Upload
camilla-douglas
View
216
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Revised Draft Annex
Implementing Agreements
July-August 2005
Office of the Great Lakes Department of Environmental Quality
Great Lakes Charter
1985 Good-faith agreement between Great Lakes Governors and Premiers
Framework for protecting Great Lakes Basin waters
Establishment of water management principles
Section 1109 WRDA Section 1109(d) of WRDA (42
U.S.C.§1962D-20) - No water shall be diverted or exported from any portion of the Great Lakes within the United States, or from any tributary within the United States of any of the Great Lakes, for use outside the Great Lakes basin unless such diversion is approved by the Governor of each of the Great Lakes States
WRDA 2000 Amendment Congress declares its “purpose and
policy…to encourage the Great Lakes States, in consultation with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to develop and implement a mechanism that provides a common conservation standard embodying the principles of water conservation and resource improvement for making decisions concerning the Withdrawal and use of water from the Great Lakes Basin;”
Great Lakes Charter Annex
June 18, 2001 Good-faith agreement between Governors and Premiers
The Annex would: Include Ontario and Quebec Include in-basin consumptive uses Include ground water
CGLG Water Management Working Group
Advisory Committee, Resource Group and Observers
Public participation
Annex Process
July 2004 Drafts
July 19, 2004 Draft Agreements Released 10,000 basin wide comments received 700+ Comments from MI
4 Meetings, 1 Hearing, Numerous Briefings
Post Public Comment 2004-5 Water Management Working Group
Advisory Group Convened Nov 2004 Working Group Meetings Nov-June
Tribal Input Jurisdictional Meetings 2003-2004 Basin-wide Meeting January 2005 MI discussions under MI Water Accord
2005 Revised Drafts ReleasedDrafts Released by
Governors/Premiers Not Consensus
Documents 60 Day Public
Comment Period Ends August 29
2005 Revised Drafts – Key Improvements A ban on diversions with limited exceptions. Common decision-making standards for new
or increased water use proposals. Decision making process for in-basin water
uses will take place at the State level Strengthened commitments to water
conservation. Recognition of existing rights and treaties.
Diversions
2004 Draft Allowed all
diversions that met standard
Communities that straddle basin divide considered in basin
2005 Draft Prohibits diversions
w/limited exceptions: Communities in straddling
counties could bring a proposal forward
Communities that straddle basin divide considered in basin
Intra Basin Diversions
Voting On Diversions
2004 Draft Projects under 1
MGD not subject to veto/vote
Projects over 1 MGD subject to vote and single state veto
2005 Draft All projects subject to
veto/vote Only proposals from
communities in straddling counties considered
Intra Basin Diversions
2004 Draft All intrabasin
projects over 1MGD subject to unanimous vote/veto
Under 1MGD jurisdiction Improvement
required on all
2005 Draft Projects under 5 MGD, review
by jurisdiction only-notice to others
Intrabasin projects over 5 MGD consumptive use subject to unanimous vote/veto No improvement required
Intra Basin Diversions
2004 Draft Huron/Michigan
considered one hydrologic unit
Connecting Channels considered part of both Lakes
2005 Draft Huron/Michigan
considered one hydrologic unit
Connecting Channels considered part of both Lakes
In Basin Use Over 5 MGD (Consumptive Use)2004 Draft Projects over 5
MGD subject to regional review and compact vote-3 states could block
Improvement required
2005 Draft Projects over 5 MGD
subject to regional review, no compact vote. Jurisdiction
decision No improvement
required
In Basin Use Less than 5 MGD(Consumptive Use)2004 Draft Programs to manage
withdrawals >100,000GD required in 10 Years
2005 Draft Programs to manage
withdrawals >100,000GD required in 10 Years
Decision Making Standard2004 Draft Preventing/minimizing water loss
through return flow Environmentally
sound/economically feasible water conservation measures
No significant adverse individual or cumulative impacts to the quantity or quality of water/water dependent natural resources
Improvement to the waters/water dependent natural resources of the basin
Compliance with applicable state, provincial, federal and international laws and treaties
2005 Draft Preventing/minimizing water
loss through return flow Environmentally
sound/economically feasible water conservation measures
No significant adverse individual or cumulative impacts to the quantity or quality of water/water dependent natural resources
Compliance with applicable municipal, state, provincial, federal and international laws and treaties
Improvement not required
Conservation2004 Draft 2005 Draft
Conservation Plan for proposals that trigger Regional Review Conservation measures for other proposed withdrawals No reasonable alternative including conservation of existing water supplies Jurisdictional Programs subject to annual reporting, regional review
Proposals – conservation measures; conservation of existing water supplies Programs – strengthened commitments to conservation, restoration, ecosystem integrity; develop program within 5 years of agreements (best management practices, performance standards, monitoring, research etc.); subject to annual reporting, regional review
Improvement
2004 Draft Required for all
diversion proposals Required for all
consumptive use proposals > 5MGD
2005 Draft Not required as part
of any proposals Jurisdiction
conservation program will lead to overall improvement
Bottled Water
2004 Draft Water in containers
>20 L a diversion Water packaged in
basin in containers <20 L considered consumptive use
2005 Draft Water in containers
>20 L a diversion Water packaged in
basin in containers <20 considered consumptive use
Next Steps Jurisdictional
Hearings/Meetings MI Meetings/Hearing
Sault St. Marie, Grand Haven, Port Huron, Detroit, Lansing
Review/Revise Drafts based on comments received (Sep-Oct)
Documents Signed by end of 2005
Comment Process
Comment period ends August 29 Written Comments:
Office of the Great Lakes P.O. Box 304736th Floor Constitution HallLansing, MI 48909-7973
E-mail: [email protected]
Comment ProcessCouncil of Great Lakes Governors
Written comments should be sent to:David NaftzgerExecutive DirectorCouncil of Great Lakes Governors35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1850Chicago, Illinois 60601
Comments may also be submitted via e-mail to: