Water, water everywhere? Is there a lake in Waukesha's future?

NOTE: The US and Canada, with Gov. Jim Doyle in a co-pilot's seat, are getting closer to an agreement governing how far Great Lakes water can be exported.

The issues have been extremely contentious on both sides of the subcontinental divide in eastern Waukesha County, pitting Milwaukee, with a surplus of fresh Lake Michigan water, against Waukesha, where decades of water overuse and the current barrier against piping water over the divide threatens Waukesha's rapid development.

Think the fight over freeway expansion touched off a bigtime urban-suburban, Milwaukee-Waukesha battle? The impending struggle over water rights in the region could make the freeway fight look like patty-cake.

---

A guest post by Jim Rowen, longtime journalist, political activist, and public policy analyst/advocate who now describes himself as a Milwaukee political and environment writer.

Though its formal release is still a few days away, drafts of a re-worked US-Canadian agreement governing large users of Great Lakes waters were obtained and reported on last week by The Waukesha Freeman and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The agreement will require strict water management across the entire Great Lakes basin, which includes portions of Wisconsin close to Lakes Michigan and Superior, along with seven other US states and two Canadian provinces, the papers reported in separate stories.

The draft agreement will be considered at two public hearings this summer in Wisconsin. To be adopted and implemented, the agreement must be approved without revision by the eight states, the two provinces, and both the US Congress and the Canadian parliament, so implementation is a long way off, and, also, let's say, iffy.

If it were to collapse through disagreements among states, provinces or the two countries' legislatures, the current US-Canadian agreement that has been in place since 1985 would remain in force. The key provision of the current agreement is that no community outside of the physical boundaries of the Great Lakes basin may divert water across the boundary if the governor of any one state objects.

Diversions out of the basin mean water is permanently lost to its Great Lakes' source. Net losses to the basin weaken the entire Great Lakes ecosystem, and in the 20 years of the current agreement, only two diversion applications have met the approval of all eight Great Lakes states governors .

With the Great Lakes under serious pressures from invasive species, growing population, pollution and falling levels from global warming's evaporation, (despite what George Bush's know-nothings say, the planet is warming up, and inland bodies of water are going to drop in depth accordingly), preventing net losses to the Great Lakes has been a key constant in both the current agreement and changes that the Governors have been drafting.

A constant concern about if and when to ever approve diversions out of the basin is avoiding the establishment of precedents that would literally open the floodgates to diversions for far away, dry states and even foreign countries: an earlier effort to remove water from Lake Ontario in Canada by tanker ship to Asia actually set off the current effort in 2001 to modify and strengthen the agreement.

So the entire matter is of profound importance to everyone in Wisconsin, and to the water-dependent lifestyle and economy - - from shipping to tourism to agriculture to the food and beverage industries - - across the entire Great Lakes region.

The proposed rewritten agreement, while apparently suggesting diversion and withdrawal procedures more structured than the mere nay-saying of a single state, also seems to set the stage for easier diversions, according to the early news reports, because new language in the draft expands the pool of communities that are allowed to apply for diversions or to otherwise be permitted withdrawals currently prohibited.

The drafters believe the current one-state-veto rule may be too arbitrary, so they are proposing what they feel are reasonable laws and procedures that could pass muster in court or under new international trade agreements - - possibilities that are at best speculative.

The poster area for new diversions and withdrawals, if the draft as reported on in local media were to be adopted, is the City and County of Waukesha just west of Milwaukee and Lake Michigan - - including areas now barred from obtaining Great Lakes water because they
are out of the basin.

Some of these Waukesha communities ignored conservation practices as they sprawled out, draining their groundwaters at an alarming rate, and in some cases leaving them facing expensive costs to treat and cleanse the deep wellwater that remains.

Under the proposed agreement, all of the City of New Berlin, because the Great Lakes basin boundary literally runs across that city, will be considered in the basin as a so-called 'straddling' community. This is new language added by the agreement's drafters.

If adopted by all the governing bodies, New Berlin would be able to obtain Lake Michigan water without a formal diversion procedure, and would only require the approval of the state of Wisconsin for such a withdrawal.

The City of Milwaukee currently sells Lake Michigan water to the City of New Berlin for use in its eastern, in-basin portion.

The City of Waukesha is completely out of the Great Lakes basin. It is on the western side of the subcontinental divide. It is not a straddling community -- but the agreement's drafters -- which includes a team from the Wisconsin DNR - - have cut Waukesha and other communities in Waukesha County that are completely outside the basin a break with additional, new, pro-diversion language.

The drafters have created another new category -- straddling COUNTIES -- whose municipalities are eligible to apply for exceptions from the no-diversion-outside-the-basin rule because some of their county is in the basin, and some of the county is outside. Eastern Waukesha County makes the entire county a straddling county under this definition, so municipalities in Waukesha County can apply for diversions even if, like the City of Waukesha, the applicant municipality lies outside the basin.

That means that if adopted, the new agreement would allow the City of Waukesha to apply for a diversion, with some restrictions.

Those restrictions include: Having a water conservation plan (it's not clear what conservation means, or whether standards will be spelled out), presenting a finding that there is no other reasonable source of the water that is being sought (again, whether "reasonable" is spelled out is unknown), getting all eight states to approve the diversion application (always a big hurdle, and a carryover from the existing agreement), and finally, making a pledge to return the water to the source tapped to minimize the out-of-basin losses.

That means Waukesha would have to pipe back wastewater for treatment, presumably to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, in an amount equal as to what was piped in from Lake Michigan as fresh water, minus reasonable consumption.

In the past, Waukesha has said it wanted 22 million gallons of Lake Michigan water daily -- a substantial diversion.

Waukesha officials in April, anticipating the upcoming agreement review proposal and finally recognizing their past water overuse, announced they were working on a conservation plan that would, by 2020, save 20% of its water use.

Unless specific conservation standards are added to the final US-Canadian agreement, that plan may suffice to support a diversion application.

Waukesha has grumbled about the cost of the water return requirement, citing also the potential damage to the Fox River watershed if Waukesha's treated wastewater were no longer released there and were sent to the MMSD and Lake Michigan instead.

That wastewater now flows to the Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico - - which is not part of the Great Lakes basin.

Also consider that the MMSD is concerned about the millions of dollars in new capacity it would have to add to receive and treat Waukesha's return flow.

So the area and the entire Great Lakes basin is poised to discuss these interwoven issues at public hearings that will take place during a 60-day comment period most likely running through the end of July or early August.

Politically, the greatest benefit would redound to Waukesha County Executive Daniel Finley if the final agreement helps Waukesha move a diversion application forward, especially if it contains wiggle room over the return flow issue. Finley has made obtaining Lake Michigan water the centerpiece of the 'regional cooperation' agenda he has pushed as hard as he argued for freeway expansion.

New Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has sent mixed signals on the water issue. On the one hand, he has strongly supported the return-flow requirement (even though the majority of MMSD commissioners he appoints would have to wrestle with the cost and capacity issues).

On the other hand, Barrett has agreed to explore with Finley whether an eventual sale of Lake Michigan water to Waukesha through the City of Milwaukee's water utility's pipes - - if allowed and approved under a rewritten US-Canadian agreement - - could result in so-called 'tax-base sharing.'

That process would transfer money to Milwaukee -- on a formula yet to be conceived -- based on development in Waukesha fueled by the infusion of Lake Michigan water.

Many conservationists believe that years down the road, and regardless of whether a diversion for Waukesha is ever approved, the eventual return flow cost to Waukesha that is almost certain to be in the final US-Canadian agreement will be too great for the Waukesha to bear.

That, in turn, will force Waukesha to find less-expensive alternatives.

Those options include enhanced water treatment, drilling new, shallow wells in Western Waukesha and blending that water with water needing the enhanced treatment, adopting aggressive conservation and recycling processes now and not waiting for incremental water savings by 2020, and embracing effective Smart Growth practices.

In other words, cutting edge water and land use stewardship.

Gov. Doyle has been firm in his opposition to a US-Canadian agreement that would enable parched western states to obtain Great Lakes diversions, but has been less firm when discussing possible diversions for communities close to a Great Lake, such as Waukesha.

On the precise question of a diversion for Waukesha, Doyle's office was recently non-committal.

It's unclear whether Doyle wants a US-Canadian water agreement with steep barriers to diversions and stronger conservation standards, or whether he wants an agreement that encourages Waukesha to apply. The draft as reported by the Freeman and Journal Sentinel
suggest that straddling, fast-growing communities like New Berlin are going to come out winners.

Doyle is the co-chairman of the governors' organization that has drafted the US-Canadian agreement proposed revisions, and also faces re-election in 2006, so if there is a hot seat in this unfolding process, Doyle will be on it.

There is a school of thought in the political world that says Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm would turn her state's traditionally anti-diversion sentiment into a veto for Waukesha-type application, but like all things in politics, that's iffy, too.

Such applications would move to an approval stage years down the road, by which time Granholm may be long gone from office.

Or another state may find itself with a strong environmentalist flatly opposed to diversions, making it more likely that Waukesha will find the conservation route its most reliable alternative.

And there are plenty of good reasons that all users of Great Lakes water should strive for greater conservation, regardless if they live in or out of the basin, in a straddling city or county, or just come to the region to boat and fish.

Three Wisconsin papers have editorialized on the recently-leaked draft agreement, focusing on the diversion issue, its statewide implications, and, of course, the impact on Waukesha.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Green Bay Press-Gazette called for strong, anti-diversion language, while the Waukesha Freeman hailed the openings for Waukesha communities in the draft's new language.

You can read those editorials through the links below:

JOURNAL SENTINEL: Water diversion has a price . Link.

WAUKESHA FREEMAN:Waukesha should be allowed to tap into water. Link.

GREEN BAY PRESS GAZETTE: Don't bend rules on Great Lakes water. Link.