I have a different view from you Mick,in that I think it very short-sighted to conceptualize water and other "natural resources" as primarily commodities available for immediate or near-term human consumption or economic development.   I think it a grave mistake to vi doesn't "belong" to humans. It belongs to the earth. It seems to me there is ample evidence that extensive manipulation of earth resources leads to substansive imbalance in ecological systems, and these have now occurred frequently enough, on a large enough scale, and with a sufficiently large worldwide distribution, to make clear that such manipulations threaten the continued existence of many species, including, ultimately, the human species.

With respect to water resources, one only need look at the West, aquifer levels, or salmon populations to understand what is at risk. The Great Lakes region is a large ecosystem in and of itself. In turn, it is part of and/or impacts an even larger ecosystem. Consider the global impact of deforestation of the Amazon rain basin.   It is safe to assume that heavy manipulation and depletion of the water resources of the Great Lakes would have a global environmental impact. Man can't live without an appropriate environment.

From my perspective, limiting use of the water in the Great Lakes ecosystem to the same ecosystem is the least envirnmentally degrading option.   I don't know, however, that it is a good idea to encourage substantial increased local consumption by encouraging out of region heavy consumers of water to relocate to the region.    Any economic relief it might add to the region is short-term, and far out-weighted by long term losses.