<b>By ANN HINCH<br>
Assistant Editor</b> </p><p>

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — “What’s the status of this Great Lakes Compact, to keep the western states from trying to take our water?”<br>
The impassioned question came from a voter attending a legislative town meeting with Indiana Sen. Beverly Gard (R-Greenfield) in Fortville Saturday morning. But others also wondered, their concern driven by decades of failed schemes by developers to ship or pipe potable water from the five Great Lakes and their connecting waterways to other, growing parts of the county – and beyond.<br>
The Indiana Senate and House will each consider a bill from the other chamber to approve the proposed Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. The Senate unanimously approved its version earlier this month; the House, by a vote of 83-8 last Thursday. If they agree on one version, it will go to the governor for his signature.<br>
Dave Naftzger, executive director of the Council of the Great Lakes Governors, a nonpartisan partnership among the governors of the eight states bordering the Great Lakes – Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania – said in 2000 Congress amended the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (see related article).<br>
The changes required the states consult with Ontario and Quebec “to develop and implement a mechanism … for making decisions concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the Great Lakes Basin (the region in which rainfall drains into the waterways).”<br>
Two people of each governor’s choosing helped the Council’s working group develop the compact, with help from legal experts at universities and elsewhere in the eight states, he said. Since governors are restricted from making international agreements, Ontario and Quebec passed their own compact last year, which Naftzger said was “substantively” similar to the American version.
If all states approve the compact – which is the same for every state, with minor language changes allowed for riders and explanations – it will go to Congress. As for whether Congress could later override its approval and force the states to divert Great Lakes water to another state, Naftzger said history has shown Congress respecting interstate compacts.<br>
So far, only Illinois and Minnesota have approved the compact. As noted, Indiana’s governor is awaiting a unified bill. Bills are pending in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio; only Wisconsin has no bill yet. “I think there are a lot of signs that are encouraging that the bills will move ahead this year,” Naftzger said of deliberating states.<br>
In Ohio, state Sen. Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland) intends to vote for the compact – if a few words are removed. A land-use and constitutional attorney, he’s worried about this phrase in Section 1.3: The Waters of the Basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the States.<br>
The Basin includes 35 northern Ohio counties. Right now, he said, Ohio landowners have the right to drill wells on their properties and the groundwater beneath is considered each landowner’s. If that water is diverted by the government, a landowner can sue and is eligible for compensation; if that water is owned by the government in “public trust,” though – as are natural lakes and navigable rivers, free for use to all citizens – he said the landowner has no legal recourse.<br>
“We can’t do enough to prevent diversion,” Grendell agreed; this part of the compact, he supports. But, “if it’s to convert Ohio farmers’ groundwater and ponds to public trust, then I’m against it,” he said, asking if the government can seize groundwater, how long before it can seize crops fed by the water?<br>
He believes farmers from all eight states should be “greatly concerned.”<br>
Earlier this week, Grendell was to introduce an amended version of the compact in his state senate, removing the language about being held in trust. It’s a small but material legal change that would require the other states’ approval to go into effect; but Grendell seems confident that without this change, the Ohio Senate won’t give the compact its necessary approval.<br>
Naftzger said water-law experts have reviewed the compact as is and declared it’s not a problem. “There are very specific protections” not to diminish anyone’s existing ownership within the Basin, he said, referring to Section 8.1, “Effect on Existing Rights.”
“It’s something we’ve looked closely at.”<br>
He added those in favor of the compact would like to see it pass before the 2010 census. Over time, the Great Lakes region has lost population to other parts of the country, notably the Southwest.<br>
If the eight states lose seats in the federal House to a part of the country that needs water, it may mean that many fewer representatives are willing to approve the compact in Congress.
Gard, who introduced the bill for compact approval in the Indiana Senate, said to her knowledge, legislators in other states do not agree with Grendell’s assessment of the document’s “public trust” language. And Ken DeBeaussaert, director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of the Great Lakes, said the compact’s drafting went through several governors.
“Virtually every state (involved) saw a change in their gubernatorial offices since that started” in 2001, he said.<br>
The compact did not, however, have input from the states’ general assemblies.<br>
George Kuper, president and CEO of the Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI) in Michigan, said he believes Grendell is the first to raise this question. “We believe (his concern) is not the case,” he said, “but he’s a good lawyer … and we haven’t yet had lawyers dueling over this one. If he’s right, then we have a problem.”<br>
Kuper and the CGLI, which represents industries and businesses in the Great Lakes region, were among advisors to the compact’s working group. He doesn’t believe the document will require amendment and said to do so would entail getting each state’s legislature to go through the voting process again, which he called “terrible politics.” But, neither does he think all states will pass it soon. “I’m a lousy forecaster,” he admitted. “I doubt that it will get done this year, but it may.”