In these waning days of the Legislature, there will no doubt be many items which leaders want to move to the floor for a vote. The Great Lakes compact should be among them, but its future is unclear.

The compact was negotiated over the course of several years by the governors of the eight states and two Canadian provinces which border the lakes, and it is intended to prevent future withdrawals of water to slake the thirst of the South, West, or some foreign country.

This is a real problem. We all know about the drought which has afflicted Georgia, and the municipalities of the West and Southwest which continue to build while they simultaneously worry about water supplies. We also know that even though the Great Lakes look inexhaustible, just 1 percent or so of all that water is replaced each year. Take more, and the lakes suffer a net loss.

Opponents of the pact complain that it grants one governor veto power over a water withdrawal in another state. In fact that power already exists under current federal law. What the compact will provide, DNR Secretary Matt Frank told a Senate committee recently, are firm rules about withdrawals and a way to appeal a veto decision.

Joining legislative opponents is the Metropolitan Builders Association in Waukesha. The group's motivation is unclear, although its March newsletter expresses worry that the pact may affect economic development. Perhaps what we're really talking about, then, is builders' potential for short-term profit because a steady water supply means great development potential.

Also in the equation is Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, whose district touches Milwaukee communities affected by uncertain access to Great Lakes water. Gunderson chairs the Assembly's Natural Resources Committee through which the compact would go. Although he has touted himself as an outdoorsman - and if there's one thing outdoorsmen have it's a deep appreciation for the environment - he has joined the Assembly leadership in opposing the compact.

These 11th hour objections to the compact language are unfortunate, counterproductive, and risky. The compact has been in the draft stage for months with many interest groups, including the builders, sitting in on the process. If this is a gamble by business interests, a gamble to get water and development and profit now, it's a high stakes gamble.

One of the legislature's lawyers has said that voiding the veto provision would probably end the compact because all states and provinces must pass the agreement substantially unchanged. The governors have said they won't renegotiate. After state approval, the pact must be approved by Congress, and in a couple of years that becomes more problematic because after the 2010 census, the Great Lakes states are likely to lose representation to the continuing westward population shift.

Legislators should not waste time, and they should not allow the glitter of short-term gold to blind them to their long-term responsibility to all the people who will live around the lakes, presumably including their children and grandchildren.