[House Report 110-863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 110-863
======================================================================
CONSENT OF CONGRESS FOR AN INTERSTATE COMPACT REGARDING WATER RESOURCES
IN THE GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN
_______
September 22, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 6577]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 6577) to express the consent and approval of Congress to
an interstate compact regarding water resources in the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 7
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 7
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 7
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 7
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 6577 effectuates the consent and approval of Congress
to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources
Compact (``Compact''), which provides a structure for water
management and protection of the water within the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence River Basin (``Basin''). Generally, the Compact
creates an eight-State Council for administering Compact
oversight; fosters economic development through sustainable use
and responsible water management; develops regional goals and
objectives for water conservation and efficiency; strengthens
the collection of technical data to improve State decision-
making regarding water management; with exceptions, generally
bans new diversions of water from the Basin; and provides for
public participation regarding Council and State actions.
Background and Need for the Legislation
In the face of common problems and opportunities that span
beyond their individual boundaries, States have historically
joined together to address regional and even national issues.
The cooperation comes through formal agreements, such as
interstate compacts, as well as informal collaborative
mechanisms. States are increasingly working together in areas
such as economic development, homeland security, environmental
protection, natural resources management, and health care.
Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more
States to create an agreement adopting a certain standard, to
cooperate on a regional or national matter to address common
problems, to establish policy, or to promote a common
agenda.\1\ The structures of the compacts are not mandated by
the Federal Government, but instead are State collaborative
approaches.\2\ They enable the States to act collectively
outside the Federal legislative and regulatory process, thereby
reinforcing State sovereignty while developing a fluid self-
regulatory system. They often create independent, multi-State
governmental authorities, or commissions, that can address
issues more effectively than State agencies or when no single
State has encompassing jurisdiction.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Joseph F. Zimmerman, Interstate Cooperation: Compacts and
Administrative Agreements 31 (2002).
\2\For an overview of the efforts of State governments in promoting
and creating interstate compacts, see http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/
resources.aspx.
\3\See Zimmerman, at 69-70, 73-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate compacts can serve several purposes. They can
settle interstate disputes, such as boundary issues.\4\ They
can provide for specific emergency response assistance, such as
regional fire fighting\5\ and general emergency assistance
services.\6\ They can promote economic development.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Georgia and South Carolina Boundary Compact, Pub. L. No.
106-79, 113 Stat. 1307 (1999).
\5\See Great Plains Wildland Fire Protection Compact, Pub. L. No.
110-79, 121 Stat. 730 (2007).
\6\See Emergency Management Assistance Compact, Pub. L. No. 104-
321, 110 Stat. 3877 (1996).
\7\See Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact, Pub. L. No.
105-145, 111 Stat. 2669 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before an interstate compact can become effective, it must
be approved not only by the requisite number of States as
outlined in the compact, but by Congress as well.
The Basin includes the watershed of the Great Lakes and the
St. Lawrence River upstream from Trois Rivieres, Quebec. The
Basin includes the waters within the geographic areas
surrounding each body of water where water drains toward the
Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The States within the
Basin include Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\The region also includes the Canadian provinces of Ontario and
Quebec. The provinces are not part of the Compact because the Compact
is among the States; however, they are part of an agreement between the
States and the provinces to protect the water basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, in response to a Canadian company proposing to
ship water from Lake Ontario to Asia, and the fear of other
attempts to divert water to Arizona and Western Canada, the
Great Lakes States began to collaborate on an effort to protect
the Basin and limit diversions from it.\9\ The States also
viewed protection of the Basin as important to industrial,
environmental, and recreational interests.\10\ Congress helped
by encouraging the States to develop and implement a mechanism
to promote water conservation and to regulate the withdrawal
and use of the water.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Dennis Cauchon, Great Lakes Compact at the Center of Great
Debate, USA Today, Dec. 12, 2006.
\10\Kari Lydersen, Great Lakes' Lower Water Levels Propel a Cascade
of Hardships, Wash. Post, Jan. 27, 2008, at A4.
\11\See Section 504 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(WRDA), which amended Section 1109(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20(b)). The 2000 amendment,
included in S. 2796, ``. . . encourage[d] 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.'' Section 504, though not included in the House
version of the Act, H.R. 4411, was agreed to by the House in
conference. The WRDA of 2000 became Pub. L. No. 106-541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the encouragement of Congress, on June 18,
2001, the Governors of the Great Lakes States and the Premiers
of the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec agreed to the
Great Lakes Charter Annex, which outlined protections for the
Basin to improve the ecosystem and update the management of the
Basin water.\12\ The agreement established a working group to
develop the agreements to effectuate the purposes of protecting
the Basin. The working group consulted with a committee
comprised of representatives from industry, agriculture,
shipping, municipal governments, environmental organizations,
and others. It also met with the United States and Canadian
Federal Governments, and the Indian tribes. It held public
hearings and sought and received public input. Four years
later, the working group drafted and finalized language to
protect the Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\The Associated Press, Great Lakes leaders agree to set water
diversion limits in 3 years, Grand rapids Press, June 19, 2001, at A5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2005, the Great Lakes Governors and
Premiers of the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec signed
agreements consisting of the language drafted by the working
group.\13\ The agreements are to be implemented in Ontario and
Quebec through Provincial laws, and in the United States
through the Compact. The Compact will thus be an important
supplement to the protections currently provided under Federal
law and the laws of the various affected States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\James Janega, States OK stopper for the Great Lakes; Pact would
outlaw increased diversions, Chi. Trib., Dec. 13, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 2008, the final Great Lakes State governor
approved the Compact.\14\ On July 23, 2008, Rep. James Oberstar
introduced H.R. 6577, a bill granting congressional approval to
the Compact.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Tina Lam, Michigan governor signs water protection pact, Det.
Free Press, July 9, 2008. For more information, see http://
www.cglg.org/projects/water/CompactImplementation.asp.
\15\That same day, Senator Carl Levin introduced S.J. Res. 45,
legislation similar to H.R. 6577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A section-by-section of the Compact follows:
Art. 1. Short Title, Definitions, Purposes and Duration.
Section 1.1 provides the short title of the Compact as the
``Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources
Compact.'' Section 1.2 also provides definitions for the
Compact and any supplemental or concurring legislation. Section
1.3 lists the findings and purposes of the Compact, which
underscore the importance of the resource to the region, the
principles of the Compact, and the commitment to cooperative
management of the resource for the long-term benefit of the
Basin.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\The Committee does not interpret the Compact to create or
establish that the waters of the Basin in its natural state are a
commodity under any international trade agreement, law, or treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 2. Organization. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 provide for the
organization and administration of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River Basin Water Resources Council, which shall consist of the
Governors of the Parties ex officio. This article reiterates
the spirit of cooperation among the States and the several
agencies in the respective States.
Art. 3. General Powers and Duties. Article 3 establishes
the Council as the oversight mechanism serving to coordinate
and facilitate the exercise of the authority of the States over
Basin waters. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 detail Council powers and
rules and regulations.
Art. 4. Water Management and Regulation. Article 4 creates
the regulatory framework for the water management systems of
the Compact:
Section 4.1. Describes the inventory, registration, and
reporting requirements for withdrawals in the Basin.
Section 4.2. Provides the framework for water
conservation and efficiency programs with
responsibilities for program development, review and
evolution.
Section 4.8. Generally prohibits any new or increased
diversions.
Section 4.9. Details the conditions and requirements
for consideration and approval of an exception to the
general diversion prohibition.
Section 4.10. Provides for the management and
regulation of Basin uses, and confirms the authority of
the respective jurisdictions to regulate the in-Basin
uses of the resource at their discretion.
Section 4.11. Provides for a decision-making standard
for the proposals subject to management and regulation
outlined in Section 4.10.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\The Committee understands Section 4.11.2 to require that a
withdrawal or consumptive use of Great Lakes water will be implemented
so as to ensure that the withdrawal or consumptive use will result in
no significant individual or cumulative adverse impacts to the quantity
or quality of the waters and water-dependent natural resources of
either the Basin considered as a whole or the applicable source
watershed considered as a whole. The Committee understands that the
States may take into consideration, when evaluating whether a proposed
withdrawal or consumptive use is reasonable as provided in Section
4.11.5, those impacts of a withdrawal or consumptive use on the
quantity or quality of waters and water dependent natural resources
that have only localized impacts which are not of import to the Basin
or source watershed considered as a whole. The Committee understands
Section 4.11.2 to require States, when determining whether there will
be significant individual or cumulative adverse impacts, a) to consider
the impacts incurred in a particular tributary or stream reach where
those impacts are important to either the Basin or the applicable
source watershed as a whole, and b) to make a judgment of the nature,
degree, scope, and materiality of the impacts and the regional
importance of those impacts to the Basin and the applicable source
watershed.
Section 4.12. Provides for additional provisions that
further define the applicability of Article 4.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\The Committee understands Section 4.12.1 to provide for a
minimum standard, but that Section 4.12.10 allows States to adopt more
stringent standards for assessing permissible impacts than the standard
set forth in the Compact.
Section 4.14. Recognizes the Supreme Court decree of
Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\388 U.S. 426 (1967) (the Supreme Court enjoined Illinois from
withdrawing more than a stated number of cubic feet of water per second
from Lake Michigan).
Section 4.15. Establishes regular Basin-wide review
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
assessment of the totality of water withdrawals.
Art. 5. Tribal Consultation. Article 5 establishes
procedures for tribal participation regarding proposal reviews
and communication with the Council.
Art. 6. Public Participation. Article 6 establishes public
participation procedures for Council actions and State action
reviews of certain applications.
Art. 7. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement. Article 7
provides a framework for dispute resolution among the Parties
and persons aggrieved by the Parties or Council.
Art. 8. Additional Provisions. Article 8 reiterates that
the Compact does not limit or diminish rights validly
established as of the effective date of the Compact, nor affect
common law water rights of the respective Parties. The Compact
does not create any property rights, nor does it create or
diminish treaty rights, nor require breach of confidentiality
rights or obligations. The Compact contains a standard
severability clause, and generally, once effective, the Compact
remains in force and binding upon each Party unless terminated
by a majority vote of the Parties.
Art. 9. Effectuation. Article 9 provides for the
effectuation of the Compact only upon ratification through
concurring legislation by each jurisdiction and consent by
Congress.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
6577.
Committee Consideration
On July 30, 2008, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 6577, favorably reported without
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 6577.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 6577, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 11, 2008.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6577, a bill to
express the consent and approval of Congress to an interstate
compact regarding water resources in the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River Basin.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Tyler
Kruzich, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosure.
cc:
Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
Ranking Member
H.R. 6577--A bill to express the consent and approval of Congress to an
interstate compact regarding water resources in the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin.
H.R. 6577 would provide Congressional consent and approval
to an interstate compact regarding water resources in the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. The compact--entered into by
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, as well as the Canadian provinces
of Ontario and Quebec--would ban new diversions of water from
the basin, subject to certain limited exceptions. No Federal
funds would be used to approve or implement the compact. Thus,
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6577 would have no impact on
the Federal budget.
H.R. 6577 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Tyler Kruzich,
who can be reached at 226-2860. The estimate was approved by
Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
6577 provides Congressional consent to the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, which is an
interstate compact regarding water resources in the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 10, clause 3 of the
Constitution.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 6577 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Sec. 1. Consent of Congress. Section 1 sets forth
Congressional approval of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
Basin Water Resources Compact. Section 1 also includes the
entire text of the compact.
Sec. 2. Right to Alter, Amend, or Appeal. Section 2
indicates that Congress expressly reserves the right to alter,
amend, or repeal this Act.