Great Lakes Charter

Great Lakes Charter
Name	Great Lakes Charter
Date signed	1985
Location signed	Chicago
Parties	Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
Language	English

Great Lakes Charter is a 1985 agreement among eight United States states surrounding the Great Lakes region to coordinate management of shared freshwater resources. The Charter established principles for cooperative water withdrawal review and notification among the states and laid groundwork for later binational accords with Canada and provincial governments such as Ontario. It served as a policy precursor to the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact and the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001.

History

The Charter originated from regional dialogues in the early 1980s involving the Council of Great Lakes Governors, the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers, and state executives including James R. Thompson of Illinois and James Blanchard of Michigan. Prompted by high-profile diversion proposals such as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal reversals and commercial interests linked to the Erie Canal, officials drew on precedents like the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the International Joint Commission. The 1985 signature followed studies by agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and academic institutions such as the University of Michigan and University at Buffalo.

Background and Purpose

Drafters reacted to water export proposals involving municipalities, private firms, and interstate projects connected to the Niagara River, St. Lawrence River, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. The Charter aimed to forestall disputes reminiscent of litigation like Wisconsin v. Illinois and policy tensions between jurisdictions exemplified by interactions among Minnesota and Wisconsin or New York and Ontario. It sought to harmonize state approaches ahead of engagement with federal entities including the United States Department of the Interior and international partners such as the Government of Canada.

Provisions and Commitments

The Charter set nonbinding commitments requiring notification and consultation before proposing significant withdrawals or diversions affecting the basin. It established review principles comparable to those later codified in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact and the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001. Key elements emphasized source protection near tributaries like the Maumee River, the Detroit River, and the St. Clair River, and recognized stakeholders including municipal authorities in cities such as Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, Buffalo, and Chicago. The agreement referenced technical standards influenced by the U.S. Geological Survey and hydrologic work from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Implementation and Governance

Implementation relied on the participating governors and intergovernmental coordination through entities like the Council of Great Lakes Governors and later the Great Lakes Commission. State natural resource agencies such as the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation instituted review protocols consistent with the Charter. The governance approach was cooperative and voluntary, drawing on models used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Missouri River Basin compacts, while interfacing with federal permitting regimes administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and regulatory frameworks enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Interstate and International Coordination

The Charter catalyzed binational dialogue with Canada and provincial governments including Ontario and Quebec, informing successor arrangements negotiated through forums such as the International Joint Commission and multilateral initiatives like the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Coordination addressed transboundary flows involving the St. Lawrence Seaway and cross-border metro areas like Sault Ste. Marie and Detroit-Windsor. It influenced input from federal actors including the Government of Canada and the United States Congress, and intersected with trade and infrastructure interests represented by bodies like the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.

Criticisms and Legal Challenges

Critics argued the Charter lacked enforceability and binding mechanisms, prompting legal observers to compare it to court-adjudicated compacts such as Kansas v. Colorado disputes. Environmental groups including Sierra Club affiliates in the region and advocacy organizations like Friends of the Earth and National Wildlife Federation called for statutory safeguards akin to those later enacted in the Compact. Municipalities and private developers challenged the voluntary framework when seeking permits, prompting litigation and legislative responses in states such as Wisconsin and Ohio. Trade proponents and industrial stakeholders including shipping interests at Port of Duluth–Superior and energy planners in Upstate New York weighed in on allocation and diversion controversies.

Legacy and Subsequent Agreements

The Charter’s legacy is evident in the 2001 Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 and the 2008 Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, both of which created binding processes and statutory authority within participating states and provinces. It influenced the institutional roles of the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers, the Great Lakes Commission, and the International Joint Commission, and informed state laws in Michigan, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Charter remains a touchstone in debates over water governance involving climate considerations addressed by agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and research centers at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

Category:Great Lakes