As the state legislature is locked in a standoff on the proposed Great Lakes Water Compact, perhaps no other county in Wisconsin has as much at stake in the debate as Waukesha County.
For years, the county has been the fastest-growing area of southeastern Wisconsin. Now, some communities in the county, including the cities of Waukesha and New Berlin, are trying to find a solution to excessive levels of radium in their drinking water supplies. Exposure to high levels of radium has been shown to increase the chances of getting cancer.
“Most of our wells are drawing from the deep aquifer that does have radium,” said Waukesha Mayor Larry Nelson. “We know that’s not a long-term sustainable solution.”
Other communities in the rapidly growing county also could need to find other water sources, said Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas.
“The aquifer has been drawn down to the point that it will not sustain Waukesha,” Vrakas said. “But (the aquifer) has been drawn down by everyone in the region, including Milwaukee.”
Waukesha County has about 8 percent of the state’s population and contributes about 12 percent of the tax revenue to the state, Vrakas said. However, if communities in the county are not able to receive water from Lake Michigan, the county’s growth could be stifled, he said.
The vast majority of Waukesha County lies to the west of the subcontinental divide and is outside of the Great Lakes basin. Water east of the divide flows back to Lake Michigan and water west of the divide eventually flows to the Mississippi River.
Therefore, under federal law, communities outside of the Great Lakes basin must receive the approval of the governors of all of the Great Lakes states to receive water from the Great Lakes.
Meanwhile other rapidly growing parts of the United States, and the world, are beginning to think about how they will meet future needs for drinking water. Some of the fastest-growing areas of the United States, such as Las Vegas, Nev., and Phoenix, Ariz., are in very dry regions.
PRECIOUS RESOURCE
The Great Lakes comprise 20 percent of the world’s supply of fresh water, the largest surface fresh water supply on the planet.
“We are only now as a region waking up to the fact that we are sitting on top of an incredible resource, something the world wants badly, and they are going to try to do what they can to get it,” said state Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee). “The Great Lakes are a deplete-able resource. When we cut down the northern forests, we were able to re-grow them. But the Great Lakes were created by glaciers. Once the water’s gone, it’s gone forever.”
Concerned that thirsty regions would try to tap the Great Lakes to meet their fresh water needs, the governors of the Great Lakes states and the premiers of the two Canadian Great Lakes provinces, began negotiations in 2001 to create a compact that would protect the Great Lakes and create standards that communities near the subcontinental divide must meet before they can receive diverted Great Lakes water.
It took several years for the governors and the premiers to reach an agreement for a Great Lakes Compact. However, to become law, the compact must be approved by the legislatures of all eight Great Lakes states and by Congress.
The compact would make it easier for communities that straddle the subcontinental divide, such as New Berlin, to receive Great Lakes water. Such communities would only need to receive the approval of their own state, and not all of the Great Lakes states governors, as required by current federal law.
“I’ve been very supportive (of the compact),” said New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero. “It would make it easier (for New Berlin to receive Lake Michigan water). I have a health and safety issue. I’m not short of water, I’m short of radium free water.”
New Berlin already receives Lake Michigan water, from Milwaukee, for the area east of the subcontinental divide. New Berlin needs Great Lakes water for the area east of Calhoun Road and west of the subcontinental divide. That area is 95-percent developed, Chiovatero said. New Berlin wants to keep the area west of Calhoun Road rural, so no water or sewer service will be provided to that area.
THE GREAT DIVIDE
However, communities such as the City of Waukesha, that are located entirely outside of the Great Lakes basin but are within counties that straddle the subcontinental divide, would still have to receive the approval of all eight Great Lakes states governors to divert water from the Great Lakes, just as current federal law requires.
That ability of any Great Lakes state governor to veto a diversion of water to a community like Waukesha is the biggest hang-up that has prevented the Wisconsin state legislature from adopting the Great Lakes Compact.
State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) said the Great Lakes Compact has several problems, but the biggest is the single-state veto. Lazich and others say Great Lakes water diversions should require approval by a majority of the Great Lakes governors, rather than unanimous approval.
“We are a democracy, majority rules,” said Lazich, who called the compact “totalitarian.”
Interestingly, Lazich is opposing a compact that would make it easier for her own community (New Berlin) to receive Great Lakes water.
“It makes no sense at all if you are left with a tougher federal law,” said James Rowen, a former staffer for Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist who blogs about environmental issues, especially the Great Lakes Compact.
Matt Moroney, executive director of the Waukesha-based Metropolitan Builders Association, said he supports most of the Great Lakes Compact, but he too objects to the one-governor veto.
“Nobody’s arguing about the return (water) issue,” Moroney said. “Nobody’s arguing about the science. It’s really the political element. We need to be very careful, and we need to know what we are getting into. We are tying our hands, possibly forever.”
Having a majority of the governors approve Great Lakes water diversions would be a better approach, Moroney said.
“We’re worried about it from the job growth expect,” he said. “We’re competing with the Midwest for jobs, with the rest of the U.S. for jobs. It would be politically tempting to veto a diversion to eliminate Wisconsin as a contender for a business. We just want a level playing field and let states compete for economic development on a level playing field.”
Supporters of the compact point out that existing federal law already requires unanimous approval by the Great Lakes governors for water diversions outside of the Great Lakes basin.
“The one-state veto has been in place for more than 20 years now,” Richards said.
However, opponents of that provision of the compact, insist it is unacceptable and could jeopardize economic growth in Waukesha County and Wisconsin.
“Just because the governors didn’t correct that fatal flaw (in federal law) doesn’t make it OK,” Lazich said. “That doesn’t make it a good idea to have it in the compact now.”
THE MICHIGAN FACTOR
Michigan’s governor, in particular, could have tremendous influence over proposed water diversions in Waukesha County in a one-state veto system. Michigan’s economy, shocked by the struggles of the American auto industry, has sustained significant job losses in recent years and might have the weakest state economy in the nation.
The entire state of Michigan lies within the Great Lakes basin, so the state never needs the approval of the other governors to use Great Lakes water. Therefore, Michigan’s governor could block Great Lakes water diversions in other states without fear of reprisal from the governors of the other states. Michigan politicians have largely vowed to protect the Great Lakes.
Illinois also is protected from the one-governor veto because the Chicago area is allowed to draw 2.1 billions of gallons a day from Lake Michigan. Chicago has done that for about 100 years and sends the wastewater to the Des Plaines River, which eventually takes it to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Chicago’s massive Lake Michigan diversion has survived legal challenges and is, in essence, grandfathered into the Great Lakes Compact.
“That just pours salt in the wound,” Vrakas said. “We have to send the water back to Lake Michigan, and then it goes 90 miles south and Chicago sends it to the Gulf of Mexico.”
Supporters of the compact, such as Rowen, point out that the Great Lakes governors, including those in Illinois and Michigan, have approved requests of two of the three communities that have requested Great Lakes diversions, including Pleasant Prairie.
“The facts do not support the fear that Michigan always says no,” Rowen said.
STARTING OVER?
Opponents of the one-governor veto provision of the compact say the compact should be renegotiated so that only a majority vote of the Great Lakes governors is required for Great Lakes water diversions.
“I think the Great Lakes states need to come together, sit down, behave like adults and manage the resource,” Lazich said.
However, the original negotiations for the compact took several years, and supporters say it is unrealistic to think the governors will renegotiate.
“The objection to the one-governor veto is a red herring,” Richards said. “It’s either incredibly cynical or naïve to think it can be re-negotiated. It’s not going to happen. All that is, is an attempt to kill the compact. That’s the bottom line.”
Vrakas said he questions whether re-negotiating the Great Lakes Compact would be “hard” instead of “impossible,” as compact supporters claim.
“We want a compact, but base it on science and the use of water, and not on politics,” Vrakas said.
The state might want to try adopting the compact with implementing language that would allow diversions without unanimous approval of the Great Lakes governors, Vrakas said. That might not fly with the other states, but Vrakas said he wants to attack the issue “on multiple fronts.”
Rowen says he suspects that opponents of the compact also want to eliminate the federal law, known as WRDA (Water Resources Development Act), that also requires unanimous approval of Great Lakes governors for water diversions.
“That is opening Pandora’s box,” Rowen said. “The ultimate risk is you end up with no compact, and then you end up with an overturned WRDA, by a court challenge or by Congress, and then you have a free-for-all to see who can get water out of the Great Lakes.”
TAKING SIDES
The Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce has taken a stand supporting Great Lakes protection, but opposing the single-state veto.
“The Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce shares the belief that the Great Lakes are a commodity deserving of the region’s protection in order to guarantee current and future usage,” said Patti Wallner, president of the chamber. “Yet current efforts to protect the Great Lakes further insert politics into the process of garnering water for communities within counties straddling the Great Lakes Basin, many of which have very critical water needs.”
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC) has taken a neutral stand on the compact. The organization’s members want to protect the Great Lakes, but they also want to make sure Wisconsin’s economic competitiveness is not compromised, said Steve Baas, MMAC government affairs director.
“I have heard of nobody that thinks we don’t need a Great Lakes Water Compact,” Baas said. “The question is, do we have to take it in its current form, or are there some improvements that can be made? We’re wrestling with this just like the Legislature is.”
The MMAC is concerned about the single-governor veto, Baas said. The appeals process for a rejected diversion is also unclear, which raises concerns, he said.
The compact also has language that makes some worry that it will also be applied to groundwater usage, Baas said.
“The language just states that all of the waters in the states are held in public trust,” Baas said. “The concern is how that would be applied.”
Richards dismissed the groundwater concern as “nonsense.” Richards added, “The legislative attorneys have said so. That (language is) in the preamble of the compact. It’s not even in the actual wording of the compact.”
Supporters of the compact say Wisconsin could take advantage of the one-governor veto if another state is planning a diversion outside of the Great Lakes basin that Wisconsin opposes.
Despite the controversial one-governor veto provision, Waukesha’s Nelson said he supports the compact because it establishes criteria that communities are expected to meet to gain approval of a Great Lakes water diversion. The current federal law provides no standards for the governors to consider when a water diversion application is submitted by a community. By contrast, the compact lays out specific criteria, including water conservation efforts and a requirement to return water to the Great Lakes after it has been treated.
Waukesha also is considering digging wells to the west to access better drinking water, but the community is leaning toward a request for Lake Michigan water as an ultimate solution, Nelson said.
“If we do apply (for Lake Michigan water), we will do a role model application,” Nelson said. “It will highlight the water conservation effort we are doing. We are working with the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) for our plans to return flow to a tributary of Lake Michigan.”
The process, standards and appeals process set out in the compact for requesting a diversion are why the compact is superior to current state law, supporters say.
“The one-state veto has been in place for more than 20 years now,” Richards said. “But there have been no standards (to apply for a diversion). Under the compact, at least there are standards. Right now any governor can say no for any reason. Under the compact, at least there is a process. That’s a much stronger position to be in if you are going for a diversion.”
LOOKING AHEAD
The existing federal law actually appears tougher than the compact for requesting water diversions from the Great Lakes. Still, supporters of the compact say it is necessary because the federal law could be overturned by a court or by an act of Congress. As the nation’s population continues to shift away from the Great Lakes area to the Sun Belt, the dry regions of the U.S. will obtain more power in Congress, which could result in legislation to make Great Lakes water available to the rest of the country.
“Then the Great Lakes would have no protection,” Richards said. “That’s not something we can afford.”
A multi state compact will have significant legal authority, which is why it is so important that it is created fairly for Waukesha County, Vrakas said.
“We’re just asking for a level playing field,” Vrakas said. “A compact among states has such high standing in the legal world. It’s a very serious document that will last for a long time. I’m glad the (state) Assembly is slowing the train down and giving this issue the proper amount of vetting.”
Even if the Great Lake Compact is adopted, that would not guarantee protection of Great Lakes water, according to Moroney.
“The argument (for the compact) is being sold that it will forever lock the Great Lakes up,” Moroney said. “It’s a tool. It’s helpful. But, there’s no air-tight solution to prevent water from being sent some day to thirsty areas of the U.S.”
