DNR Will Do Formal Review Of Waukesha Water Plan: Input Sought Now

Word had been circulating for weeks that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources had decided to carry out a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review of Waukesha's proposal to divert Lake Michigan water and return it via wastewater discharged into Wauwatosa's Underwood Creek.

The EIS is a matter of federal statutory authority, and comports with Wisconsin law, too.

This is good news, as sources had been saying that Waukesha had hoped for a lesser, faster review, and also for the mere transfer of that city's existing wastewater discharge permit from the Fox River to Underwood Creek, but I think the DNR's acceptance of the EIS responsibility and actionwas a given because without it, other Great Lakes states were more likely to reject Waukesha's plan on the spot due to an insufficient review by the home state.

And there are real environmental issues at stake.

No matter how you look at it, the Waukesha application is a big deal.

Further good news: the DNR is looking for public input on the scope of the EIS, so individuals and organizations should carefully look at the DNR request and follow through.

The details follow:

Jim Doyle, Governor Matthew J. Frank, Secretary

101 S. Webster St. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 Telephone 608-266-2621 FAX 608-267-3579 TTY Access via relay - 711

February 5, 2010

To all interested agencies and parties:

The Department has determined that it will complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) process for the proposed Waukesha Water Diversion project.

The City of Waukesha has informed the Department that they plan to submit in 2010 an application under the Great Lakes Compact for a diversion of Lake Michigan water for public water supply purposes under the “community within a straddling county” exception to the Compact’s prohibition on diversions. The Waukesha proposal will present water supply alternatives, as well as alternatives for wastewater return flow to the Lake Michigan Basin.

The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act or WEPA, and administrative code NR 150, require the Department to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives.

Part of the Department’s EIS process involves “scoping” of the analysis. In order to determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in this environmental analysis, the Department seeks public comments.

Based on our current understanding of the project, we have prepared the attached list of topics to be addressed in the EIS. Scoping comments should take the form of information about, and/or additions to, the list of topics. All scoping comments will be considered in the EIS analysis.

After the EIS is published, there will be a 45-day public comment period and a public hearing. All interested parties will receive notice of the release of the EIS document and the details for the hearing time and location.

Comments and questions concerning this environmental analysis public scoping process can be directed to James Pardee, Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, (608) 266-0426, WDNR OE/7, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921, james.pardee@wisconsin.gov.

Sincerely,

James Pardee Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act Coordinator Office of Energy and Environmental Analysis

attachment

dnr.wi.gov

wisconsin.gov Printed on Recycled

PaperWaukesha Water Diversion Project EIS List of Topics

February 1, 2010

● Need for the project

● Project location

● Project description

● Surface water source alternatives (including Lake Michigan) ● Groundwater source alternatives

● Water conservation measures

● Wastewater treatment alternatives

● Wastewater discharge alternatives

● Supply pipeline route alternatives

● Wastewater return pipeline route alternatives

● Effects on:

• Surface water resources (including Lake Michigan) • Wetland resources • Groundwater resources • Geomorphology and soils

• Flora (terrestrial and aquatic) • Fauna (terrestrial and aquatic) • Air quality • Population (including age, ethnicity, and health) • Economy (including industries, employment, and tax base) • Landuse, zoning and transportation

• Energy use • Archaeological and historical resources • Public water supplies and uses • Geographically scare resources

● Long term versus short term effects

● Reversibility of effects

● Cumulative effects

● Risk (including unknowns and problems due to installation and operation)

● Precedence

● Public controversy