69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–863 

CONSENT OF CONGRESS FOR AN INTERSTATE COMPACT 

REGARDING WATER RESOURCES IN THE GREAT LAKESST. 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 LakesSt. 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 manageVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:09 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR863.XXX HR863

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

1See Joseph F. Zimmerman, INTERSTATE COOPERATION: COMPACTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE

AGREEMENTS 31 (2002). 2For an overview of the efforts of State governments in promoting and creating interstate 

compacts, see http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/resources.aspx. 3See Zimmerman, at 69–70, 73–74. 4See Georgia and South Carolina Boundary Compact, Pub. L. No. 106–79, 113 Stat. 1307 

(1999). 5See Great Plains Wildland Fire Protection Compact, Pub. L. No. 110–79, 121 Stat. 730 

(2007). 6See Emergency Management Assistance Compact, Pub. L. No. 104–321, 110 Stat. 3877 

(1996). 7See Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact, Pub. L. No. 105–145, 111 Stat. 2669 

(1997). 

ment 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, multiState governmental authorities, or commissions, that can address 

issues more effectively than State agencies or when no single State 

has encompassing jurisdiction.3

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

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 Rivie`res, Que ́bec. The Basin 

includes the waters within the geographic areas surrounding each 

body of water where water drains toward the Great Lakes and the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

8The region also includes the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Que ́bec. 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. 9Dennis Cauchon, Great Lakes Compact at the Center of Great Debate, USA TODAY, Dec. 12, 

2006. 10Kari Lydersen, Great Lakes’ Lower Water Levels Propel a Cascade of Hardships, WASH. POST, Jan. 27, 2008, at A4. 11See 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 Que ́bec, 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. 12The Associated Press, Great Lakes leaders agree to set water diversion limits in 3 years, 

GRAND RAPIDS PRESS, June 19, 2001, at A5. 13 James Janega, States OK stopper for the Great Lakes; Pact would outlaw increased diversions, CHI. TRIB., Dec. 13, 2005. 14Tina 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. 15That same day, Senator Carl Levin introduced S.J. Res. 45, legislation similar to H.R. 6577. 

St. Lawrence River. The States within the Basin include Illinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 

Wisconsin.8

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

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 Que ́bec 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. 

On December 13, 2005, the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers 

of the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Que ́bec signed agreements consisting of the language drafted by the working group.13

The agreements are to be implemented in Ontario and Que ́bec 

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. 

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


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

16The 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. 17The 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 imporA 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

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


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 

tant 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. 18The 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. 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 4.12. Provides for additional provisions that further define the applicability of Article 4.18

Section 4.14. Recognizes the Supreme Court decree of Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.19

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
6 

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. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
7 

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. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING