation). "We can't wait for a disaster to happen before acting like we did during the lumber era when we clear-cut the entire state."

The water conservation package would:

• Establish strict standards for large water withdrawals.
• Enact tough new restrictions on privatizing and commercializing Great Lakes waters.
• Ensure our streams, rivers and lakes are not harmed by large or numerous withdrawals of water, including groundwaters.
• Require Michigan's largest water users to practice conservation in order to protect the environment and demonstrate stewardship, while improving efficiency.
• Provide standards for the exercise of Michigan's veto of new diversions and exports under federal law.