Michigan warns about water

Potential New Berlin diversion called illegal

By DARRYL ENRIQUEZ
denriquez@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Nov. 3, 2006

New Berlin must not be allowed to divert water from Lake Michigan for its west side residents, Michigan's attorney general warned the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources this week.

Water Debate

Recent Coverage

7/22/06: Selling water to Waukesha could be liquid gold mine 7/20/06: Waukesha delays annexation move 7/19/06: Waukesha might fix aquifer by tapping lake, report says 7/17/06: Who should be able to tap Great Lakes? 6/30/06: Michigan shuts tap to lake 6/29/06: Vrakas: We sink or swim together 6/20/06: Cities say they won't meet water deadline 6/15/06: Planned wells fuel water concerns 6/4/06: Clamping down on water use 3/25/06: Vrakas to outline water plan for county 4/14/06: Negotiations set on well issue

Archived Coverage

Troubled Waters: Special reports on Great Lakes' issues

Attorney General Mike Cox's effort to block the proposed water diversion led one Wisconsin official Thursday to defend the state's right to consider the city's proposal to tap more Lake Michigan water, contending that Cox's interpretation of the matter is erroneous.

Bruce Baker, deputy administrator of the Wisconsin DNR water division, said Cox doesn't understand that Wisconsin is allowed to let New Berlin take more Lake Michigan water because the city will eventually return the same amount - or more - to the lake.

Baker said Wisconsin can still regulate withdrawal of Lake Michigan water under the agency's interpretation of existing federal law that allows projects outside of the Great Lakes basin to draw water, provided those projects don't funnel the resulting wastewater elsewhere.

In a letter to the DNR, Cox insisted that the New Berlin project would need approval of all Great Lakes governors because it would divert water out of the basin.

The DNR simply cannot authorize the diversion on its own, he said. His stand is supported by Milwaukee and Waukesha area environmental groups; they fear that allowing access to Wisconsin communities outside of the basin would open the door for thirsty Western states to run a pipe to take water from the Great Lakes, one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world.

Cox argues that the New Berlin proposal is a diversion because 13% of the water taken from Lake Michigan would be lost through consumptive use. The city wants to withdraw 1.83 million gallons daily to serve parts of the city that lie outside of the basin.

Currently, the eastern half of the city is served by drinking water from Lake Michigan, and the western half by wells. The city is under DNR orders to reduce hazardous levels of radium in municipal wells used on its west side.

Baker said Cox's 13% figure was in error because it's likely that more water would be returned to Lake Michigan than is withdrawn. The city plans to combine lake and well water to dilute naturally occurring radium levels in the drinking water. That action would cause more water to be returned to the lake than was withdrawn, Baker said.

Dueling interpretations over when a Great Lakes withdrawal is allowed has led the eight states and two Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes to disagree about what constitutes a water diversion.

A compact reached in late 2005 among Great Lakes governors laid the groundwork for ending the confusion by establishing a uniform standard to authorize water withdrawals. But details are being hammered out by the individual Great Lakes states, a process that is expected to take years to finalize.

Baker stressed that the DNR has yet to decide its own stand on the New Berlin issue, and it's undecided if using its interpretation of existing federal law would be the proper policy to follow.

In late September, the Wisconsin DNR launched a 60-day public comment period about New Berlin's proposal to withdraw Lake Michigan water. The agency wants public comment on just what procedure it should follow if it goes forward with New Berlin's request.

One option is to use the framework of the unfinished Great Lakes compact, which allows water withdrawals by communities that straddle the basin, provided the Great Lakes governors approve the project and the treated water is returned to the lake instead of being diverted or deposited into another drainage basin.

In July, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm outright denied an informal request for approval of the New Berlin project, saying she would not even consider a request until the compact becomes law. Granholm is fighting for re-election against Republican challenger Dick DeVos, which led Baker to question the timing of the Cox opinion.

Michigan dislikes diversion

"They're historically just against any diversions, and it's been a popular political decision in Michigan," Baker said. "Announcing it just before the election raises some questions about the timing."

Rusty Hills, of Cox's office, said the attorney general's opinion has nothing to do with politics. "The (Wisconsin) DNR was looking for public comment, and that's what we gave them," Hills said.

Public comment on the New Berlin project will be taken until Nov. 25. Submit written comments to Maureen Connors, Office of the Great Lakes, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Box 7921,Madison, WI 53707, or by e-mail to DNRDGMail@Wisconsin.gov