IT'S OUR WATER, DARN IT

For decades, people in the Great Lakes states have fretted that sun-parched places as Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California would slake their unquenchable thirst by installing a big pipe to suck away our northern waters.
So Phoenix would have emerald golf courses; San Diego shopping malls with fountains and Albuquerque, grass in its lawns instead of cactus.
Meanwhile in the Great Lakes, ore boats would drag on lake bottoms, algae would grow like crazy and people's docks would be an even longer hike to the water.
But over the last year or so, the Great Lakes States and the Canadian provinces have agreed: Just say no.
No water diversions. At least no big ones.
In December, 2005, the governors of the Great Lakes states signed a compact agreeing to ban any large scale water withdrawals -- either by pipe or shipping -- to any place outside the Great Lakes drainage basin.
The two Canadian provinces -- Ontario and Quebec -- did not sign the compact, but set up equivalent protections.
But in order to go into law, the eight state legislatures had to agree.
Signing in quick order were Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and New York. After much legislative haggling, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan now are pretty much on board.
In late June, the Michigan legislature passed new water laws and agreed to the compact. In part, it banned no Great Lakes withdrawals of more than 1 million gallons a day. Governor Jennifer Granholm was expected to sign the bill.
That leaves Pennsylvania where the House agreed to the compact in January, but the State Senate is still haggling over details.
Next step?
Soon. That is very soon. The compact will have to be approved by the U.S. Congress and the president. The outlook at this point is positive.
One loophole in the compact. It allows bottled water to be shipped from the region.