WASHINGTON – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) has asked his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join him in opposing the Great Lakes Compact until concerns over the commercialization of Great Lakes water are addressed.  In a letter sent today to all 435 members of the House, Stupak noted that the compact, which is expected to be voted on today, does not adequately protect the lakes from water diversions.

“I continue to have concerns that the Great Lakes Compact is not strong enough to protect the Great Lakes against diversions through privatization, commercialization and exportation,” Stupak said.  “Because these concerns remain unaddressed, I regret that I have to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the compact until proper protections are put in place.”

Stupak noted in the letter that three specific questions remain unanswered:

• How does the Compact's exemption of water in a container smaller than 5.7 gallons, better known as the bottled water loophole, affect the prohibition on diversions under the Federal Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended in 2000?
• Will creating a federal definition of Great Lakes water as a "product" subject it to international trade law obligations such as NAFTA?
• Would actions taken by the Great Lakes states to restrict or prohibit efforts by international commercial entities, who seek to privatize the Great Lakes, ever be subject to claims under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the World Trade Organization? 

On July 30, Stupak wrote to the International Joint Commission (IJC), the U.S. State Department, and the U.S. Trade Representative seeking answers to these questions.  The agencies acknowledged Stupak’s request but have yet to provide adequate answers.

On September 5, Stupak wrote to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) requesting specific language be added to the committee report to accompany the compact’s ratifying legislation clarifying the intent of the compact and providing additional protection against water diversions.  The requested language was not included.

The intent of the Great Lakes Compact, when Michigan and the seven other Great Lakes states began crafting the agreement more than seven years ago, was to protect Great Lakes water from large-scale diversions.  Stupak has raised concerns over the compact’s so-called bottled water loophole.  He is troubled by the prospect of passing legislation that would treat Great Lakes water as a product that could then be subject to international trade laws. 

“While the potential removal of millions of gallons of Great Lakes water in the form of bottled water is alarming, of much greater concern is a potential trade dispute between the U.S. and any multi-national corporation or foreign government interested in diverting our water,” Stupak said.

Stupak reminded his colleagues that the Great Lakes governors spent more than three years addressing local and state implications before approving the compact, yet Congress has spent less than 20 legislative days considering the federal and international implications.

“I see no reason why we must rush this process when our nation’s most precious natural resource is at stake,” Stupak said.  “The Great Lakes make up the largest body of freshwater in the world.  We owe it to the people of Michigan and the entire Great Lakes Basin to take our time and ensure that the Great Lakes Compact preserves and restores the quality and quantity of Great Lakes water.”