Environmental Leaders Respond To Waukesha Diversion Advocate

West Bend private sector leader and conservationist John Torinus argued the other day through this posting  on his blog - -

No more than 1% from Great Lakes!

- - in favor of the City of Waukesha application for a diversion of Great Lakes water.
 His conclusion:

...if Waukesha returns most of its [Lake] Michigan water to the basin, which is the plan, their request needs to be evaluated in pragmatic terms. There are other issues, such as the route for returning the used waters, but the most material issue is simply the amount of the withdrawal on a net basis. That doesn’t look like a big deal against the 1% standard.

The Environmental Impact Statement now being conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will need to highlight those pragmatic calculations.

John is also a former editor at both The West Bend News and The Milwaukee Sentinel, and one of the few business people around here who has a presence in Internet media, so I was happy to post his opinion on my blog, here - - to which people affiliated with environmental organizations have responded. 

I'm putting those comments below to move the discussion forward:

From Cheryl Nenn, the Riverkeeper at Milwaukee Riverkeeper, a 501(c)(3) organization:

The Great Lakes are a one-time gift from the glaciers, and only 1% of the water is renewed every year in terms of rainfall and snow melt.

However, saying then that we should allow UP TO 1% of Great Lakes water to be consumed or diverted every year is faulty judgment.

First of all, that 1% of water besides being available for drinking water, also provides ecological benefits (e.g. higher water levels needed for wetlands that provide habitat for fish and aquatic life), recreational benefits to boaters, etc.

In addition, warmer water temperatures and decreased ice pack on the Lakes in recent years due to climate change is leading to higher evaporative loss of Great Lakes water than has been seen previously.

Thus, that 1% figure may be outweighed by climatic effects. Secondly, although when looked at individually, Waukesha’s diversion might not seem to be a large quantity in context of the 1% renewability rate of the Great Lakes, the diversion application is very important as it sets a precedent for the international Great Lakes Compact regulating water diversions and in-basin conservation.

Clearly, no single Great Lakes diversion is going to be anywhere close to the 1% renewability rate, but when taken together, there could be significant cumulative impacts on water levels and water quantity from all existing and future diversions of Great Lakes water.

So it is important and fitting that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is looking at the Waukesha application for not only environmental, social, and economic impacts, but also looking at direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the Lakes from some fairly controversial provisions that are part of Waukesha's request.

From Laurie Longtine, a Board member focusing on water issues at the network Waukesha Environmental Action League:

Don't assume that "return flow" means 100% of water diverted across the subcontinental divide will be returned to the Great Lakes basin.  

The Great Lakes Compact's standard is "less consumptive use." 

Consumptive use is water that will not be returned** to the originating basin because it runs off to a separate  watershed, in this case, the Mississippi River watershed. 

Varying percentages of consumptive use have been bandied about, 15% most often, but I once heard someone say 25%. The amount has not yet been determined.

In any case, it will not be 100% so that the cumulative effects of this diversion, plus other diversions that this one may pave the way for, need to be accounted for.  Suddenly, 1% doesn't seem like "only 1%" any more, does it? 

The Great Lakes are a world class resource. We should be thinking and planning in those terms and not bare minimums.   

** such as water used for washing cars, watering lawns and gardens, etc.