Another strong op-ed vs. Waukesha's water diversion plan
I'd posted earlier today along with hearing and other information an op-ed by DNR Secretary George Meyer against the precedent-setting plan to divert Lake Michigan water to Waukesha - - and I've just seen another op-ed in opposition appearing in Waukesha media that says key data cited by Waukesha in support of its water plan is out-dated.
Remember:
If and when the Waukesha application is moved after hearings later this month by the WI DNR to the other seven Great Lakes states' governors for their reviews, the application becomes Wisconsin's, thus Walker's to defend - - the argument, the science everyone has always said must be the key determinant, the Waukesha and DNR analyses and reviews and procedures, all of it.
And the eight Great Lakes Governors' "aye" votes must be unanimous for the application's implementation/
So check out another op-ed about the application. An excerpt:
Remember:
If and when the Waukesha application is moved after hearings later this month by the WI DNR to the other seven Great Lakes states' governors for their reviews, the application becomes Wisconsin's, thus Walker's to defend - - the argument, the science everyone has always said must be the key determinant, the Waukesha and DNR analyses and reviews and procedures, all of it.
And the eight Great Lakes Governors' "aye" votes must be unanimous for the application's implementation/
So check out another op-ed about the application. An excerpt:
Waukesha's Lake Michigan Application Not Approvable
By Steve Edlund
Aug. 10, 2015
Waukesha is hinging its application on a 2005 water supply report released by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Technical Report 41, A Regional Aquifer Simulation Report:
http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/TechRep/tr-041_aquifer_simulation_model.pdf
Despite all the scientific studies performed in the aquifer simulation model, the results of these old studies are nothing more than a benchmark for regional planning. Everything we now know has changed with our past and current water supply, the deep aquifer, since 2000.
The SEWRPC aquifer study and modeling collected data over a 7 year period that ended in 2001. All the simulations that were run back then were from a time period when the deep aquifer was declining.
The deep aquifer stopped declining around 2000 and has risen...Despite the increase, the Waukesha Water Utility keeps pointing to the obsolete benchmark data by SEWRPC and continues stating that the "deep aquifer is severely depleted".
In recognition that the aquifer was rising, the WWU updated the 2010 Lake Michigan application Executive Summary, page 1 in 2013 by eliminating the statement, "The deep aquifer is declining 5 to 9 feet per year" (footnote stating that the claim was based on Waukesha Water Utility well data, which was not true).
According to the USGS current and historical data, the sandstone well depth is 1785 feet from the surface to the granite base The highest level recorded was in 1932 at 122 feet. The lowest level recorded was in June 1997 at 493 feet. The most recent data is from June 2015 with the level at 370 feet.
The live time USGS monitoring station on Baxter Street in Waukesha is viewable on the internet with all historical data including the current data not used in the SEWRPC aquifer modeling at this website:
http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/AWLSites.asp?mt=g&S=430052088133501&ncd=awl
5 comments:
This group claims that Waukesha can continue to use depleted aquifers "with no environmental impact to surrounding wetlands, surface waters or the deep groundwater aquifer."
Seems like just yesterday, the League of Conservation Voters said, "All water is connected. When groundwater is depleted, everyone – businesses, municipalities, farmers, fishermen, boaters, and more – pays the price." But apparently not in the case of Waukesha, where Meyer's coalition claims there is no impact from groundwater use.
The DNR's groundwater modeling seems a lot more plausible than those claims. It said groundwater use -- at levels well below forecasts, like the coalition is pushing for -- would damage 700 to 2,300 acres of wetlands, along with streams, lakes and aquifers. But apparently the coalition is OK with that, as long as Waukesha cannot use and then return Lake Michigan water. So much for the Compact's goal of basing decisions on science.
You just wrote the same comment 4 hours ago:
"Anonymous Bill McClenahan said...
This group claims that Waukesha can continue to use depleted aquifers "with no environmental impact to surrounding wetlands, surface waters or the deep groundwater aquifer."
Seems like just yesterday, the League of Conservation Voters said, "All water is connected. When groundwater is depleted, everyone – businesses, municipalities, farmers, fishermen, boaters, and more – pays the price." But apparently not in the case of Waukesha, where Meyer's coalition claims there is no impact from groundwater use.
The DNR's groundwater modeling seems a lot more plausible than those claims. It said groundwater use -- at levels well below forecasts, like the coalition is pushing for -- would damage 700 to 2,300 acres of wetlands, along with streams, lakes and aquifers. But apparently the coalition is OK with that, as long as Waukesha cannot use and then return Lake Michigan water. So much for the Compact's goal of basing decisions on science.
August 11, 2015 at 5:14 PM"
Bill,
The application has been submitted. Waukesha made it's case. The Waukesha Water Utility now has to listen to everyone else, including it's rate payers. Your job is over. Thank you for your service.
So it took nearly 70 years to drop the deep aquifer 371 feet, but it has risen 123 feet in 18 years despite local and regional expansion???
Bill said,
"It said groundwater use -- at levels well below forecasts, like the coalition is pushing for -- would damage 700 to 2,300 acres of wetlands, along with streams, lakes and aquifers."
Let's not confuse the issue here, Bill. You are making a statement that pertains to the expansion of shallow aquifer wells. The author of this article is referencing the deep aquifer which comprises 80% of Waukesha's water and has no bearing on wetlands, streams, lakes, and aquifers because the utility has made the case that the aquifer is protected by the shale layer.
Clearly, the science shows that Waukesha has a reasonable source of water already.
Poor Bill, applying lipstick to that pig as fast as he can slather it on . . . .
Post a Comment