The passage in September of a state Constitutional amendment to prohibit diversions of Michigan's Great Lakes waters by the Michigan House of Representatives is politics at its worst. Although the immediate reaction of virtually all Michigan residents to the idea would be strong support, the amendment (House Joint Resolution CC) actually weakens rather than strengthens our current protection scheme.

Michigan's ability to prevent diversions from the Great Lakes is currently provided by the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)-a federal law that allows any of the Great Lakes governors to veto an out-of-basin diversion. As long as the federal law is not amended, repealed or struck down by a court, Michigan will retain its right to veto a diversion of the Great Lakes.

The proposed state Constitutional amendment would require the governor of Michigan to veto every single proposal for a diversion out of the Great Lakes-regardless of the size and purpose (such as a small diversion to protect public health in a village just outside the basin whose groundwater supply was contaminated with naturally occurring arsenic). Such an approach may be viewed as unnecessarily rigid to Congress and could increase the likelihood that WRDA would be amended or repealed.

Currently, of the 275 million people who live in the United States, only 25 million live within the Great Lakes basin. That means of the 435 Representatives in Congress, relatively few represent people who live within the basin, while a majority represents those outside the basin (many from states where demand for water far exceeds supply). The bottom line is this: WRDA is a great deal for Michigan residents, and we should not do anything that would encourage Congress to amend or repeal the law.

As a second line of defense, Michigan should have a state law that regulates large water use and the diversion of water out of the basin (as proposed by Governor Granholm in the Michigan Water Legacy Act). However, that law will only withstand legal challenge if it is firmly rooted in protection of the Great Lakes for future generations. Thus any law or Constitutional amendment needs to include strict standards to protect the Lakes. Legal experts agree that any outright ban on all diversions would likely be struck down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution or trade agreements and thus provides no real new protection.

The proponents of a Constitutional amendment, including an outright ban on diversions, are taking advantage of the fact that a vast majority of Michigan residents are not aware of legal restrictions placed on such action. They know Michigan residents just want to be able to say no to diversions. Unfortunately, saying no in this manner may make a diversion more likely, not less likely. Protection of the Great Lakes deserves more serious attention by our legislators than is provided in HJR CC.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The issues we care about are decided by the people
who will be elected on November 2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~