About this time four years ago, Democrat Jennifer Granholm and Republican Dick Posthumus, eventual 2002 gubernatorial nominees, vowed to assure that Michigan finally would catch up with other Great Lakes states in regulating large-scale water diversions.

Posthumus grandly touted an ill-defined comprehensive "Marshall Plan for Water." Other Republicans trumpeted the concept.

Subsequently, the GOP-ruled Legislature and Granholm could not agree on a management framework – until last week when lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a compromise that Granholm says she will sign as Michigan's first comprehensive water use package. They include some provisions of her own proposed Water Legacy Act.

Business and environmental groups generally praised the package. Policy Director James Clift of the Michigan Environmental Council called the bills "a huge step forward for Michigan…Our Great Lakes and all of our waterways are, for the first time, being provided protection from overuse by large water users."

Not quite. There's a loophole for large water bottling operations, whose containers smaller than 5.7 gallons are exempt from being considered a diversion outside the Great Lakes basin.

Rochelle Breitenbach of the Detroit Audubon Society joined Clift in applauding the package, but said: "Exempting bottled water from being considered a diversion creates a dangerous loophole in protections of Great Lakes water. We will continue to work to close this loophole and protect Michigan's water from being exported, no matter the size of the container."

Jim Olson, the Traverse City attorney representing Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation that has fought the Ice Mountain bottling operation in Mecosta County, is outraged that the legislation treats such water as "a product, not a diversion." He said Granholm should show "backbone (and) refuse to sign it."

Not likely. Both parties prefer in this election year to declare victory.

Russ Harding, director of the Department of Environmental Quality during the Engler Administration and now with the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy, calls the package "one more obstacle for job providers looking to expand or locate here."

Not so. Rep. David Palsrok (RManistee), who chairs the House committee on natural resources and related issues, says the bills "protect and conserve Michigan's water and still allow for managed use that will help economic recovery and growth in the state."

My view: The Michigan package is a good start, but only that, at playing catch-up with other lakes states.

A Plus for Parks

Granholm had little to say about the environment in January's jobs-oriented State of the State Address. But in last week's budget message she said, "strengthening our economy and quality of life requires (protecting) our precious natural resources."

She proposed $22 million in capital outlay funding – through bonding through the State Building Authority to be repaid out of the general fund – to improve deteriorating state parks and increase tourism. Specifics were not cited, but the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) said Friday state parks with immediate needs (notably the toilets) include those at Ludington, Traverse City, Interlochen, St. Ignace, Fayette, Copper Harbor, and Porcupine Mountains.

State parks have not received general fund money since 2003. In fact, potential DNR money from user-funded cookie jars has been raided for general fund needs.

A welcome proposed ballot proposition would thwart tapping of those funds. Unfortunately, there so far has been little steam behind the effort to promote this idea on what shapes up as a cluttered ballot.

Some northern Michigan Republican lawmakers have had success, however limited, impacting Granholm's budget proposal.

Over objections of Senator Jason Allen of Traverse City, she once wanted to eliminate general fund support of the Mackinac Island State Park. Although there's a slight reduction, such funding is in her latest budget proposal.

Representative Tom Casperson (R-Escanaba), a former logger who champions the timber industry and has lured about 40 other lawmakers Up North to view its operations, is pleased by what Granholm says about its importance.

Citing the furniture industry and other downstate economics, Casperson correctly said: "This is not a U.P. issue; it is a Michigan issue."

George Weeks recently retired after 22 years as political columnist for The Detroit News. His weekly Michigan Politics column is syndicated by Superior Features.