What concerns Taft are provisions that fall short of the obligation required of the partners. He warned that as currently crafted the legislation would invite rounds of litigation. He reminded lawmakers that the state has until the end of 2013 to approve implementing legislation. Why not take care to achieve the quality of work due to the lakes?
One of the hallmarks of policymaking involving the Great Lakes has been the presence of bipartisanship. Taft understood its value as the compact came together during his tenure as governor. State Rep. Dennis Murray, a Sandusky Democrat, has proposed a thoughtful alternative bill for implementation. He belongs in the room, the state and the lakes benefiting from the bridging of differences.
Taft targeted the concerns. The legislation fails to take into sufficient account how harm to smaller rivers and streams can affect adversely the entire Lake Erie basin. It loosens the requirement that all users set up water conservation programs. It doesn't provide the state Department of Natural Resources with adequate authority. It lacks a scientific basis for assessing an adverse impact. It allows excessive withdrawals before requiring government review.
On Friday, George Voinovich added his voice to the calls for slowing down. In a letter to state senators, the former governor and U.S. senator, long a leading advocate for protecting and restoring the lakes, highlighted similar concerns, advising postponement ''until critical shortcomings in the legislation can be resolved.'' Neither Taft nor Voinovich fits into the category of blindly hugging trees. They understand the water needs of businesses. They also know well the precious place of the Great Lakes, economically, culturally, environmentally. Their counsel should be heeded: Get it right.
