Larry Nelson: Lake Michigan option is best for Waukesha

Larry Nelson, guest columnist  —  7/28/2007 8:47 am

Ed Garvey recently wrote a Capital Times opinion piece in which he asked, "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?"

The answer is simple. The proposed Great Lakes Compact absolutely forbids diversions of Great Lakes water beyond the borders of counties, like Waukesha County, that straddle the surface divide separating the Great Lakes surface basin from the Mississippi and other basins. I strongly support passage of this proposed law, and I'm sure Ed Garvey does, too.

The second answer is that both New Berlin and Waukesha would return 100 percent or more of the water they would take from Lake Michigan back to the lake, which Phoenix could not do. This return flow is also important for other reasons.

Return flow is recycling of water. Surface water can be used, cleaned and returned to the source. Ground water cannot be. If Waukesha cannot access and return Lake Michigan surface water, it will have to use a new source of ground water, which would be discharged to rivers leading to the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico and lost forever. The loss of ground water would create potential threats to our lakes, streams and wetlands.

Dane County's use of ground water is a good example of this problem. As recently stated by Clean Wisconsin, "in Madison, falling ground water levels means that water is getting sucked out of our lakes in places where in the past the ground water helped feed the lakes."

The use of Great Lakes surface water, with return flow, is a much better environmental option for Waukesha.

The city of Waukesha is proud of our leadership on water conservation issues, including enactment of what I have been told is the most comprehensive water conservation plan in the Midwest. For example, we have totally banned daytime lawn sprinkling in order to prevent evaporation and reduce demand. Nighttime sprinkling is limited to two days per week.

We were the first community in the state to propose water rates that increase as use goes up and have received Public Service Commission approval for this historic change. To its credit, Madison is now considering following our lead on rates.

We are also proud of the progress we have made in complying with federal and state mandates to reduce the radium in our water. Our city has committed over $13 million to achieve final radium compliance. However, that plan is only the short-term solution.

For the long term, we need to develop a new water supply. Radium is only one of the growing quality and quantity problems in the deep aquifer. Because of years of overpumping by all of southeastern Wisconsin (including Milwaukee until the 1950s) and a geological quirk that limits the recharge, continued use of the deep aquifer is unsustainable. We cannot solve the problem by conservation alone.

After extensive studies with scientific experts, we have concluded that our best long-term options are to go east to Lake Michigan or to western Waukesha County for ground water. But, because of return flow, the Lake Michigan option is the more sustainable of our two long-term options.

In addition, our conservation programs would establish a tough precedent for any other future diversion applications and a strong role model for the rest of Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region.

The city of Waukesha has not yet decided which long-term option it will pursue. But residents of Wisconsin and other Great Lakes states can be assured that our city is committed to a solution that protects both the Great Lakes and the environment while working toward a fair and realistic solution to our residents and our state's needs.

Larry Nelson is mayor of Waukesha.

Larry Nelson, guest columnist  —  7/28/2007 8:47 am