Specifically, DNR Secretary Matt Frank wrote in aJune 8 letter to Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima that the city’s application forLake Michigan waterthe first application under the Great Lakes Water Compactfor a “straddling community” (a community that is located within both the GreatLakes and the Mississippi River basins)was deficient in three major ways:
- Waukesha failed to prove that Great Lakes water was the only viable option for a sustainable watersupply. Frank cited ongoing discussions within Waukeshaabout alternatives to Great Lakes water. “Thedepartment cannot move forward on reviewing the application and the city mustconfirm that Great Lakes water is in fact theonly long-term sustainable water option,” he wrote.
- Waukesha identified three sources of Lake Michigan waterMilwaukee, Racine and Oak Creekbut did notprovide a return flow option for each withdrawal source. The compact requiresthat the return flow be as close as possible to the withdrawal source.
- Waukesha failed to supply a cost analysis for all three Lake Michigan water sources.
If Waukeshaprovides more complete data and analysis and sends the $5,000 application fee,Ebersberger said the DNR would take another look at the request. If or when theDNR signs off on Waukesha’s request, it willpass on the application to the other Great Lakescompact partners for review and approval.
‘A Back-and-Forth Process’
Dan Duchniak, manager of the Waukesha Water Utility,said that the city has all of the information that has been requested andexpects to respond to the DNR within the next few weeks. Duchniak said theDNR’s request for more data and analysis was a routine part of the applicationprocess.
“This is to be expected,” Duchniak said. “It is aback-and-forth process.”
But environmental groups cheered the DNR’s decision,saying that by asking for a thorough analysis the agency was setting a highstandard for Great Lakes water diversions.
For more than a year, a coalition of environmentalgroups has been pushing both Waukesha and theDNR for a transparent, thorough analysis of Waukesha’s water supplies and future needsbefore signing off on the application. Coalition members include MilwaukeeRiverkeeper, Midwest Environmental Advocates, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Sixteenth Street Community Health Center,Waukesha County Environmental Action League and the Wisconsin WildlifeFederation.
“This application will be a test case for the Great Lakes compact,” said Jodi Habush Sinykin, counselfor Midwest Environmental Advocates. “It gives Wisconsin the opportunity to be in thedriver’s seat on how we want to proceed with the evaluation.”
Disagreement Within Waukesha
Frank’s letter cited the reported disagreement betweenthe powers-that-be in Waukeshaas one of the reasons why the DNR has returned the application for more study.
On one side, the Waukesha Water Utility and theWaukesha Common Council, which approved the application, support the requestfor a Lake Michigan diversion.
On the other side, Mayor Jeff Scrima, elected inApril, has questioned whether Waukesha trulyneeds Lake Michigan water or whether local sources within the Mississippi River Basincan be tapped and treated instead. Scrima made his reservations about the waterrequest a centerpiece of his spring campaign for mayor, saying that the cityhadn’t fully explored all of its options. As recently as mid-May, he hadinvited experts to testify about new technologies that potentially could removeradium from the city’s water supply. The city currently relies on pumping fromits deep aquifer, which draws water that has unsafe levels of radium and mustbe cleaned up by 2018. Groundwater and shallow aquifer water aren’t adequatefor the city’s needs, Great Lakes wateradvocates argue.
The DNR’s Ebersberger said the disagreementindicated that Waukeshahadn’t made a complete analysis of its water options.
“One of the first steps is that you have to showthat you have no reasonable supply alternative in the basin,” Ebersberger said.“But to the extent that they are actively discussing and pursuing water supplyalternatives, I think it indicates that they’re not through with thatanalysis.”
Ebersberger said consensus among Waukesha decision-makers was critical to theapplication’s success.
“One of the things we want to make sure of is thatthe decision-makers and the governing structure in the city support theapplication,” Ebersberger said. “We don’t want to review the application onlyto find out that the city doesn’t support its own application. We want to makesure that when Waukeshasubmits its application that it has the official support of the city.”
A Test Case for the Compact
Habush Sinykin said that Waukeshahadn’t made its case that it required Great Lakeswater and suggested that a multiphase option be given greater consideration.Instead of complete reliance on one water source, a combination of sourcescould be useddeep aquifer water that’s been treated for radium, groundwaterand strengthened conservation efforts. She said new sources within the Mississippi River Basinforexample, from nearby quarries or the riverbanks of the Fox Rivercould be tapped as well.
“This is one of the reasons why the DNR recommendedfurther inquiry,” Habush Sinykin said.
She also questioned Waukesha’scost estimates for tapping into Lake Michiganwater, which would require extensive infrastructure, a purchase agreement witha water supplier, and ongoing energy use.
“It’s hard to get any sense of what the costs are,”Habush Sinykin said. “You’re relying on what [the consultants] have found. Butwe don’t have an independent engineer or economist giving us some otherperspective on it.”
In its recent application, Waukesha wrote that it would cost anestimated $164 million to build the infrastructure to treat its wastewater andreturn it via Underwood Creek. But it didn’t satisfy the DNR’s standard forproviding a thorough financial analysis about the cost of purchasing water fromeach municipality as well as the cost of returning it to the Lake Michigan basin.
Duchniak said that the application did not includedetailed financial information because city attorneys said that would put thecity at a disadvantage in its negotiations with the three municipalities thatcould provide Lake Michigan water.
“We’re working with the DNR on providing them withthat information, but for it to potentially remain confidential,” Duchniaksaid.
