Waukesha, Wisconsin Plans To Draw From The Michigan Deemed A Wrong Move
The Mayor of Leamington, Ont., John Paterson was quite dismayed after a vote was taken by eight U.S governors to let a small town in Wisconsin to tap into Lake Michigan.
A proposal was made by Waukesha, Wisconsin to the other eight states which have a court order to find ways to handle the contamination situation of its groundwater well. However, the project to solve the situation will costabout $265 million Cdn. It has been prohibited in the past to divert water from the lake. Waukesha is a state made of approximately 72,000 residents that are relying on this proposal to get access to clean drinking water.
However, Mayor Patterson is not in favor of this and he took to the social media expressing his dislike on the decision taken. His town is found near the Lake Erie which has numerous greenhouses.
He claims that the decision taken by the governor was irresponsible and a very bad move. He went on to say that “This should not be allowed. I am really disappointed it happened. That was unexpected and I actually thought the governor of Michigan was going to side with us. He even bailed.”
Tapping into the Great Lakes May Raise Conflicts
As the debate still continued, the Michigan Senate was also against the proposal of Waukesha but the Governor of Michigan was in favor of the proposal.
Under the 2008 laws that prohibited states from tapping into the Lake with the exception of states that are within the boundaries, Waukesha has become the first to make use of the provision.
The governor stated that “There are a lot of emotions and politics surrounding this issue, but voting yes in co-operation with our Great Lakes neighbors is the best way to converse one of the greatest natural resources.”
In contrast to this statement, Paterson argued that if this proposal is accepted, other states will also take advantage of the situation and in the end, the Lake will get dried up.
“It is kind of a fear-mongering comment that if you open the floodgate to one city, it will go elsewhere and we won’t have any Great Lakes left but that’s the ultimate concern.”
He continued saying that he is not sure of what the future holds since the decision taken will affect other cities as well.
Should Canada sell its water?
Paterson went further to warn that if water is continued to be taken from the Lake, it will have great effects on other cities and there will not be much left of the Lake.
However, Waukesha will get to tap 31 million liters of water on a daily basis and it will reduce the number of people it gets to reach. In addition, the state will, in turn, return a fraction of the water to the Lake as treated waste water.
But this does not change the opinion of Paterson who thinks it is still a wrong move.
“The Great Lakes only has a certain volume of water. That’s what the compact was designed on, looking at the population the Great Lakes feed in both the U.S and Canada. To start opening it up to more southern areas is threatening the future of the Great Lakes.”
Return “a fraction of the water?” Dry up the lakes? The claims in the story are untrue. Waukesha will withdraw less than 1/1,000,000th of 1% of Great Lakes water and return approximately 100 percent of that amount. In addition, it will stop using wells that pull water from the Lake Michigan watershed, resulting in a net INCREASE of water in the Lake Michigan watershed. For the facts, see the approval at http://www.waukeshadiversion.org.
The Compact only allows Great Lakes water to be pumped to communities in counties that straddle the Great Lakes Basin divide and only if there is no reasonable water supply alternative. It also requires that the water be recycled back to the Lakes after use and treatment. Fears that Waukesha would set any precedent that would affect Great Lakes levels, much less dry them up, are unfounded.