Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers Supports Strong Great Lakes Compact
Another Wisconsin organization, Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers, has reiterated its support for the adoption of a strong version of the Great Lakes Compact, according to Lynn Broaddus, the group's executive director.
Public officials across the state Tuesday held news conferences in Milwaukee, Green Bay and Bayfield to again urge the legislature to adopt a bill to implement the historic, eight-state, two-Canadian province agreement.
The Compact, crucial in an era of rising temperatures and depleted water supplies, including falling levels in the Great Lakes, would require effective conservation measures and public input prior to any diversion of water from the boundaries of Lake Michigan, Lake Superior or the other three Great Lakes' basins.
Illinois and Minnesota have already ratified the Compact. All eight Great Lakes states must do the same, along with the US Congress, before its protections for the Great Lakes take effect.
Wisconsin is the only state without a bill approved or pending.
3 comments:
The biggest obstacle to passing the Compact is people who continue to insist that the Compact does not or should not allow the use of Great Lakes water in straddling counties as it is returned.
Exactly how would the use and return of water by Waukesha or any other nearby community contravene “the pending Great Lakes Compact or existing federal law,” as you claim? You know that the Compact allows Waukesha, New Berlin and Kenosha to apply for Lake Michigan surface water, as long as they have return flow – in other words, recycle the water. That recycling of water is a far better environmental option than the use of groundwater.
Your reprinting of statements you know to be false – such as the LA Times/Chicago Tribune claim that “water (Waukesha) would use would not be returned to the lake; it would drain into the Fox River and ultimately find its way down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico” – creates controversy over non-issues, again threatening consensus on the Compact and the opportunity for Wisconsin to make intelligent water supply choices.
An application by Waukesha would not open the door for the Southwest. It would set water conservation and return flow requirements the Southwest could never hope to meet.
By continuing your regional infighting and your opposition to a key provision of the Compact – the opportunity for communities in straddling counties to apply for withdrawal and return of lake water – you continue to threaten its passage.
This is a very interesting comment, Bill, and the public would be better served if you posted using your full name. I think you know what I mean.
Secondly, in your hurry to comment, you really posted it on the wrong item. You misquote me on the "contravention" business, as that discussion is on the post of mine about the LA Times, in the next blog posting.
So slow down, and get your facts right.
What I said on the other item was this:
"...if a community like Waukesha is allowed to divert water outside of the Great Lakes basin - - in contravention of the standards in the pending Great Lakes Compact or existing federal law (the US Water Resources Development Act) - - the door opens wide to farther-away communities and the US south and southwest."
Waukesha has only said rhetorically that it will return water to the basin, and not to the lake, mind you.
There is no application in place, however, so we do not yet know what Waukesha will do until it puts that in writing. You'd know something about that, right?
Twice in 2006, Waukesha did put it in writing - - in confidential applications for Lake Michigan water that it sent to Gov. Doyle, and which were not moved by Doyle to the other states, and that Waukesha wanted to use as total contravention to both the federal law (WRDA) and the pending Compact.
And didn't disclose until I obtained them under the Open Records law and published them at WisPolitics.com.
An application by Waukesha would indeed set a precedent because it is in a so-called "straddling county," a new category inserted into the Compact.
Also because there are powerful forces in Waukesha County and at the planning commission (SEWRPC) that want to do an end-run (contravention?) around the Compact so that all of Waukesha County, including the city, might receive water under the less-rigorous "straddling community" definition and review standard.
It's confusing, I know, but I think you know that you know the difference.
For other readers, straddling communities like New Berlin may only need the approval of their home state, and not the other states, as is required under the straddling county standard.
I have reprinted no false information, and you should be ashamed of such name-calling. It is unprofessional of you.
Let Waukesha make its application, and you may know more about that the rest of us as it is written, and then we will see what the city's intentions are, and what it is promising, and under which "straddling" definition it comes into the process, and where Waukesha stands with regard to regional water authorities than could sell water across the region.
In my comment response to Bill, I reference Waukesha's two confidential diversion requests to Goc. Doyle - - both of which contained no pledge to return water to Lake Michigan and both of which said they would discharge diverted water for treatment to the Fox River.
Here is the URL citation for the disclosure of those two applications:
http://wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=5113
Post a Comment