Should Milwaukee Sell More of Its Water?
Finding a regional solution to preserving resources
By Lisa Kaiser
Milwaukee
Mayor Tom Barrett wants to work with the western suburbs—he really
does. As the mayor of a lakeside city with the ever-pumping Milwaukee
Water Works, he understands why rapidly developing communities would
lobby him for more water. After all, the area between
Milwaukee and Madison is prime real estate. Farms and wetlands are
being sold off or annexed to build new homes, office parks, retail
centers and roadways. Milwaukee residents have moved out there in
droves, looking for more space, some peace, a relief from the woes they
perceive in the city.
But should Milwaukee water go with them?
“We’re concerned about resources for the city, but we’re also concerned
about water conservation and the impact that selling Lake Michigan
water would have on Milwaukee businesses and the Great Lakes,” Barrett
said.
This is but one concern raised by the growing need for water in
southeastern Wisconsin, one that could pit water-rich Milwaukee, with a
ready supply of Lake Michigan water, against neighboring cities that
aren’t in the Great Lakes basin and are not automatically eligible for
that water.
But the decision isn’t Barrett’s alone. Any decision to send Lake
Michigan water to another part of the state must be approved by eight
governors after a lengthy review process.
Should Water Be Sent West?
Lake Michigan water would be a quick fix for
water-strapped areas. Advocates for diverting more Lake Michigan water
to communities in western counties say that it would relieve pressure
on the deep aquifer, which is being tapped out due to high demand and
heavy pumping. What’s more, some of the water in places such as New
Berlin has higher levels of radium, which must be cleared up by
December, a deadline created by the Environmental Protection Agency.
“We’re trying to get the diversion [for Lake Michigan water] before we
have to start doing the radium removal because it’s probably going to
cost roughly around $4 million to do that,” said Rick Johnson, utility
manager for New Berlin.
But others say that the problem is a larger one that goes to the heart
of sustainable regional development.
“The western communities are mismanaging their water supply out there
now, and they’re going to have to start managing it properly,” said Tim
Grundl, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee hydrogeology professor and
member of the Great Lakes WATER Institute. “We aren’t in a crisis. This
isn’t Arizona. But we can’t continue to mismanage the water system and
develop in an unsustainable manner.”
Selling more Lake Michigan water could generate millions of dollars for
Milwaukee. But Barrett said that, from Milwaukee’s point of view, it
would make more sense to develop within the Great Lakes basin than to
sell water outside of the ecological boundaries.
“Our first desire would be to find more water-intensive industries that
would be located within the Great Lakes basin so that we could not only
replenish the water utility’s revenues but to create jobs here,”
Barrett said.
He added that he’s willing to work with the western communities as long
as they’re consistent. As Barrett sees it, if western communities want
to be treated as if they’re part of the same water region as Milwaukee,
then they should cooperate as part of a greater economic region.
“I want people who are using the economic argument to buy water to
remember that we are one economic region when it comes to such issues
as tax sharing and the tax burden,” Barrett said. “I don’t want
individuals to try to isolate the City of Milwaukee economically,
racially and geographically, and then turn around and say that we’re
one big happy family when it comes to water.”
Who Is Eligible for Lake Michigan Water?
Milwaukee already sells Lake Michigan water to New
Berlin—at least to the area that’s within the Great Lakes basin. The
water is returned to the lake via the Metropolitan Milwaukee Sewerage
District (MMSD) system.
New Berlin approached Barrett about receiving more water late last year
for its west side, which is in the Mississippi River basin and doesn’t
qualify for Lake Michigan water.
“We had a cordial meeting,” Barrett said.
But the mayor couldn’t help them out. According to the Great Lakes
Compact, new water-use rules negotiated by eight Great Lakes states’
governors and two premiers of Canadian provinces, straddling
communities such as New Berlin would have to make a better case to
prove that they were eligible for the water. And then the application
would have to be approved by the other governors.
“We told them, ‘Let’s go through the process created by the
governors,’” Barrett said. “‘Let’s talk once the process is in place.’”
So New Berlin, with the help of the state Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) but without public input, completed an
application for its water diversion, which was sent on to the other
governors. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm rejected it, more or less
saying that until the Great Lakes Compact was signed into law,
diversions could not be considered.
The Details Are Not Finalized
Wisconsin hasn’t signed the compact into law yet, but a legislative
council study committee is being formed now to hammer out the details,
said state Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee).
“What the governors passed was a rough framework,” Richards said. “We
need to fill in the lines of that and to do so in a way that protects
the Great Lakes and will stand up in court under strict scrutiny.”
Richards said that diversion requests such as New Berlin’s still need to be resolved.
“The issue of how water is returned to the Great Lakes, where it’s
returned to the Great Lakes, and specific conservation measures a
community must have in place before they apply for a diversion are all
things that I’d like to see addressed in detail,” Richards said.
Until now, the DNR has approved requests such as New Berlin’s because,
technically, the DNR didn’t consider them to be a diversion. The DNR
felt that the state could make the decision alone, without input from
the other governors.
“Historically, it was our view that if the water went back into the
lake then it wasn’t a diversion,” said Charles Ledin, director of the
DNR’s Office of the Great Lakes.
But Melissa Scanlon, executive director of the Midwest Environmental
Advocates, said that any water taken out of Lake Michigan and sent to
another watershed is considered to be a diversion.
“Under federal law a straddling community [such as New Berlin] is no
different than [a far-off state such as] Arizona,” Scanlon said.
Scanlon added that under the new rules, yet to be ratified, it would be
easier for straddling communities to make a case for more water.
“Some people have made an argument for the rules to be more reasonable
for communities that are partly in the basin and to come up with a
different way of managing those communities,” she said. “But until we
have the Great Lakes Compact passed in our state, that’s not the law of
the land.”
Scanlon added, “If anything, the New Berlin issue should light a fire
under state legislators to draft the legislation and make it effective
immediately.”
Peter McAvoy, director of the Department of Environmental Health at the
16th Street Community Health Center, has been involved with Great Lakes
water issues since Gov. Tony Earl’s administration. McAvoy said that a
diversion should be a last resort.
“Why don’t we actually look at the conservation programs set up by
these communities before they put in an application for diversion?” he
asked.
What’s your take? Write: editor@shepherd-express.com.
|