Ice may be covering much of the Great Lakes this time of year, but for those who care about protecting the Lakes’ future the action has been hot and heavy.

In mid-December, within the space of a few hours, two major agreements, both long in the making, called for restoring the vast Great Lakes ecosystem and conserving their water.

“This is good news for anyone who loves the beach, loves to swim, who drinks water from the Great Lakes,” said Cameron Davis of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. “These events will have long-term beneficial effects.”

In one agreement, the governors of bordering states and provinces agreed on measures to keep the Lakes’ water within the Great Lakes basin and committed to adopt water conservation policies. An exception would allow communities and counties straddling the boundaries of the basin to apply to use the water as long as they met certain safeguards, including returning treated water back to the system. Future permanent diversions of water to regions outside the basin would be effectively prohibited. In the past, proposals have suggested piping or shipping water to water-starved regions of this country and even internationally.

The agreement, which drew thousands of public comments during its two-year review process, was signed in Milwaukee on December 13. It must now be ratified by state and provincial legislatures, and by the U.S. Congress.

Just a day before the compact was signed, governors, mayors, tribal chairs, congressional and federal agency representatives met in Chicago to finalize a comprehensive plan for restoring the Great Lakes and protecting them against a variety of threats.

Included in the plan are measures to stop further introduction of invasive species; rebuild habitat for species native to the region; invest in sewage treatment and manage shoreline recreation to protect beaches and drinking water; clean up toxic hotspots called “areas of concern”; and prevent future pollution. Also included are calls to expand scientific research and information infrastructure, and to promote “sustainable” development in the region.

The panel had been meeting under the auspices of the U.S. EPA since spring 2004. Environmental and civic action groups in the Healing Our Waters–Great Lakes coalition had worked with the panel on devising the comprehensive plan.

The need for restoration was underscored by a report earlier in December calling attention to signs of stress in the Great Lakes, including the disappearance of tiny life forms at the bottom of the food chain, the expanding “dead zone” in Lake Erie, and the decline in native yellow perch. “The Great Lakes are deteriorating at a rate unprecedented in their recorded history,” said Alfred Beeton, a former director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and a report author. “If we want to restore this resource, the time to act is now.”

The panel put a price tag of $20 billion on the restoration effort. State and local officials have promised to help fund the effort, but there was no federal funding commitment attached to the EPA plan. Sen. George Voinovich (R, Ohio), a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, announced that he would hold hearings early in 2006 to explore funding possibilities. Said Cameron Davis, “Congress will have to step up.”

Also released late last year was a report by transportation expert John Taylor, of Grand Valley State University, examining the economic value of international shipping in the Great Lakes. Lake shipping is a vital part of the region’s economy, carrying an estimated 180 million metric tons a year. But most lake carriers stay entirely within the Great Lakes; only about 7 percent enter and leave the system through the 47-year-old St. Lawrence Seaway, producing an estimated cost savings of $55 million a year, according to Taylor. Ballast water from international shipping is a prime source of invasive species that threaten the lake ecosystem. States have been tightening controls on international shippers to help address the problem.