Waukesha Water Diversion
Should the Great Lakes States approve Waukesha's application to divert water from Lake Michigan?
(Please note that the status of the issue has changed dramatically since this article was written. The Waukesha Water Utility is one source of updated information.)
Background Information and History of Waukesha’s Water:
As far as the history of Waukesha’s water is concerned, Waukesha has been known in the past for it’s many springs that had attracted people with fame and wealth. But today we can’t say the same for our beloved Waukesha. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) said for more than 80 years that the city’s water supply had been plagued with the radioactive element known as Radium. The reason this element is harmful is because of its ability to cause skin and bone cancer to consumers. But the level of radium has been so high that it exceeds the federal safety standards, and at times reached twice the accepted amount. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) estimates about a $5,000 dollar fine per day for not reducing the level of radium in the water. The radium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal that occurs at low levels in almost all rock, soil, water, plants, and animals. Waukesha’s wells draw from formations containing sandstone and shales. These forms of rocks tend to contain higher levels of radium which probably explain our risen levels of radium in our water.The deeper we go to extract water the higher chance we will come in counter with these rocks.
Current Status of Controversy:
Waukesha has had a problem with having radium in their water supply for about 20 years now and is trying to fix such thing by applying to divert water from Lake Michigan to their watershed. The court has recently given waukesha until summer of 2018 to lower the levels and provide safe drinking water for the public. Also, Waukesha has 5 years to build the new system and if work isn’t at least started by June 2013, the city will be required or basically forced to find another strategy that may be more costly. However, it was agreed upon the eight Great Lakes states that diversion of water from one shed to another would not happen if the water would not return to its original lake. In the article Great Lakes Water Diversion from Baltimore’s Post Examiner(2012) it is mentioned by Doug Hissom that “Waukesha has come up with schemes to get the water back to Lake Michigan, but the science of their strategies remains in question. It rejects the option of digging new wells and installing radium treatment equipment, which would cost up to $189 million, and instead says it could spend $169 million on a questionable plan to return the water to Lake Michigan.”
The city is hoping that the Great Lakes States will approve their application because one ‘no’ from any of the states can veto the application. According to the Waukesha Plugging Away on Diversion Plan article, there have been a couple of setbacks when trying to make the decision on approving the application. Those setbacks are 1) the discussion on lowering the cost of the water and make a deal with Milwaukee, 2) the negotiations that stalled down a more costly connection with Oak Creek and lastly that there is this growing awareness that Waukesha wants to be able to divert water from Lake Michigan to and bigger service territory further from the city’s boundaries. If the application were to be approved, The Common Council will surely let Waukesha know that it will demand a one time compensation payment as an additional cost of delivering the water. And having Waukesha being able to purchase water from Milwaukee would be very beneficial to the city because then they could stop the use of deep wells and drawing radium contaminated water harmful to the residents health.
Key Players:
The mayor of Waukesha, Jeff Scrima, is involved in the situation and he argued that the city had other alternatives rather than lake water. In other words, he’s against asking Milwaukee for water to improve Waukesha’s. Also, Waukesha’s Water Utility general manager, Dan Duchniak, who believes the city should get the water deal and is ‘willing to discuss terms for distributing water to those future communities,’ but he said if it doesn’t happen, Waukesha is fortunate enough to have two other suppliers that will abide by the law and not limit the distribution of water. Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee, opposes the diversion because Waukesha's water service area includes four municipalities and states that the municipalities haven’t requested for water and as well haven't showed a need for it and strongly disagrees. While Tom Barrett is strong on his opinion, Eric Ebersberger of the DNR disagreed with the Mayor’s statement. However, the Great Lakes States are completely involved in this issue on whether or not to approve such thing. The thing is that the are still debating on the issue and need to make a decision soon enough so Waukesha can start working on it or turning to another provider if all gets denied.
Ethical Issues:
The biggest issue faced is the question of whether or not Waukesha should be allowed to take water out of Lake Michigan. Other Great Lake states worry that Waukesha does not have the proper technology to return the water to Milwaukee’s watershed, and that it should instead remain in Waukesha. How Waukesha plans to use the water is also of concern. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett reminds Waukesha that he is willing to negotiate, but only if Waukesha accepts Milwaukee’s terms. This means that Waukesha could only distribute the lake water to its current service area and not any future land that it may add. Out-of-state environmentalists also question of Waukesha has suitable alternatives to the water problem “within its own backyard.” They feel that diverting the lake water is unnecessary when other options may be present. However, Waukesha officials have stated that other options, such as drawing from the Fox River or digging newer, shallower, wells are not a sustainable method for the future. The Wisconsin DNR must first review Waukesha’s request and make sure that it complies with a Great Lakes protection compact before they can forward it to any of the other states for approval. This issue is so controversial because Waukesha is the first community located outside the Great Lakes drainage basin to seek an exception to the compact's general prohibition against diversions. The exception that Waukesha seeks is technically allowed for communities outside the basin only if they are within counties straddling the sub-continental divide.
Power-Dynamic Analysis:
Looking closely at this controversy, many people are involved but there are those who have greater authority than others. For instance, Tom Barrett has great authority in this issue because with being the mayor of Milwaukee he can keep holding back on making the decision on approving the application. Also, he could influence the governors of the Great Lake States with his opinion on the subject. It will only take one governor to agree with him and the application is gone. But the greater authority over Tom Barrett would absolutely and obviously be The Great Lakes States. They are the ones who are making the decision on whether it will happen or not. Also, they discuss and review what would be the best decision overall for themselves and the current state, as well as observe what is currently going on. The process of decision takes a bit but they also look at what will occur in the long run.
With the least authority in the matter would be organizations such as the Riverkeepers because, while they are involved in the sense that they are knowledgeable on the issue, their opinion is not majorly considered in the decision making process. They simply do not have the same authority on the matter as the government, and for actions like voting, they are obviously unable to participate.
Sources:
Behm, Don. "Waukesha, Oak Creek Working to Put Water Deal Back in Motion."Waukesha, Oak Creek Working to Put Water Deal Back in Motion. N.p., 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Behm, Don. "Water News." Save the Water. N.p., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Behm, Don. "Clock Ticking on Starting Waukesha, Milwaukee Water Talks." Clock Ticking on Starting Waukesha, Milwaukee Water Talks. N.p., 30 June 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
"Our Water: Diversions of Great Lakes Waters." N.p., Mar. 2008. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Behm, Don. "Oak Creek Signs off on Waukesha Water Deal." Oak Creek Signs off on Waukesha Water Deal. Journal Sentinel, 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Hissom, Doug. "Great Lakes Water Diversion." Baltimore Post Examiner. N.p., 20 June 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Kalsnes, Lynette. "WBEZ 91.5 Chicago." Waukesha's Request for Great Lakes Water Is Complex First Test of Law. N.p., 21 June 2011. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Millard, Sarah. "3 Lake Michigan Mayors Question Waukesha Over Water Diversion Application." N.p., 7 Mar. 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Rowen, James. "Waukesha Plugging Away on Diversion Plan, Though..." The Political Environment. N.p., 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012
(Please note that the status of the issue has changed dramatically since this article was written. The Waukesha Water Utility is one source of updated information.)
Background Information and History of Waukesha’s Water:
As far as the history of Waukesha’s water is concerned, Waukesha has been known in the past for it’s many springs that had attracted people with fame and wealth. But today we can’t say the same for our beloved Waukesha. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) said for more than 80 years that the city’s water supply had been plagued with the radioactive element known as Radium. The reason this element is harmful is because of its ability to cause skin and bone cancer to consumers. But the level of radium has been so high that it exceeds the federal safety standards, and at times reached twice the accepted amount. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) estimates about a $5,000 dollar fine per day for not reducing the level of radium in the water. The radium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal that occurs at low levels in almost all rock, soil, water, plants, and animals. Waukesha’s wells draw from formations containing sandstone and shales. These forms of rocks tend to contain higher levels of radium which probably explain our risen levels of radium in our water.The deeper we go to extract water the higher chance we will come in counter with these rocks.
Current Status of Controversy:
Waukesha has had a problem with having radium in their water supply for about 20 years now and is trying to fix such thing by applying to divert water from Lake Michigan to their watershed. The court has recently given waukesha until summer of 2018 to lower the levels and provide safe drinking water for the public. Also, Waukesha has 5 years to build the new system and if work isn’t at least started by June 2013, the city will be required or basically forced to find another strategy that may be more costly. However, it was agreed upon the eight Great Lakes states that diversion of water from one shed to another would not happen if the water would not return to its original lake. In the article Great Lakes Water Diversion from Baltimore’s Post Examiner(2012) it is mentioned by Doug Hissom that “Waukesha has come up with schemes to get the water back to Lake Michigan, but the science of their strategies remains in question. It rejects the option of digging new wells and installing radium treatment equipment, which would cost up to $189 million, and instead says it could spend $169 million on a questionable plan to return the water to Lake Michigan.”
The city is hoping that the Great Lakes States will approve their application because one ‘no’ from any of the states can veto the application. According to the Waukesha Plugging Away on Diversion Plan article, there have been a couple of setbacks when trying to make the decision on approving the application. Those setbacks are 1) the discussion on lowering the cost of the water and make a deal with Milwaukee, 2) the negotiations that stalled down a more costly connection with Oak Creek and lastly that there is this growing awareness that Waukesha wants to be able to divert water from Lake Michigan to and bigger service territory further from the city’s boundaries. If the application were to be approved, The Common Council will surely let Waukesha know that it will demand a one time compensation payment as an additional cost of delivering the water. And having Waukesha being able to purchase water from Milwaukee would be very beneficial to the city because then they could stop the use of deep wells and drawing radium contaminated water harmful to the residents health.
Key Players:
The mayor of Waukesha, Jeff Scrima, is involved in the situation and he argued that the city had other alternatives rather than lake water. In other words, he’s against asking Milwaukee for water to improve Waukesha’s. Also, Waukesha’s Water Utility general manager, Dan Duchniak, who believes the city should get the water deal and is ‘willing to discuss terms for distributing water to those future communities,’ but he said if it doesn’t happen, Waukesha is fortunate enough to have two other suppliers that will abide by the law and not limit the distribution of water. Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee, opposes the diversion because Waukesha's water service area includes four municipalities and states that the municipalities haven’t requested for water and as well haven't showed a need for it and strongly disagrees. While Tom Barrett is strong on his opinion, Eric Ebersberger of the DNR disagreed with the Mayor’s statement. However, the Great Lakes States are completely involved in this issue on whether or not to approve such thing. The thing is that the are still debating on the issue and need to make a decision soon enough so Waukesha can start working on it or turning to another provider if all gets denied.
Ethical Issues:
The biggest issue faced is the question of whether or not Waukesha should be allowed to take water out of Lake Michigan. Other Great Lake states worry that Waukesha does not have the proper technology to return the water to Milwaukee’s watershed, and that it should instead remain in Waukesha. How Waukesha plans to use the water is also of concern. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett reminds Waukesha that he is willing to negotiate, but only if Waukesha accepts Milwaukee’s terms. This means that Waukesha could only distribute the lake water to its current service area and not any future land that it may add. Out-of-state environmentalists also question of Waukesha has suitable alternatives to the water problem “within its own backyard.” They feel that diverting the lake water is unnecessary when other options may be present. However, Waukesha officials have stated that other options, such as drawing from the Fox River or digging newer, shallower, wells are not a sustainable method for the future. The Wisconsin DNR must first review Waukesha’s request and make sure that it complies with a Great Lakes protection compact before they can forward it to any of the other states for approval. This issue is so controversial because Waukesha is the first community located outside the Great Lakes drainage basin to seek an exception to the compact's general prohibition against diversions. The exception that Waukesha seeks is technically allowed for communities outside the basin only if they are within counties straddling the sub-continental divide.
Power-Dynamic Analysis:
Looking closely at this controversy, many people are involved but there are those who have greater authority than others. For instance, Tom Barrett has great authority in this issue because with being the mayor of Milwaukee he can keep holding back on making the decision on approving the application. Also, he could influence the governors of the Great Lake States with his opinion on the subject. It will only take one governor to agree with him and the application is gone. But the greater authority over Tom Barrett would absolutely and obviously be The Great Lakes States. They are the ones who are making the decision on whether it will happen or not. Also, they discuss and review what would be the best decision overall for themselves and the current state, as well as observe what is currently going on. The process of decision takes a bit but they also look at what will occur in the long run.
With the least authority in the matter would be organizations such as the Riverkeepers because, while they are involved in the sense that they are knowledgeable on the issue, their opinion is not majorly considered in the decision making process. They simply do not have the same authority on the matter as the government, and for actions like voting, they are obviously unable to participate.
Sources:
Behm, Don. "Waukesha, Oak Creek Working to Put Water Deal Back in Motion."Waukesha, Oak Creek Working to Put Water Deal Back in Motion. N.p., 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Behm, Don. "Water News." Save the Water. N.p., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Behm, Don. "Clock Ticking on Starting Waukesha, Milwaukee Water Talks." Clock Ticking on Starting Waukesha, Milwaukee Water Talks. N.p., 30 June 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
"Our Water: Diversions of Great Lakes Waters." N.p., Mar. 2008. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Behm, Don. "Oak Creek Signs off on Waukesha Water Deal." Oak Creek Signs off on Waukesha Water Deal. Journal Sentinel, 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Hissom, Doug. "Great Lakes Water Diversion." Baltimore Post Examiner. N.p., 20 June 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Kalsnes, Lynette. "WBEZ 91.5 Chicago." Waukesha's Request for Great Lakes Water Is Complex First Test of Law. N.p., 21 June 2011. Web. 06 Dec. 2012.
Millard, Sarah. "3 Lake Michigan Mayors Question Waukesha Over Water Diversion Application." N.p., 7 Mar. 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Rowen, James. "Waukesha Plugging Away on Diversion Plan, Though..." The Political Environment. N.p., 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012