www.jsonline.com
Return to regular view
A revised agreement by Great Lakes governors and Canadian premiers would prohibit communities as close as Dane or Jefferson counties - and as far away as the parched Sun Belt - from tapping into the lakes.
 Great Lakes |
| Recent Coverage |
 6/19/05: Editorial: Water diversion has a price 6/16/05: Great Lakes water could flow west 4/30/05: Editorial: Water ideas worth a look 2/16/05: On a slow quest for water 2/12/05: Regional cooperation? Maybe, but only when the suburbs feel like it 12/3/04: Pact to protect, restore Great Lakes signed |
| Archived Coverage |
|
|
|
Special Series: Divided Over Water (11/23/03) |
More than they did in the first draft made public almost a year ago, the governors and premiers took a tougher stand on water diversions, banning the removal of water outside the Great Lakes basin with limited exceptions.
In the past, officials believed a hard-line approach to protecting the lakes from outside interests could run afoul with laws that say states typically can't impose limits on the interstate movement of goods, even if it is water.
But in outlining the draft to reporters Thursday, officials said they now believe they have more freedom to block water from leaving the basin, which represents 20% of the world's freshwater supplies.
"We have come to the conclusion that we have more latitude if we are focused on protecting the resources, and not simply creating a device for economic advantage," said a key drafter, Sam Speck, director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
In 2001, the governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York and the premiers of Ontario and Quebec pledged to come up with a new plan to protect the lakes from out-of-basin water withdrawals and wasteful practices within the basin.
In the latest draft, the governors opened the door slightly to communities such as those in Waukesha County that are close to the lakes but can't tap them and are bedeviled by dwindling groundwater supplies.
The governors made a special concession for so-called straddling counties that operate in both the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins but get their water from sources outside the basin. These affected communities - the city of Waukesha, for example, and water-short communities in Indiana, Ohio and New York - could ask for Great Lakes water.
But they still face obstacles. All of the water they use would have to be returned to the lakes. In the case of Waukesha, the city would have to build expensive water and sewer lines so water could be sent back to Lake Michigan instead of the Fox River. Also, the requests would require the approval of all eight Great Lakes governors - something that has proved difficult in the past.
"We don't know yet whether the draft . . . provides a realistic option for us," said Dan Duchniak, manager of the Waukesha Water Utility. "We don't know if this helps us or hurts us."
The agreement included help for communities such as New Berlin, which are both inside and outside the basin. The drafters treated these communities as if they were entirely inside the Great Lakes basin, and thus, could tap lake water.
Like Waukesha, New Berlin has cancer-causing radium in its wells - the result of low groundwater supplies. Half of New Berlin's customers are served by the city's tainted water supply and half by the City of Milwaukee.
"It sounds like good news to us," said Raymond R. Grzys, New Berlin's director of utilities and streets, adding that the city wants to get all of its water from Milwaukee.
The draft will be circulated to the public for the next 60 days.
Despite four years of work, Speck acknowledged that the agreement does not yet have unanimous support. Indiana has expressed concerns about some parts of the agreement. Other jurisdictions have problems with it as well, said Todd Ambs, the top water regulator with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, who helped write the draft.
Ambs said that Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is "pretty comfortable" with the agreement. "He still wants to hear from the public, and if we have significant heartburn over various aspects of the agreement, there might have to be changes."
After two months of review and public hearings, the draft goes back to the governors and premiers. Then it goes to the state and provincial legislatures and the U.S. Congress.
The draft calls for states to review any proposal for a new request for water over 100,000 gallons a day. And any new industrial projects that lose 5 million gallons of water a day in production would require review by all eight states.
The agreement also requires water conservation measures five years after the plan is approved. And for the first time, comprehensive data will be kept on who uses Great Lakes water and how much they use.
"Fundamentally, what it's trying to do is have a management strategy for the Great Lakes," Ambs said.
Environmentalists expressed cautious optimism about much of the draft, but a provision involving bottled water production drew criticism.
The draft would permit bulk water transfers outside the basin in containers of 5.7 gallons or less.
"I would say that's special treatment for the bottled water industry," said Melissa Scanlon, a Madison attorney who fought an attempt by Perrier, now known as Nestle Waters, to bottle water in Adams County.
With bottled water production and sales booming, she said the draft language could harm the lakes and neighboring groundwater for decades.
