Death by a Thousand Straws': Why and How the Great Lakes Council Should Define 'Reasonable Water Supply Alternative' Within the Great Lakes Compact

• Author: Amanda K. Beggs
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2015; M.Ed., Rockhurst University, 2012; B.A., Marquette University, 2010
• Pages: 361-385

361

“Death by a Thousand Straws”:

Why and How the Great Lakes Council

Should Define “Reasonable Water Supply

Alternative” Within the Great Lakes

Compact

Amanda K. Beggs

ABSTRACT: In 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Great

Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (“Great Lakes

Compact” or “Compact”). The Compact is a legally binding instrument

between all the Great Lakes states that manages all water diversions out of

the Great Lakes. The Compact sets a general prohibition on diverting water

out of the Great Lakes and delineates a few exceptions to that ban. Under the

Compact, a community in a “straddling county” is eligible for a diversion out

of the Great Lakes if it demonstrates, among other things, that it does not

have a “reasonable water supply alternative” and receives approval from all

members of the Great Lakes Council. To date, the Great Lakes Council has

not defined “reasonable water supply alternative,” leaving it up to the

Compact member states to develop their own definitions. The Great Lakes

Council’s failure to define “reasonable water supply alternative” leaves the

Council’s decisions to approve or deny a community in a straddling county’s

diversion application vulnerable to legal challenges. This Note suggests that

the Great Lakes Council should define “reasonable water supply alternative”

with a focus on the alternative’s effectiveness in terms of public health and

environmental effects as opposed to the alternative’s costs because this

formulation will help avoid litigation and effectuate the purpose of the

Compact.

 J.D. C andida te, Th e Unive rsity of Iowa Colleg e of La w, 2015 ; M.Ed ., Rock hurst Univer sity,

2012; B.A., Marquette University, 2010. Thank you to the Iowa Law Review Volume 99 and Volume

100 editors and student writers for their help and supp ort in creating this Note.

362 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:361

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 363

II. HISTORY OF THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT AND DIVERSIONS ......... 365

A. GREAT LAKES DIVERSION MANAGEMENT BEFORE THE

COMPACT ............................................................................... 366

B. GREAT LAKES DIVERSION MANAGEMENT AFTER THE COMPACT . 369

III. THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT’S FIRST TEST .................................. 372

A. THE STRADDLING COUNTY EXCEPTION AND WAUKESHA WOES .. 373

B. OTHER COMMUNITIES IN STRADDLING COUNTIES ON THE BRINK OF

A WATER CRISIS ...................................................................... 374

IV. CONFLICTS UNDER THE COMPACT’S DIVERSIONARY SCHEME ....... 375

A. LACK OF REGULATORY PROCESSES AND BINDING GUIDANCE ...... 376

B. LACK OF DEFINITION FOR KEY TERMS OF ART ........................... 377

1. Lack of Definition of “Reasonable Water Supply

Alternative” .................................................................... 378

2. Wisconsin’s Definition of “Reasonable Water Supply

Alternative” .................................................................... 379

V. THE COUNCIL SHOULD DEFINE “REASONABLE WATER SUPPLY

ALTERNATIVE” .............................................................................. 380

A. WHY: TO STRENGTHEN THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT AGAINST

LEGAL CHALLENGES ................................................................ 380

B. HOW: BY FOCUSING ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTIVENESS OF AN ALTERNATIVE, NOT ECONOMIC

CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................... 382

VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 384