Legislature’s unseemly haste endangers Great Lakes’ health

In recent years it appeared that the greatest threat to the long-term health of the Great Lakes was the Asian carp. This newspaper has been consistently critical of Chicago power brokers for putting that area’s economic interests above those of the entire Great Lakes region in opposing the surest method of keeping the carp out of the lake.

Now, however, a new threat to the Great Lakes has emerged, and, unfortunately, in this instance it is Ohio business interests and their acolytes in Columbus that are the source of consternation.

As we noted earlier this year in another context, the value of the Great Lakes to long-term economic development to every state and province bordering the lakes cannot be underestimated. At a time when other areas of the nation are outgrowing their natural resources, the Great Lake states sit on the shores of the largest body of fresh water in the world.

For too long, the lakes — which provide drinking water to more than 30 million people and contribute to economic development through tourism, recreation, shipping and manufacturing — were taken for granted. But the border states of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have been doing a better job of reducing pollution and undoing some of the past damage. And they worked for years to draft a Great Lakes compact designed to allow all prudent use of the lakes without endangering their future.

Rushing for no good reason

But an agreement that took years to achieve and was ratified in 2008 could be endangered by the hasty and ill-conceived action of the Ohio General Assembly.

Under the guise of adopting use provisions required by the compact, the General Assembly has put legislation on a fast track that would give Ohio businesses access to lake water that exceeds that of any other state.

Just six weeks after legislation was drafted, the Ohio House of Representatives passed a bill last week and sent it to the Senate. The legislation contains no requirement that the effects of potentially enormous uses of Great Lakes water be scientifically monitored. And it provides no legal method for the state to reverse overuse.

The bill proposes these limits on average daily withdrawals by any entity from the watershed: 5 million gallons if taken directly from the lake, 2 million if taken from groundwater or other inland sources within the watershed, and 300,000 if taken from tributary streams that are deemed to be high quality.

Sen. Tim Grendell, R-Chesterland and sponsor of the Senate bill, says the General Assembly could convene to deal with any emergencies if they were to arise.

Do it right the first time

When dealing with an asset as valuable as the Great Lakes it is incumbent on the Legislature to craft a bill that includes mechanisms for the state to respond with speed and efficacy. The lack of any such mechanism brands this as slapdash legislation and gives voters cause to wonder why our representatives are in such a hurry.

One of the motivations of the sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, is easy to divine. He owns a water-bottling company that draws from the Great Lakes watershed.

But every Ohioan owns a stake in the future of Lake Erie and all the Great Lakes. And Ohio legislators owe their constituents better representation than they are providing.

The Great Lakes are a valuable resource now for tourism and industry, and they have enormous future potential.

But in its haste to put out an “Ohio is open for business” sign on the shores of Lake Erie, the General Assembly is in danger of killing the goose that could lay golden eggs through the 21st century and for centuries to come.

Some good advice

Making a surprise appearance in Columbus last week, former Gov. Bob Taft, who chaired the eight-state commission that reached the agreement governing the use of Great Lakes water, urged the Legislature to slow down.

“This is about the future of the state, this is about our children and our grandchildren,” Taft told a Senate committee. “It’s about protecting one of Ohio’s greatest long-term competitive advantages, which is our abundance of water resources that we enjoy here in the state of Ohio.”

Unfortunately, the Senate appears headed toward ignoring his advice and warnings. It’s going to rush through a piece of legislation that will at best be challenged by other members of the compact for its reliance on arbitrary limits and lack of scientific oversight.

At worst it will inspire other states and the two Canadian provinces to increase their limits at or beyond Ohio’s.

And that would jeopardize more than a decade of work involving three Ohio administrations aimed at assuring that the world’s largest fresh water resource will be a future asset for all Great Lakes states, including ours.