As all eight Great Lakes Governors under the Great Lakes Compact of 2008 must approve Waukesha's plan to divert water from Lake Michigan, a joint resolution introduced in the Michigan legislature urging MI Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the diversion request is not a good sign it can win approval.
Michigan is nearly completely within the Great Lakes basin and has a history of blocking diversions.
Official information from the Michigan Legislature, here:
A concurrent resolution to urge Governor Snyder to uphold Michigan's commitment to the principles of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact and to veto the city of Waukesha's request for a diversion from Lake Michigan.A repeated theme on this blog has been the disconnect between Waukesha's water diversion planning locally - - seeking a big increase in volume though usage is down, and water conservation is the Compact's heart, plus deciding to send diverted water outside its municipal borders to other towns with no water shortages - - and the reception the application would get outside Wisconsin even after years of expensive drafting:
Back in 2010, I wrote;
Also among the many commentaries on this blog about the application also is this excerpt from a 2012 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 administratively, without public review - - plays some role in Waukesha's request for up to 18.5 million gallons of Lake Michigan water daily....
Water for growth is not the goal of the Compact. Take it from a Compact expert's superb analysis, here....
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.
There are innumerable uncertainties about the application's reception in the seven other Great Lakes states, and perhaps in two Canadian provinces which have advisory roles, as do First Nation tribes there.
Even after after Wisconsin sends the application to the other states - - and who knows if and when that takes place - - any of the states could send it back for fresh answers or a time-consuming do-over.
An unambiguous veto by any of the states (not a step available in the provinces) would deny Waukesha the unanimous approvals by all eight Great Lakes states the Compact mandates for such diversions.
The Great Lakes water expert Peter Annin, brought some time ago to a public meeting in Waukesha by the city, told an assemblage of citizens and officials in the Common Council chambers that they should expect as a given, at least one state to reject the application on its first reading.