Waukesha Water Expansion On DNR, Environmentalists' Radar

I've been writing for months that the City of Waukesha's plan to extend Lake Michigan water service to portions of neighboring communities like Pewaukee, and the Towns of Waukesha and Genesee presented problems - - among others - - for the city's water diversion application, long-range planning and relationships with governing bodies near and far.

I think it's the application's weakest link.

In fact, the smaller, more rural Town is already in court with the City over water issues; a belief by town residents that officials there did not adequately represent the Town's in its water rights struggle with the City recently led to the recall and replacement of two town board members.

More here.

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission provided on request, and without public review, the expanded service territory map for Waukesha's diversion application - - adding 80% to Waukesha's current service territory land mass - - therefore setting the stage for annexations, hookups and water rate impacts in the Town and other municipalities that may or may not be welcomed.

As I asked in a June 7th posting about the other communities' inclusion in the application and water service plan:

"Should their residents be given the chance to debate it? Ask Waukesha officials questions about it? Publicly?

Note that a separate plan by the City of Waukesha to annex land in the Town of Waukesha for a a new round of shallow wells already sparked a recall of Town of Waukesha board members, so water supply issues between and among Waukesha County neighbors are closely-followed.

And given the plan to distribute water into portions of these three municipalities, is this sentence from the application accurate:

"A Lake Michigan supply for the City is sustainable, protective of public health, and results in more effective management, and improvement, of the waters and water dependent natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin."

Are we talking about a supply for the City, or a regional supply for and from the City - - with potential political and economic ramifications for growth and costs in a multi-municipality area?

Additionally, should those communities have a say in which city - - Oak Creek, Racine or Milwaukee - - the City of Waukesha would select if the application receives diversion approvals from all eight Great Lakes states?

It may be that those additional communities like the plan, in which case a vote by their governing bodies should be easy to obtain.

Unless some residents do not want to be hooked up.

But is anyone going to ask them?"

Looks to me like the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in its preliminary, 49 detailed question areas for the City of Waukesha about the diversion application, wants those other communities brought into the process - - but how is that going to unfold since they have been left out of the loop so far?

And why didn't SEWRPC or the City of Waukesha do that from the outset?


Here's what the DNR told the City of Waukesha to do on this matter, and it's no simple feat:

"Although the City has included a water supply service area plan in its application for Lake Michigan water supply, several deficiencies have been identified in the plan.

Specific information requests related to the statutory water supply service area plan requirements are itemized below.

Standards: Public review and comment of a proposed water supply service area plan [s. 281.348(3)(b)1, Wis. Stats.;, and approval of a plan by the governing body of each city, village, and town whose public water supply is addressed by the plan before the plan is submitted to the department. [s. 281.348(3)(b)2, Wis. Stats.]. .

WS1. Document the public participation process conducted for the proposed water supply service area plan.

Also, you’ll need to provide evidence that the governing bodies of the towns of Waukesha, Genesee, and any other city, village or town addressed by the plan have approved the Water Supply Service Area Plan prior to re- submittal."

And let's not forget that the expanded service territory raises another fundamental issue:

Should water be diverted from the Great Lakes, under the strict exceptions spelled out in the Great Lakes Compact of 2008, to assist one community's growth and sprawl?

In a recent interview on WUWM-FM, Daniel Duchniak, the Waukesha Water Utility general manager and principal advocate for the diversion application, said the expanded service territory map was only a planning tool but acknowledged that the expansion was part of the reason Waukesha was asking in its application to divert a lot more water than it currently uses.

That assumption was challenged by a Milwaukee water expert - - a further indication that the service territory issue in its totality makes the application problematic.

From the interview:

"Duchniak says Waukesha’s future water needs must be included in its strategy.

On a map, he points to the city’s current 22-square mile service area. Waukesha’s water application folds in 17 additional miles, primarily situated beyond the city’s southern and western perimeter.

Duchniak says because there could be growth in that area, Waukesha is requesting in its Great Lakes application, more than twice as much water as the eight million gallons it currently uses each day.

“I’m not here to dictate whether someone can or cannot dev their property – that’s not my job. My job is to plan for the future and what could potentially happen and then we’ll let the leaders of the city determine how and what develops,” Duchniak says.

Folding “growth” into the application worries Peter McAvoy. He says its not in keeping with the Great Lakes Compact..

McAvoy says.

McAvoy belongs to a coalition of environmental conservation organizations determined to see the Great Lakes Compact implemented “to the letter” in Wisconsin.

He hopes the DNR review process fills in what he calls fundamental gaps in the application.

“What we’re asking for is a side-by-side comparison between all the alternatives to that we, you all, can reasonably make a decision about what is reasonable and what isn’t,” McAvoy says."

See why I said the expansion was the application's weakest link?

This is what I said about it in a July 1 posting:

The weakest link in the application - - and what will raise questions all the way from the Town of Waukesha to the City of Milwaukee, and with reviewers and regulators in all the eight Great Lakes states - - is Waukesha's plan to send Lake Michigan water into parts of Pewaukee, Genesee and the Town of Waukesha.

Expanding the current service territory land mass by 80%.

That expansion - - mapped out and green-lighted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission for the Waukesha application administatively, without public review - - plays some role in Waukesha's request for up to 18.5 million gallons of Lake Michigan water daily.

Yes, the figure is a maximum, worst-case, drought-or-fire situation to be sure - - but clearly Waukesha and its water utility, like revenue-producing utilities are wont to do, intends to grow its customer and water rate base outside the city limits and water service territory.

Can annexations be far behind?

Fact: Current Waukesha daily water use, on average: 6.9 million gallons.

Anticipated daily use, on average, post-diversion, according to Waukesha figures: 10.9 million gallons.

Some of that usage is for projected future population and business growth inside the city limits, and some will go beyond - - thus you have the application resting on the shakiest of premises, because:

Water for growth is not the goal of the Compact. Take it from a Compact expert's superb analysis, here.

Water to serve growth 20 some miles from the City of Milwaukee - - with its employment, housing, transit and development challenges - - cannot sanely be Milwaukee's goal.

And being absorbed into the City of Waukesha's water service is not the goal of neighboring Town of Waukesha people from whom I hear.

Waukesha's water-for-expansion goes beyond meeting its own needs. It's an assault on regionalism, and resource sustainability and the core preservationist principle of the Compact.

It's where the diversion application lacks the most justification and creates the most waves.