Suggestions that the diversion was in conflict with a governing, US-Canada agreement, or Compact, were aired at the DNR's sole hearing in March, after which I wrote:
I'm impressed with the strong, informed turnout and statements at the Foxconn diversion hearing reported Wednesday.
"I’m worried that by fudging compact provisions and by allowing clear definitions to slide, it really does set a harmful precedent," said Jodi Habush Sinykin, with Midwest Environmental Advocates.Midwest Environmental Advocates is the public interest law firm representing the groups challenging the DNR's diversion approval.
Separately, Illinois and New York, both members of the eight-state Compact, have expressed their own reservations, noted here, as did a Michigan public interest organization, FLOW.
These are the very kinds of headwinds I'd said six weeks ago would hit the project.
At the heart of the objections is whether a diversion from the Great Lakes
sought to principally serve one private business not entirely within the Great Lakes basin meets the Compact's requirement that diversions serve a public purpose.
Here is a complete archive of items related to Foxconn since the project proposal surfaced in July.