Donegan, Bridget2010-08-242010-08-24200925 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 455 (2009)1049-0280https://hdl.handle.net/1794/1063240 p.Part I of this Comment examines the Great Lakes Compact and its effect in Michigan and Wisconsin. Part II provides background on the public trust doctrine and its evolution in Michigan and Wisconsin, including its scope, the obligations of the states as trustees, and the availability of citizen standing to enforce the trust. Part III explains how the Compact’s public trust is distinct from the states’ traditional public trust doctrines. The Comment concludes that judicial recognition of a distinct Compact trust, defined by the scope and purpose of the Compact itself, will best reconcile the Compact’s purposes with traditional state public trust doctrines.en-USArticle