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.