Friday, August 1, 2014

Based On Waukesha Data, Fresh Questions For Waukesha Water Pitch

Official reviews of Waukesha's request for a diversion of Lake Michigan water have been stalled for more than four years as the city's self-proclaimed deadlines have drained away, and now a new set of questions based on data and records in the city's possession about the its core water need claim is likely to raise more barriers to that request bring granted.

Circle of Blue, a Traverse City, Michigan-based journalism and science collaborative focused on water issues, has published evidence today obtained through Open Records that groundwater levels available to Waukesha are rising, thus undercutting a basic argument for Lake Michigan water in Waukesha's stalled diversion application:
In what appears to be a direct contradiction to the case that Waukesha, Wisconsin is making to end its reliance on a shrinking supply of groundwater and receive millions of gallons drawn from Lake Michigan, the city’s own data shows that water levels in its main aquifer are rising, not falling. The data, never before publicized, are likely to cloud Waukesha’s proposal to divert water from the Great Lakes and test the provisions of a six-year-old international water treaty.
According to Dr. Doug Cherkauer, a hydrogeologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the data “is clearly showing that the water levels in the deep aquifer beneath Waukesha are rising and have been for some time.”
The piece includes a lengthy rebuttal from Waukesha's water utility. 

This is the second time that the Waukesha Water Utility's work on possible diversions of water from Lake Michigan has been thrown into doubt by information found in water utility documents unearthed through the state Open Records law.

Here was an earlier episode. 


8 comments:

  1. Next, Scott Walker, the Republican legislature and ALEC will work to eliminate the open records law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the City could prove its case for Lake Michigan water, wouldn't it have done so, long ago?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is the problem radium in the Waukesha water, more so than lack of water?

    ReplyDelete
  4. To Anon 4:12 - - Radium in the water can be and is being removed from Waukesha water through filtration. Other communities routinely do it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why then Waukesha's need for Lake Michigan water? Are the radium levels increasing and as a result, the costs of removing it? Do they want the water to support expansion? If the latter, would/should the rising water table level be enough to support that expansion? Or, do they envision an increase in industries that require high-capcity wells?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think Waukesha just wants to take what they think is the easy way out. Waukesha's water pollutant problems are actually complex with 1 of their biggest problems being runoff from suburban construction. In their shallow and some private wells, other pollutants such as iron, manganese and arsenic can be found. Waukesha is under a federal court order to comply with radium standards by June of 2018. So far their Water Utility Board has not done much about it except lobby the Army Corps of Engineering for about $50 mill--something James has reported on in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Waukesha wants Lake Michigan water for one reason and one reason only - for developers to make money in neighboring communities. Take the quietly discussed industrial park in the Town of Waukesha for example.

    No business is going to invest in an industrial park with well and septic and the DNR probably won't allow it.

    Take a close look at who owns land around the discussed area to pull back the curtain of the Great and Wonderful Oz.

    Based on this story, it was never about need for the City of Waukesha. It was never about radium compliance. It was all about growth in the communities in the expanded service area and screwing the citizens in the city of Waukesha.

    Awesome job Kaye LaFond, you and Circle of Blue got it right!

    ReplyDelete
  8. In accounting and auditing, this is called a material misstatement.

    Material misstatements are reported as a disclosed finding to the board of directors.

    The auditors report is required for financial rating purposes.

    ReplyDelete