In several recent postings (one, here), I made reference to the detailed request for information from the City of Waukesha by the Department of Natural Resources to cure "deficiencies" that the DNR has found in the city's Lake Michigan water diversion application.
Rather than put up another link, I am posting below the full text of the letter, and you can decide whether Waukesha's Common Council in April prematurely voted to approve the application and send it on to the DNR for review.
Note that the letter contained issues Waukesha and the DNR were to discuss at a meeting on November 18th, but was canceled by Waukesha because it didn't didn't want environmental organization representatives - - a "special interest,"it claimed, to attend as observers.
If the application eventually passes muster at the DNR - - and that will include public hearings and the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement down the road - - the other seven Great Lakes states each then get a crack at posing their own questions, too.
All I'll say is that I worked for the Mayors of Milwaukee and Madison for 13 years, and the same amount of time as a reporter and editor at the Milwaukee Journal and Journal Sentinel working on government stories, and never saw a letter from one Wisconsin unit of government to another quite like this one.
Here is the text:
December 2, 2010
Paul R. Ybarra Common Council President, City of Waukesha Waukesha, WI 53188
Subject: City of Waukesha Great Lakes Water Diversion Application Dear Mr. Ybarra:
Secretary Frank has asked me to follow up with you regarding the City of Waukesha application for a diversion of Great Lakes water. In light of the fact that the meeting scheduled for November 18th did not take place, this letter is intended to provide the city with more detail about the questions that have been generated by our staff’s initial review of the city’s application.
The department is committed to an independent, thorough and transparent review of the application under the standards and requirements of the Great Lakes Compact and the State’s implementing statutes and administrative codes. The facts that provide the basis for analysis of the relevant scientific, engineering, environmental, and financial issues are by their nature detailed and highly technical.
We trust that the questions set forth in this letter will provide guidance to the city as you gather the information the department is requesting. It is important that we have this information so that we can thoroughly analyze the City of Waukesha’s diversion application against the standards required by law.
The questions and additional information needed are organized according to three main topic areas of the application: return flow issues; issues associated with water supply alternatives; and issues associated with water conservation and efficiency requirements.
Within each area, a Compact standard or requirement of the State’s implementing statutes or administrative codes is listed, followed by questions or comments related to the City’s need to comply with the specific standard or requirement.
A. Issues Related to Return Flow Alternatives
Contact: Kristy Rogers, Kristy.Rogers@Wisconsin.gov, 608-266-9254
Standards: s. 281.346(4)(e)1.c., Wis. Stats. “The proposal maximizes the amount of water withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin that will be returned to the source watershed and minimizes the amount of water from outside the Great Lakes basin that will be returned to the source watershed.”; s. 281.346(4)(f)3., Wis. Stats. “An amount of water equal to the amount of water withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin will be returned to the source watershed, less an allowance for consumptive use.”
RF1. How much water will the Waukesha wastewater treatment plant continue to receive from the Mississippi Basin? Provide a table and graph showing the daily volumes of wastewater received from other communities/areas that will not receive Lake Michigan water for the years 2007-2010, and include information on any proposed increased or decreased flows from these areas.
RF2. Provide a table and graph showing how the proposed return flow management plan would have worked for 2005 and 2008 based on the actual daily flows during those years. How much water would have been returned to Underwood Creek versus the Fox River?
RF3. Provide the conceptual plans for the physical components that will be used for changing the effluent flow between the two discharge points.
RF4. What specific criteria will be used to decide when and how much water will be returned to the Fox River versus Underwood Creek? (E.g., No flow will be discharged when the flow in Underwood Creek is X (amount) based upon a measurement at Y (location)?, etc.)
Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)3m., Wis. Stats. “The place at which the water is returned to the source watershed is as close as practicable to the place at which the water is withdrawn, unless the applicant demonstrates that returning the water at that place is one of the following: a. Not economically feasible. b. Not environmentally sound. c. Not in the interest of public health.”
RF5. For each proposed water supply alternative, provide an analysis showing a return flow option that complies with the above standard. The current application only includes an analysis for the Milwaukee water supply alternative. In addition, the current application only provides information showing that returning the water to Underwood Creek is the least cost alternative but does not demonstrate that it is not economically feasible, not environmentally sound, or not in the interest of public health to return the water to Lake Michigan as close as practicable to the withdrawal site.
To analyze the economic feasibility of the various return flow options, you should evaluate the financial effects of these options on both water supply and wastewater ratepayers. The utility should prepare rate studies for the various return flow options using procedures that are consistent with current state and local rate setting practices.
These studies should evaluate the water and wastewater rate impacts to the average residential customer, and other representative customers, under several of the proposed financing and operational scenarios for the project (E.g., under a project financed and operated wholly by the water utility; under a project financed in part through grants or other non-water utility sources; under a scenario where portions of the operation are turned over to the wastewater utility for operation after construction, etc.).
You will likely need to retain a rate consultant to assist in this evaluation. Please contact Kristy Rogers to discuss your proposed plan prior to conducting the requested analysis for economic feasibility.
The following is a list of the additional information that is required for the review of the return flow portion of your application.
The list is organized by the statutory standards contained in s. 281.346, Wis. Stats. The statutory standard is listed first followed by the additional information that is required.
Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)4., Wis. Stats. “No water from outside the Great Lakes basin will be returned to the source watershed unless all of the following apply: a. The returned water is from a water supply or wastewater treatment system that combines water from inside and outside the Great Lakes basin. b. The returned water will be treated to meet applicable permit requirements under s. 283.31 and to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes basin and the department has approved the permit under s. 283.31. c. If the water is returned through a structure on the bed of a navigable water, the structure is designed and will be operated to meet the applicable permit requirements under s. 30.12 and the department has approved the permit under s. 30.12.”
RF6. Please be aware that there are new water quality standards that may impact the wastewater discharge permit limits. The new standards include thermal and phosphorus requirements.
RF7. Provide conceptual plans for the outfall structure. Please be aware that aeration will be required at the outfall to ensure adequate dissolved oxygen. The costs associated with aeration should be included in the project costs.
RF8. Provide the hydrologic and hydraulic models demonstrating that the return flow and outfall structure will not increase the regional flood elevations by 0.01 feet or more. Please explain whether the model included the surcharge discharge onto the flows used in HEC-RAS model or if they modified a HSPF continuous simulation model. Which hydrology and hydraulics models were used as the “base model”?
RF9. Provide documentation of a willing riparian property owner at the proposed location(s) of the outfall(s). The documentation should be in the form of a signed letter or similar document stating that the riparian is willing to be a co-applicant with the City of Waukesha for the proposed outfall structure.
RF10. Identify the potential vectors or opportunities for introducing or spreading invasive species and viruses (e.g., Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS)). What best management practices will be employed to either prevent the introduction or the spread of any identified species or viruses? Please include all aspects of the project including construction and ongoing operation.
Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)4m., Wis. Stats. “If water will be returned to the source watershed through a stream tributary to one of the Great Lakes, the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving water under subd. 3. will be protected and sustained as required under ss. 30.12, 281.15, and 283.31, considering the state of the receiving water before the proposal is implemented and considering both low and high flow conditions and potential adverse impacts due to changes in temperature and nutrient loadings.
RF11. On page 9 of Appendix H to the application, the information references modeling that shows a decrease in Chlorophyll A, even though phosphorus levels increase. Do the adjusted model’s Chlorophyll A levels pertain only to planktonic algae, or does it account for periphyton communities as well? If they do not apply to the periphyton community, please provide a prediction of the increase or decrease in the periphyton community biomass of Underwood Creek and the Menomonee River due to increased nutrient loadings.
RF12. On page 7 of Appendix G to the application, the indicator fish species is identified as Northern pike. Why was the Northern pike chosen as the indicator species for Underwood Creek? Also, what is the source for stating the average maximum swimming speed for Northern pike?
RF13. What are the expected impacts of the discharge on the different individual fish species in Underwood Creek? What are the expected impacts of the changes in discharge on the different individual fish species in the Fox River?
RF14. The proposed discharge to Underwood Creek is a substantial increase over the current base flow conditions. In addition, the change in discharge volumes to the Fox River could also have a substantial impact. What are the changes in flashiness to both Underwood Creek and the Fox River from the proposed discharge plan? That is, what are the relative rates of change in discharge—daily and seasonally, during summer and spring critical times. How will this flashiness impact habitat development, invertebrates, and fish? (See David B. Baker, R. Peter Richards, Timothy T. Loftus, and Jack W. Kramer, A New Flashiness Index: Characteristics and Applications to Midwestern Rivers and Streams, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, April 2004 for more information.)
RF15. Provide a reference to the scientific literature, study results, or expertise that was used to conclude that the proposed discharge to Underwood Creek will result in habitat improvement and overall benefits to fish and invertebrate communities.
RF16. Appendix G to the application mentions that the increased flows from the discharge will not significantly contribute to sediment transport (page 6 of 8). However, Appendix L (page 7) states:
“These increases will have a negligible effect on the hydraulic and geomorphic conditions in the creek, but the increase in flow is expected to benefit the habitat within the creek during baseflow periods by reducing the extent to which fine sediments fill the coarse sediment substrate (embeddedness), providing deeper pools and riffles for more functional fish passage, and providing more wetted perimeter to support a greater benthic community.” If the embeddedness is reduced due to the increase in the base flow, that means that sediment is carried and deposited somewhere, which seems contrary to the statement that the discharge will not significantly contribute to sediment transport. Please explain this perceived contradiction.
Standards: s. 281.346(4)(f)5., Wis. Stats. “The diversion will result in no significant adverse individual impacts or cumulative impacts to the quantity or quality of the waters of the Great Lakes basin or to water dependent natural resources, including cumulative impacts that might result due to any precedent-setting aspects of the proposed diversion, based upon a determination that the proposed diversion will not have any significant adverse impacts on the sustainable management of the waters of the Great Lakes basin.”; s. 281.346(4)(f)7., Wis. Stats. “The diversion will be in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and interstate and international agreements, including the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.”
RF17. Provide more information on the expected adverse environmental impacts including the nature and extent of impacts to wildlife, endangered resources, and natural communities, whether these impacts are permanent or temporary, and whether they can be mitigated.
(For questions on this request, please contact Shari Koslowsky at (608) 261-4382)
RF18. Provide a relative comparison of wildlife, natural community, and endangered resource impacts among the various supply and return flow pipeline routes.
RF19. How much of the alternative return flow pipeline routes would share corridors with existing utilities?
RF20. Provide a description of the aquatic and benthic communities at the proposed Lake Michigan outfall.
RF21. Re: Appendix N, 3.3.2 (Page 3-5): Provide a description of the relative occurrence of any of these communities along the various supply and return flow routes.
RF22. Re: Appendix N, Page 3-8, Paragraph 1. A historical occurrence should only be excluded if suitable habitat no longer exists. Does suitable habitat for these species exist in the affected areas? Please name the “alternative corridor” referred to in the last sentence of paragraph 1.
RF23. Please be aware that at this time in the process, it is unknown whether or not an incidental take permit will be needed for any of the alternatives. Consultation is ongoing and includes, but is not necessarily limited to, impacts to species in Vernon Marsh and rare fish species in the affected waterways.
RF24. Please be aware that you will need to complete a practicable alternatives analysis pursuant to NR 103 for all proposed wetland impacts as part of your formal Waterway and Wetland permit application for the project. The alternatives analysis may have an impact on the water supply and return flow pipeline routes or the methods for installing the pipelines.
RF25. Provide one additional color copy of the application and environmental impact report. RF26. Provide a copy of the comments that you have received from MMSD concerning return flow to Underwood Creek. RF27. Please be aware that the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission will need to review any changes in effluent discharge and amend the Regional Water Quality Management Plan as appropriate prior to the Department’s final approval of any needed wastewater facility plans.
B. Issues Related to Water Supply Alternatives
Contact: Dino Tsoris, Constantine.Tsoris@Wisconsin.gov, 608-267-4581
The department has conducted a limited review of the water supply provisions of the City’s application and the “Water Supply Service Area Plan for the City of Waukesha” submitted as part of the application for Lake Michigan water.
The department reviewed the plan in reference to s. 281.346 (4), Stats., and s. 281.348, Stats. The City should ensure that they submit a water supply service area plan that complies with all of the requirements in s. 281.348 including:
1) identification of water supply options that are based on a cost- effectiveness analysis of regional and individual water supply and conservation alternatives; 2) a delineated water supply service area; 3) forecast populations and water demand projections; 4) an assessment of environmental impacts of implementing the water supply alternatives;
5) an analysis of how the plan is consistent with comprehensive and other planning processes; and 6) a public participation process, including review and comment, for a proposed water supply service area plan.
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.
Standard: An analysis of how the plan supports and is consistent with any applicable comprehensive plans, as defined in s. 66.1001(1)(a), and applicable approved areawide water quality management plans under s. 283.83, [s. 281.348(3)(c)8, Wis. Stats.].
WS2. Provide an analysis of how the water supply service area plan is consistent with any approved comprehensive plans. Document how the plan is consistent with key elements of comprehensive planning, including: utilities and community facilities; housing; land use; natural resources; economic development; and implementation.
WS3. The water supply service area plan should also describe how the water supply service area plan is consistent with any approved applicable areawide water quality management plan under s. 283.83, Wis. Stats., and ch. NR 121, Wis. Admin. Code.
Specifically, describe how the water supply service area plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the sewer service area plan and areawide water quality management plan; describe how the water supply service area plan is consistent with any specific plan recommendations in the sewer service area plan or water quality management plan including issues related to wastewater infrastructure and effluent.
Standard: Identification of the options for supplying water in the area for the period covered by the plan that are approvable under other applicable statutes and rules and that are cost-effective based upon a cost-effectiveness analysis of regional and water conservation alternatives. [s. 281.348(3)(c)4, Wis. Stats.]
The following is a list of the additional information that is required for the review of the water supply alternatives portion of your application. The list is organized by the statutory standards contained in s. 281.346, Wis. Stats. The statutory standard is listed first followed by the additional information that is required.
WS4. Provide an analysis of water conservation alternatives that includes all appropriate water conservation and efficiency measures (CEMs) and include a cost-effectiveness analysis of the CEMs for each water supply alternative. Also provide documentation that the water conservation alternatives analysis complies with ch. NR 852 Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency. (See Section ‘C’ “Issues Related to Water Conservation & Efficiency” below).
Standard: There is no reasonable water supply alternative within the watershed in which the community is located, including conservation of the existing water supplies as determined under par. (g). [s.
WS5. Provide additional, detailed information describing the method used to determine the percentage of water demand offset by water conservation (i.e., the selected 10 percent average day demand reduction that has been factored into the water demand forecasts).
Standard: Environmental Impact Report, City of Waukesha Water Supply. Compilation of public comments. [s. 281.348(3)(b)1, Wis. Stats.]
WS6. The environmental impact report for the City of Waukesha Water Supply states on page xviii that four public meetings have been held in 2010, including one meeting in a surrounding community and that "a compilation of comments received from the 2010 meetings and other public involvement processes will be provided to the department under separate submittal". Please submit the comments to the department for review.
Standards: Water Supply Alternatives Evaluation “Reasonable water supply alternative” means a water supply alternative that is similar in cost to, and as environmentally sustainable and protective of public health as, the proposed new or increased diversion and that does not have greater adverse environmental impacts than the new or increased diversion. [s.281.346(1)(ps), Wis. Stats.]; and Identification of the options for supplying water in the area covered by the plan that are approvable under other applicable statutes and rules and that are cost-effective based upon cost-effectiveness analysis of regional and individual water supply and conservation alternatives [ss. 281.348(3)(c)4 and 281.346(4)(e)1d, Wis. Stats.]
The application for a new or increased diversion requires that the applicant evaluate all water supply alternatives within the basin in which the community is located, provide information that shows the community is without adequate supplies of potable water, and provide information to the department that demonstrates that there is no reasonable water supply alternative within the basin where the community is located.
The application report documents the elimination of several water supply alternatives. However, additional information must be provided to demonstrate that no reasonable water supply alternative exists within the Mississippi basin. Additional information must be provided related to each of the following water supply alternatives:
Unconfined Deep Aquifer
WS7. Additional information is required to determine whether the unconfined deep aquifer is a viable technical water supply alternative for the City of Waukesha. The 2002 Future Water Supply Study states that the unconfined deep sandstone aquifer is a sustainable and adequate water supply. The 2002 Study also indicates that the unconfined aquifer is a cost-effective option.
Further, the 2002 Study states that two area municipal systems, Oconomowoc and Dousman, have wells that maintain static water levels in the unconfined sandstone aquifer with well depths within 100 ft of ground surface. The 2002 Future Water Supply study states "the aquifer is thinner in this area, generally less than 1,000 feet, but the capacity in the wells is relatively high, generally over 1,000 gpm, due to the ample recharge and high permeability of the sandstone". The 2002 study also states that "water levels are not declining significantly in this area in spite of a large drawdown in the confined portion of the aquifer."
Primary rejection of the unconfined deep water aquifer to the west as an alternative (as stated in the Water Supply Service Area Plan) relates to the alleged potential for legal challenges that would expose the City of Waukesha to potential damage claims from lake area homeowners and municipalities.
Updated cost information must be provided for this alternative.
Also, provide additional information describing what the sustainable water yields from the unconfined deep aquifer would be as a potential water source for the City of Waukesha. What type of well network could be established? Provide information describing sustainable pumping rates from each well.
Silurian Dolomite Aquifer
WS8. Although the Silurian dolomite is dense and has limits to storing and transmitting water, several municipalities have been successful in identifying areas within fractured zones of the dolomite aquifer that have resulted in producing wells with acceptable water yields.
The 2002 Future Water Supply Study states that the probability of obtaining a reasonable well yield from the fractured Silurian dolomite aquifer occurs when the aquifer is at least 150 - 200 feet thick. The study also states that there area several municipalities in the area with wells producing from intervals of the fractured dolomite aquifer at a rate of 1,400 gpm, although capacities of 500 - 700 gpm are more common.
There are areas in the northeast portion the City of Waukesha and areas southeast of the City of Waukesha where the dolomite aquifer is at least 200 feet thick.
Describe in greater detail the degree to which the areas to the northeast and southeast have been assessed for potential well locations. Also, provide any geophysical data that has been collected identifying any fractured zones in the Silurian dolomite.
Shallow Aquifers, Groundwater Model
WS9. The shallow aquifer and Fox River alluvium alternative has been modeled to identify drawdown effects and environmental impacts based on the groundwater modeling study "Results of Groundwater Modeling Study Shallow Groundwater Source, Fox River & Vernon Marsh Area" March 2010. The groundwater model indicates a large drawdown in areas of the northeast portion of the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area and a one foot drawdown identified in a large portion of the northern third of the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area.
Provide in greater detail the natural community and habitat changes and impacts to wildlife and endangered resources to the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area due to groundwater withdrawals from the shallow aquifer. Also provide an analysis that describes any potential mitigation actions that could lessen the impacts to the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area.
Additional information may be requested after a more detailed review of the reported drawdown effects and environmental impacts based on the March 2010 groundwater modeling study.
Combinations of Water Source Alternatives (Deep Aquifer, Shallow Aquifers, Fox River Alluvium, Quarries, and the deep unconfined aquifer
WS10. With respect to the technical and cost-effectiveness evaluation of the multiple water source alternative described in the Draft Technical Memorandum, "Review of Water Supply Alternatives", attached to the letter from the City of Waukesha dated July 27, 2010, additional information will need to be provided to the department.
How were the percentages of water supply from each water source determined? Has a maximum sustainable pumping rate been determined for each water source alternative in relation to minimal environmental impacts?
While the Draft Technical Memorandum states that the total cost of the Multiple Water Supply Alternative uses the same criteria as the Application, there is no specific cost associated with each multiple water source presented in the memorandum.
Please identify the costs associated with each water source that combine to make up the total cost represented in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum. Are there other combinations of water sources that can be considered as part of a multiple water source alternatives analysis (e.g., different pumping rates of water sources or other sources not included in the alternative, such as the Silurian dolomite aquifer or river bank inducement)?
Shallow Aquifer, River Bank Inducement
WS11. The viability of riverbank inducement as a means to augment groundwater supplies in southeastern Wisconsin is being studied by Douglas Cherkauer, Professor Emeritus, UW-Milwaukee; Timothy J. Grundl, Professor, UW-Milwaukee; and Daniel Feinstein, Scientist, USGS. The City should be prepared to evaluate the riverbank inducement alternative based on the technical application and cost-effectiveness of implementing the alternative as a potential water supply for the City of Waukesha.
Lake Michigan Alternative
WS12. Additional information is necessary regarding costs associated with obtaining Lake Michigan water supply from Milwaukee, Oak Creek and Racine. A significant consideration for the City of Waukesha in future negotiations with both the City of Oak Creek and Racine will be the potential need for both cities to request an increased withdrawal to meet the long-term water demands for a Waukesha diversion.
The need for an increased withdrawal would subject the City of Oak Creek or Racine to mandatory water conservation measures specified in ch. NR 852, Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency. An increase in withdrawal would also subject the City of Oak Creek or Racine to the Compact’s state decision-making standard.
The cities of Oak Creek and Racine should be notified of the likely or potential need for an increased withdrawal along with the associated state decision-making standard and mandatory water conservation and efficiency requirements.
Lake Michigan Alternative
WS13. The application contains no estimate of "sunk costs" or "one time" payments to Milwaukee, Oak Creek or Racine. The City of Waukesha has stated that the sunk costs are included as "contingency" costs in the May 2010 Waukesha Diversion Application. Please present the "sunk" or "one time" costs as a separate, specific cost item in the application.
Lake Michigan Alternative
WS14. The City of Waukesha will need access to utility rights-of-way to construct portions of both the water supply and return pipelines along areas owned or controlled by other public utilities [e.g. WE Energies and American Transmission Company (ATC)].
Provide information that documents that the City has obtained approval or will be able to obtain approval from the other utilities to access their rights-of-way to install pipeline.
Also provide a description of how much of the alternative pipeline routes would share corridors with existing utilities and provide more detailed cost estimates related to construction in the corridors and, if applicable, the relocation of existing utility equipment. For example, if there are any known areas where there are physical restrictions (e.g. power & natural gas lines or limited access areas) to installation of the water supply pipelines, specifically identify those areas and describe how the pipelines would be installed in those areas.
Provide information estimating the costs to install the pipeline where physical constraints are present and where the need for unique trenching or construction actions will be necessary.
C. Issues Related to Water Conservation & Efficiency
Contact: Steven Elmore, Steve.Elmore@Wisconsin.gov, 608-264-9246
The Water Conservation and Protection Plan (as approved by Waukesha Water Utility, March 2006) submitted with the diversion application, and pp. 2-7 through 2-12 of the May 2010 document “Application for Lake Michigan Water Supply” were reviewed for compliance with the Compact’s water conservation planning requirements as applied to diversion requests from communities within straddling counties. Although the department will complete a more detailed review of these documents, the department must—at a minimum—have the following items before beginning that more detailed review of the water conservation related provisions of the diversion application.
Standard: Persons applying for a new or increased diversion regulated under s. 281.346 (4) (c), (d), and (e), Stats. are categorized into Tier 3. [s. NR 852.02 (3), Wis. Admin. Code]. Note: NR 852 will be published on January 1, 2011; but a copy is available from the DNR’ s web page.
CE1. The City must demonstrate and document compliance with the Tier 3 water conservation and water use efficiency requirements contained in ch. NR 852. More specific comments are enumerated below.
Standard: All persons identified in Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 shall submit with the application for a new or increased withdrawal, diversion, or water loss approval all of the following: (1) A water conservation plan meeting the requirements of s. NR 852.07. (2) Written documentation showing that the person has implemented or completed the CEMs in Table 1 that do not require retrofitting, as applicable for each water use sector. [ss. NR 852.04 (1) and (2), Wis. Admin. Code]
CE2. Water conservation and efficiency measures (CEMs) contained in s. NR 852.04 (2) (Table 1) should be implemented and documentation provided with the diversion application.
CE3. A Water Conservation Plan that complies with s. NR 852.07 and describes conservation and efficiency measures that have been and will be implemented should be submitted to the department for review.
The Water Conservation Plan should address how conservation and efficiency measures will apply now and in the future for water users in the entire Water Supply Service Area, including those not currently receiving water from the Waukesha Water Utility. Water conservation and efficiency measures that need particular attention in this section are PWS-1, Water Audit (including results of the audit).
Standard: Persons identified in Tier 2 and Tier 3 shall complete the elements specified in s. NR 852.04 and the elements specified under either sub. (2) or (3). NR 852.05 (2) A person identified in Tier 2 or Tier 3 shall implement all CEMs identified in Table 2 for the applicable water use sector that do not require retrofitting, except those CEMs that are not cost-effective or environmentally sound and economically feasible, as determined by an analysis conducted by the applicant pursuant to s. NR 852.09 or s. NR 852.10, and approved by the department. (5) For persons applying for a new or increased diversion, the person shall implement the CEMs identified under sub. (1) prior to submitting an application. [s. NR 852.05 and s. NR 852.05 (2) and s. NR 852.05 (5), Wis. Admin. Code]
CE4. CEMs contained in s. NR 852.05 (2) (Table 2) should be implemented and documented in the Water Conservation Plan provided with the diversion application. Water conservation and efficiency measures that The following is a list of the additional information that is required for the review of the water conservation requirements for your application.
The list is organized by the statutory standards contained in s. 281.346, Wis. Stats., and specific regulatory requirements of Ch. NR 852, Wis. Admin. Code—set to be published on January 1, 2011 need particular attention in this section are: PWS-R1, Distribution System Pressure Management; PWS-R2, Residential Demand Management Program; PWS-R3, Commercial and Industrial Demand Management Program; and PWS-R4, Water Reuse (including the results of an analysis that was used to determine feasible options that were implemented).
Standard: In addition to the required elements specified in s. NR 852.04 and s. NR 852.05, persons identified in Tier 3 should conduct the appropriate analysis pursuant to s. NR 852.09 or s. NR 852.10 to identify additional CEMs that are cost effective or environmentally sound and economically feasible and implement the identified CEMs following the applicable timeframes under s. NR 852.05 (2) and (3). [s. NR 852.06 (1), Wis. Admin. Code]
CE5. The City should document its analysis to identify cost-effective or environmentally sound and economically feasible conservation and efficiency measures and provide that documentation to the department with the application. For example, the Alliance for Water Efficiency tool may be a good methodology to conduct this analysis, although other tools or methods of analysis may be used.
Documentation of the implementation of the conservation and efficiency measures identified through this analysis should also be delivered to the department.
Standard: Persons applying for a new or increased diversion shall also document the efficient use and conservation of existing water supplies by providing an analysis of community water use over the past 5 years, at a minimum.
The analysis shall quantitatively describe water use through time and how it has changed with the implementation of CEMs. The analysis shall include quantitative calculations of water use including but not limited to, the ratio of peak daily demand to average daily demand and per capita residential water use. [s. NR 852.06 (2), Wis. Admin. Code]
CE6. A quantitative description of water use by the Waukesha Water Utility and its customers for the past 5 years (at a minimum) should be provided. The analysis should show how implemented CEMs have affected water use.
The analysis should include quantitative calculations of water use, including but not limited to the ratio of peak daily demand to average daily demand and per capita residential water use. All residential water use should be included in this analysis, both single family and multifamily dwellings. The analysis should quantitatively account for the loss of industrial customers, weather variability, and economic considerations in addition to any other identified factors that may have affected withdrawal amounts.
Standard: Documentation of the implementation of the CEMs set forth in s. NR 852.04 (2) and a description of any other existing conservation, efficiency, and reuse measures, including when they were implemented. [s. NR 852.07 (2)(c), Wis. Admin. Code]
CE7. Documentation of prior implementation of Public Water Supply Sector CEMs in Table 1 and Table 2 will need to be included in the Water Conservation Plan. Additional cost effective measures identified by the cost effectiveness analysis, or the analysis of environmental soundness and economic feasibility of measures should be included in the plan along with an implementation timeline.
Standard: A person identified in Tier 3 shall implement CEMs selected from Table 2 in par. (a), the Optional CEM list in s. NR 852.08 (2), or other CEMs as proposed by the applicant and approved by the department, which can be shown to reduce water use or increase water reuse or efficiency by 10 percent, in accordance with ss. NR 852.05 (3) (a) and (b). [s. NR 852.05 (3), Wis. Admin. Code]
CE8. If a 10% reduction option is selected as allowed by this section, additional documentation and a defensible analysis of water use for the most recent complete year should be submitted. Water use and water use intensity should be adjusted to account for unique facility, economic, or weather variability. The water use or water use intensity from the most recent complete year of water use will be the basis of a 10% reduction calculation. The 10% reduction should be in addition to any reduction in water use or increase in water reuse or efficiency achieved through implementing the CEMs set forth in s. NR 852.04 (2) and should not be included in the calculated percent reduction.
The City must select conservation and efficiency measures that can show by way of documentation to reduce water use by 10%, and these measures should be implemented prior to submitting an application.
Please contact Kristy Rogers, Dino Tsoris, or Steve Elmore if you have questions related to requests for additional information listed above. We are also available to meet to discuss any aspects of the application or the items we have identified above.
While we intended this initial review of the application to be as comprehensive as possible, we anticipate that there will be additional information that we will need as we continue our evaluation of the city’s application materials under the Great Lakes Compact standards. We look forward to working cooperatively with the city as we work through the application process.
Bruce Baker, Administrator Water Division
Cc: Matt Frank, DNR Secretary Jeff Scrima, City of Waukesha Mayor Dan Duchniak, Waukesha Water Utility Manager Jill Jonas, DG/5 Eric Ebersberger, DG/5