Waukesha: A small town raises big questions

Overlooking Lake Michigan. Waukesha, suburb of Milwaukee, aims to divert their water supply enabling them to source their drinking water from the lake. (Photo via Rachel Kramer.)

In 1998, the Nova Group of Sault Ste. Marie received a permit to take 600 billion litres of water from Lake Superior each year and sell it overseas. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, who issued the permit, hadn’t consulted with Quebec or any of the US States before making this decision. When the public caught wind of what was happening, there was outcry on both sides of the border and the permit was eventually cancelled.

The controversy surrounding the Nova Group permit helped to initiate a cross border conversation about protecting the Great Lakes water supply. In 2001, Ontario, Quebec and 8 States* added an Annex to the Great Lakes Charter that dealt with bulk water export. Although this was a step forward the annex had numerous shortcomings and in 2005 the two Provinces and 8 States entered into a good faith agreement called the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. By 2008 legislation had been passed to make this agreement binding in both Canada and the US. 

The Sustainable Water Resources Agreement was developed in consultation with First Nations groups, US Tribes and both the US and Canadian Federal Government. With a few exceptions, it prohibits the diversion of water outside the Great Lakes basin and restricts diversions of water within the basin. 

The Agreement also addresses the question of when a community that straddles the basin will be allowed to draw water from the Lake. Once such community is Waukesha. Waukesha has high levels of radon in its water supply. The town is eager to solve the problem by piping in water from Lake Michigan and is seeking permission to to do so. Under the Agreement, diversions by straddler communities are permitted, but only if certain criteria are met. These criteria include requirements like showing that there aren’t reasonably alternatives or that the community's water needs couldn’t be met through water conservation. There is also a requirement that the water be treated and returned to the watershed after use (although leeway is allowed for the inevitable loss that occurs through evaporation, incorporation into products and other processes).

Waukesha’s application to divert water is the first to arise since the Agreement came into force in 2008. The standard applied to Waukesha will set the precedent for future applications. And there will be future applications. So while Waukesha’s proposed diversion might be but a drop in the metaphorical bucket, it’s important because it will set the course for what comes next. 

In the past, the immensity of the Great Lakes has helped us ignore their vulnerability. While it’s easy to downplay the impact of a small diversion, experts have said that human use must draw no more than 1% of the Great Lakes volume per year. With the increased evaporation rates that will come with climate change this figure might also be high. 

The takeaway here is that the handling of Waukesha’s application will have long term-consequences. The Sustainable Water Resources Agreement will only work if the criteria it establishes are properly adhered to. Various conservation organizations have already raised serious concerns about Waukesha’s application. It’s important for Ontario to take part in this process and make sure that a bad precedent isn’t set. The Canadian Environmental Law Association and 6 other individuals organization have taken the lead by writing to the Ontario government and urging it to act. Let’s hope Ontario listens. 

*The 8 States are: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.