Column: Please, policy makers, don't risk our Great Lakes

Ed Garvey  —  7/17/2007 11:00 am

In case you have forgotten, Wisconsin once had a public intervenor, nestled within the friendly walls of our Department of Justice. The intervenor was distinctly nonpartisan. The mission was clear: Protect the environment from pollution, sprawl, developers, and lousy governmental enforcement of rules designed to save our wetlands, water and air.

The intervenor could sue any violator including the Department of Natural Resources. But the intervenors -- Kathleen Falk and Tom Dawson -- became a nuisance to Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, developers and polluters. Why? Because they were effective. They asked questions and even delayed projects until the impact of a given proposal on the environment could be studied. Imagine that! The idea was terrific, and in practice it was even better. Hundreds gathered at a bipartisan rally in a vain attempt to convince Gov. Tommy Thompson to keep the office of the public intervenor alive. Candidate Jim Doyle promised to bring it back.

In the days of the intervenor, the DNR was also nonpartisan and effective -- a friend of our environment. The DNR did not respond to politicians but rather to an independent board. As Tommy and Jim Klauser killed the intervenor office, so they reined in the DNR by making the secretary a political operative as part of the governor's Cabinet. Prior to the politicization of DNR, polluters and rule breakers feared the DNR. "Damned Near Russia" was uttered by many who locked horns with the DNR.

Wisconsin, home to John Muir, Aldo Leopold and Gaylord Nelson, coupled with an independent DNR and the intervenor, was the envy of the nation. But time passed, and the good guys lost control. Today the DNR might as well be part of the Department of Commerce. From Damned Near Russia to the friend of WMC in just a decade or so.

Need proof? Last week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel carried this scary headline: "Water talks can proceed: DNR allows New Berlin to negotiate buying lake water from Milwaukee." The lake? None other than Lake Michigan. (How did Milwaukee obtain ownership?)

New Berlin has a problem. Lots of "potentially cancer-causing radium" is in their drinking water. The easy answer from New Berlin? Pipe Lake Michigan water into New Berlin and other communities. This solution involves all eight states bordering on the Great Lakes, not to mention our brothers and sisters in Canada, due in part to a compact signed but not yet ratified to protect the Great Lakes. (All eight states and two Canadian provinces must ratify the compact before we can rely on its protection.)

So long as the water remains within the Great Lakes basin, maybe something can be done to help New Berlin, but our pals in New Berlin want no such constraint. Ironically, if New Berlin legislators helped pass the compact, which is languishing in our Legislature (thanks in part to Rep. Mary Lazich from New Berlin), help might be on the way. The compact contains clear wording for communities -- like New Berlin -- that straddle the Great Lakes drainage basin to get approval for withdrawals.

The problem is that New Berlin and Waukesha would love to move the water across the basin divide into the Mississippi River watershed. Much of the newly purchased water would be used west of the divide. That proposal angers all states bordering on the Great Lakes and Canada. If Waukesha can purchase Lake Michigan water and move it out of the Great Lakes basin, so can everyone else.

Ta da! Enter DNR and Doyle-appointed Secretary Scott Hassett, throwing caution to the wind and risking one of the greatest resources in the nation. If New Berlin or Waukesha can buy Lake Michigan or Lake Superior water for use outside the basin, then who could stop Arizona, Nevada and California from placing a pipe from Lake Michigan or Lake Superior to Phoenix? If we can move oil and gas by pipeline, why not water?

The mayor of New Berlin opined that the sale of Lake Michigan water could bring up to $1.4 million to Milwaukee. Wow! A million bucks to the same city from which New Berlin's legislators would cut tens of millions of shared revenues in the current budget battle. And they propose this with a straight face? We urge the state to cut you by $28 million but we will pay you $1 million for "your" water. C'mon.

Meanwhile, where is Hassett's boss, Jim Doyle, on this subject? The result of this battle could affect our state forever. As water becomes more valuable than oil, due in part to global warming, and the West expands seemingly without noticing that they are in the midst of a long drought, can it be that the DNR and our governor are willing to risk our great treasure without a lengthy discussion while the West looks at the Great Lakes?

Could we hit the pause button, pretend the intervenor is back, and get the DNR out of the Cabinet? Please?

Ed Garvey is a Madison lawyer, political activist and the editor of the fightingbob.com Web site.

Ed Garvey  —  7/17/2007 11:00 am