Talbot.Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting 2004

Figied

Description

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting Page 1 of 29September 28, 2004MODERATOR: I have reserved the right to limit the length of statements to four minutes wehave a lot of people who have signed up for comments. So, you will be limited to four minutes and ifyou still have more to say after that time you can up after everybody has had an opportunity to speak atthe end of the meeting. In addition to the comments given you are invited and encouraged to submitwritten comments; comment sheets are available in the back of the room and there’s a box forcompleted sheets. We will forward all comments received today to the council of Great LakesGovernor’s in addition comments can be made online at the Council of Great Lakes Governor’s websiteor mailed to them directly. This information is also available on both pieces of paper at the back of thethroom. So, public comment period will run until October 18 , 2004. Mr. Todd Ambs (notunderstandable) at this time.TODD AMBS: Thanks, I have never been, my voice is such that I’ve never been accused ofnecessarily needing a microphone, if you need me to speak in a microphone I can, but it’s probably noteven necessary. Let me just start by saying I’m delighted to see this whole room, this is really greatseeing this many people turn out at the first of five public hearings, public discussions perhaps is abetter term, in Wisconsin over the next eight days. This is the first one here and on Thursday we’llhave one in the ...

Informations

• Publié par: Endroi
• Nombre de lectures: 29
• Langue: English

Extrait

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 1 of 29

MODERATOR: I have reserved the right to limit the length of statements to four minutes we have a lot of people who have signed up for comments. So, you will be limited to four minutes and if you still have more to say after that time you can up after everybody has had an opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting. In addition to the comments given you are invited and encouraged to submit written comments; comment sheets are available in the back of the room and theres a box for completed sheets. We will forward all comments received today to the council of Great Lakes Governors in addition comments can be made online at the Council of Great Lakes Governors website or mailed to them directly. This information is also available on both pieces of paper at the back of the room. So, public comment period will run until October 18th Mr. Todd Ambs (not, 2004. understandable) at this time.

TODD AMBS: Thanks, I have never been, my voice is such that Ive never been accused of necessarily needing a microphone, if you need me to speak in a microphone I can, but its probably not even necessary. Let me just start by saying Im delighted to see this whole room, this is really great seeing this many people turn out at the first of five public hearings, public discussions perhaps is a better term, in Wisconsin over the next eight days. This is the first one here and on Thursday well have one in the Green Bay area, Ashwobanon and next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in Stevens Point on Monday and Duluth in conjunction with the State of Minnesota on Tuesday and then in Ashland on Wednesday. Im very fond of other peoples words because theyre generally much more eloquent then mine and somebody once said if there is magic in this world then surely it must be contained in water. And think that those of us that are here find that magic most in the Great Lakes and in Wisconsin and the eleven hundred miles of shoreline that we have. Im a born and raised Great Lakes boy, I grew up in Michigan and I spent twelve years in Ohio and spent a great deal of time on Lake Erie and then the last ten years have been in Wisconsin so, I have a great connection, passion for the Great Lakes. This is a very exiting time, what were dealing with here today; this is a public meeting as was mentioned on behalf of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. What the Council of Great Lakes Governors has put before you all is a draft of the Great Lakes Water Management Strategy. I think its important to dwell on what were talking about here. It is a management strategy for the waters of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes Basin. The Council of Great Lakes Governors embarked on this for a number of reasons that well touch on, but I can personally tell you that Governor Doyle is very interested in this subject he actually been hoping to be here for this session as you all have been reading the papers know that hes unable to do that because hes in Japan, but he is interested both as a Great Lakes Governor, but also as a current co-chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors along with Governor Taft of Ohio. The significance of what were trying to do here cannot easily be over-stated; we are attempting to come up with a water management strategy for the largest body of fresh water on the planet. It is because of that certainly that a challenge even to get it to this stage of having a draft proposal for all of us to comment on, but one thing I think is really important to understand that part of this is certainly very much dealing with the question of should diversions of water, any water, or any quantity of water be allowed out of the Great Lakes Basin and what are the conditions under which that should be allowed. That is obviously a part of this and a significant one and one that has gotten a lot of attention. But in my view it is only a piece of the overall package and what is equally important, and I think some that are concerned about the resources of the Great Lakes might say even more important is that the other part of this agreement deals with how we manage the consumptive uses of the Great Lakes water in the basin. Fundamentally what we are talking about here, the concept behind this is a concept that says in its most elementary form that what people do with water in Milwaukee can and does have an impact on people in Quebec City and they can and should have a say in how that resource is managed and vice-versa. That is a big thing, that is a challenging thing to get our arms around, but the stakes are obviously extremely high as well, we all know what the Great Lakes mean to our quality of life. We also know what adverse affect it would have if we mis- manage that water resource in the future. So, I think understanding the comprehensive effort in developing water management strategies in the Great Lakes is important. What you have before you is

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 2 of 29

a product three plus years of intense work on behalf of some pretty smart folks and also me at the table for the eight Great Lakes States and the two provinces. One of the reasons that Im so excited about these meetings and discussions and the reason that I think all of your comments are so important is we also recognize that nobodys ever done this before and we are trying to do is a very new concept on this scale certainly and we absolutely need to have public comment, lots of it from a wide variety of perspectives on what people think of the draft proposal, how it could be improved, what you like, what you dont like, what some alternatives are because we certainly dont have all the answers and dont pretend to have all the answers in what weve put before you, but it is a very significant step forward we think. The time-line process is, the public comment period ends on October 19th, the Council of Great Lakes Governors has done two regional hearings already one in Chicago and one last week in Toronto. Each state and province are then doing there own series of public input sessions and funneling that back to the Council of Great Lakes Governors. Weve been working on this since 2001 and well reconvene in both November and December to talk about all these public comments to offer and take that in consideration and adjust the document as we think is necessary, present it to the Governors and the Premieres and we are hopeful that we will have an agreement that they will sign off on next year, hopefully toward the end of the winter or beginning of the spring. Thats the current hope and plan. Chuck will give you a lot of the detail, but suffice it to say that a great portion of this proposal that we get to that stage then still has to go, in order for it to be a binding compact (in the US certainly), still has to go through all the state legislatures, through congress, and action also has to be taken on the Canadian side of the border. So, one might ask, thats a big task, thats going to be difficult and how are you going to pull that off and why in the world would you under take it anyway? Those are all I think legitimate questions and I think as Chuck will get into one of the reasons that were embarking on this is that certainly we are concerned that the current system has some legal flaws in it particularly as it relates to diversion requests outside of the Great Lakes Basin we think that the current system is subject to legal challenge the current system also does not apply to Canada at all on the US side of the structure and it doesnt deal with consumptive use, the demand for the water within the Great Lakes Basin at all, the current system doesnt even attempt to touch on that. For all those reasons, and again well spend more time talking about all that, but that, those are some of the reasons why were here today while attempting to tackle such an admittedly large issue. So, with that, thats kind of the overview from my perspective again I think this is a daunting task, but very, very exiting one and one that I really do think the whole Great Lakes community hopefully will get engaged in and having all you is a big part of that. With that Ill turn it over to Chuck to go through a little bit, where would we be in a public meeting without a power play.

CHUCK LEDIN: Thanks Todd and I just want to go through a few things briefly here before we get started just as a way of providing some background here and were conducting this hearing on behalf of the Council of Great Lakes Governors.

(Talking Laughing  Not Understandable)

CHUCK LEDIN: In terms of the Great Lakes 20% of the surface of fresh water, we talk about the Great Lakes we dont exactly know, we cant even conceive exactly how much water it is. We can actually measure the volume of the lakes into quadrillions of gallons, numbers that are so big they have no frame of reference for us, but within that quadrillions we have shipping needs, water use needs, industrial needs, and billion dollar commercial fisheries, we have endangered species, we have subsistence fisheries, we have all sorts of interests and needs and really the definition of this whole basis is the premised on these five Great Lakes and the system that has evolved around them. Ok, next and this is the overall sense and coupled with the next slide it gives a little basis on how each of the eight Great Lake States has a little bit of a different stake in each of the Great Lakes from almost a hundred percent being in the basin for the State of Michigan to a very small percentage of the states from Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, again its a pretty important feature that all the states are coming

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 3 of 29

together with the Canadian Providences to try to get a common protocol, a common process in place to manage these resources consistently across this very large basin. In Wisconsin our basin boundaries show that we have a varied amount of the state from five miles approximately down in the Kenosha area to when we get over to Portage were over a hundred miles so, the length that runs the basin is very varied in the State of Wisconsin. Historically what we had was the boundary water treaty to originally provide a vehicle for managing these resources between Canada and the United States and in 1985 as a result of discussions among all the parties an agreement was signed by the ten jurisdictions to say that you know, we really need to look at regional decisions on the Great Lakes, we need to blur our jurisdictional lines and we need to have a common interest and come together in a forum where we can talk about different issues. Some of this was caused by some rumors about different coal slurry pipelines from Wyoming and different ideas about providing the water of the Great Lakes to people outside of the Great Lakes Basin, that really prompted this discussion. Then in 1986 in what appeared to be an attempt to institutionalize the Great Lakes charter in Federal Legislation a process was actually set up that the Governors had to decide on any water diversion out of the basin and all Governors had to be in accord before any diversion could be approved. It also prohibited the core of engineers to do any kind of studies to divert water without the consent of all the Great Lakes Governors. However, in the 90s a company came into Lake Superior with a proposal to take a large ocean going tanker, fill it with water, take it to Asia in a bottle water project and the great system that everyone thought we had in place was found to have some loop holes. Ontario actually approved this and caused a great regional furor with federal government intervention the Canadian Government actually forced Ontario to reject the approval, but out of that everyone said that the system that we have isnt quite good enough to deal with these kinds of issues. So, the Governors and the Premiers got together and in 2001 came up with the Annex 2001 agreement and they said you have to have several principles in place when we want to talk about Great Lakes management and we need to develop a system thats better than the one we have right now. So, you can see the principles that are there basically and under that Annex agreement the Governors and Premiers charged themselves with three years to develop a more detailed process. Again, these are the goals of the Annex, I wont spend a lot of time reading them. So, out of the process, this three year period, through the Council of Great Lakes Governors the ten jurisdictions were brought together, there was a group of observers, there was an advisory committee that especially took place with the intent of coming forward with a proposal in 2004 that would really build the agreement of 2001 to develop a new system. Out of that there were some key things that were brought in and they were brought forward in this proposal trying to overcome what weaknesses had been identified in the Water Resources Development Act. Legal analysis were done as part of this process which gave the advice that the simple Governor veto authority when it was unsupported by any kind of technical criteria or technical standards would be transferred into a political decision rather than a resource based decision so one of the first key components out of this process was to try to develop the framework where it would be a resource based decision making of common standards. Also, in the consumptive use, that was a new area to be brought into this and the attempts were made to not only say we have to have this set of standards, but we have to have some reasonable time of regional decision making so that for certain size projects or a certain level of workload that is associated with them we need to all come together and have discussions and decide whether we want them to move forward or not move forward on a regional basis. The thresholds that have been established have not been established on any kind of environmental significance, but rather as a means of saying that some projects are small enough intuitively without an impact that those can be done at the jurisdictional level; other projects which are at a greater level of impact need to be done at a regional discussion. The thresholds are not based on the significant standpoint on the environment as much as the means of trying to distinguish between the little projects and big projects right now. For diversions the same kinds of discussions took place, consumptive use as you saw, theres a five million gallon consumptive use which is evaporative laws, water in a project or product things like that where the diversion is any water that goes out of the basin, anytime it crosses the basin line even if it comes back its still a diversion. So, down in the Southeast part of Wisconsin, farther south then here, where the basin is

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 4 of 29

very close, water that goes to service in Pleasant Prairie has to cross the basin divide whereas in Portage, conceivably water could go all the way to Portage and back again before it was a diversion. The thresholds there are one million gallons are proposed on the diversion, five million gallons under consumptive use. These are the results that we hope to obtain out of this new framework process once theres been an adequate public consultation and a lot of discussion on the points that we still need to go over. We hope to have the framework in place that would allow us all to look at projects in similar ways with similar standards, we will all adopt state laws and rules that will support this, those rules will allow the states to create this compact commission as a formal group to look at regional decisions. That process will be endorsed by Congress, given the necessary federal support and a counterpart organization will be created between the eight states and the two provinces to bring in the international management needs of the Great Lakes. Im not going to go over this slide right now just to point out theres a handout on the front table if anyone would like it and it compares whats in existing state rules and standards to some of the proposed ones that are in the framework right. Many of the concepts are already embodied in Wisconsins State Rules its one of the only states to really adopt the principles of the Great Lakes Charter from 1985 and put them into state law and standards. The thresholds would have to be changed and some of the process would have to be changed as it stands right now. So, again these are draft documents, were looking for a lot of help, were looking for a lot of comments and hope out of these next two weeks we get a lot of good ideas to help this process move forward. Your comments will be advanced to the Council of Great Lakes Governors. Well be summarizing those comments and in mid-November the ten jurisdictions will be getting together to look over the types of comments that have been received by all the parties in the hearings in addition to the two that were in Chicago and Toronto. Again, if anyone would like to contact the council this is some of the contact information and Im sure its also in the handouts. So, thank you and with that well go to the public comments. (Not Understandable  away from microphone) CHUCK: The first question that we have is: Who will be responsible for enforcing the Great Lakes sustainable water resources if it passes and what are the consequences for those who break the agreement or agree to return water to the basin and then do not? It would be set up so first of all in order to get through the contact process each state would have to pass state laws and rules which are enforceable at the state level. Secondly the compact with eight jurisdiction ruling is proposed to have enforcement responsibilities, enforcement authorities and would have the ability to take action against one of the jurisdictions that was not fulfilling the commitment that it made as part of the compact process. Theres two levels of enforcement that will be possible and at the state level for sure that also includes opportunities for citizen intervention and third party intervention. So does that answer that question? CHUCK: The question is: Will there be a similar compact in regards to water quality from rivers and groundwater entering and within the basin? Right now under the federal clean water act at least on the surface water standard side all of the Great Lakes States had to adopt a consistent water quality standards and ekland(?) limit procedures under what was called the, now I cant remember what it was called, but it was required as part of the federal law that common water qualities standard and informative programs be developed, that was done in the 1990s and Wisconsin adopted the standards the other states have and have implemented those in permits and are still implementing those in permits. On the ground water side its a little bit different that waters covered independently at the state level from the federal law and while the drinking standards are regulated for ground water supplies there are not ambient ground water standards in every state and Wisconsin is one of the few states that actually do have ambient ground water standards where discharges to ground water are required to protect those standards. Right now there are programs in place consistent on the surface water side and state by state on the ground water side.

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 5 of 29

TODD: I let Chuck have all the tough ones and I took the easy ones this one is actually not all that easy and its an important one and Id be happy to give you at least some contacts. The question as written here is: It was stated that one question the Great Lakes Governors Council asked was should water be diverted from the Great Lakes Basin? Based on the amount of work done guidelines for diversion hasnt that question already been answered? I think what the framework of the question is if you will is really more on the diversion side of the ledger if you will remembering we have this consumptive use piece of the proposal as well the question is Can we come up with a standard for diversions that both has some factual ecologically based guidelines for those diversion requests and frankly also needs legal muster? I think thats a critical piece here even if we could all sit in this room today and say there should never be a drop of water allowed out of the Great Lakes Basin the concern is that the way the water resources development act is currently worded it basically says if your going to take even a drop of water you can do that only if all eight of the Great Lakes Governors say yes  , but there standard for saying no is whatever they want it to be and there is a great deal of concern that if that was challenged, that it would not standard up to a constitutional challenge either under interstate commerce clause or perhaps under equal protection argument. In addition to that even if you could rectify those issues in the eight Great Lake states it still does nothing, since its a US law, in terms of what could or could not be done in Ontario and Quebec. So, the framework of the discussion as it relates to diversion is trying to come up with a legally defensible and also environmentally based standard for looking at diversion requests, but again thats only part of the package its also dealing with consumptive use within the basin as well.

TODD: Look through those while I try to take a stab at this one. Would the Governors consider using the regional ground water divide rather than surface water divides to define the Great Lakes Basin? And the questioner here notes that they are not the same the ground water divide is ten miles further west in Waukesha County. These sorts of comments are ones that are certainly, thats why were having these sorts of meetings and you should certain feel free to comment as you see fit. I will tell you that in the current draft proposal uses the surface water divides as the mechanism for defining what is the Great Lakes Basin? Part of the reason for doing that quite frankly is in a lot of parts of the Great Lakes Basin we have no clue where the ground water divide is. The research hasnt been done and is not likely to be done anytime soon to figure that out so, when faced with, while it is true that in some parts of the basin there has been that research done and you might know where the ground water divide is, if we couldnt apply that consistently across the basin did it make sense to have a ground water divide in one area and a surface water divide in another. In addition as many of you know that in lots of parts of the Great Lakes Basin and certainly where we are sitting is no exception to that youve got deep aquifers, youve got shallow aquifers, which one of those is the actual divide. So, those were some of the considerations that went into at least to this draft proposal the decision to go with the surface water divide, but certainly folks that wish to suggest some other alternatives or approaches, thats one of the reasons were doing these meetings.

CHUCK: The question was: How will the new standards interface with the international joint commission? The international joint commission really doesnt have a role in these kinds of decisions that were talking about right now. The international joint commission has adopted more of a quality approach in their water quality agreement and they also have some water level management responsibility under the treaty for, as an example, the level of, what happens at the Sault locks at Sault St. Marie and at the locks and damns further down the river, but they are not really involved in having a role in a new water use when a water utility or from an industry or those kinds of things. There will be discussions with the international joint commission as we go on just as there have been today with some of the legal reviews that have been there, but they really dont have a role in this process under their jurisdiction.

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 6 of 29

TODD: This one deals with a question relative to Wisconsin Law: In understanding the relationship between ground water and surface water is fundamental sound water resource management, yet Wisconsins laws are extremely weak in acknowledging that relationship, what efforts are underway to strengthen Wisconsins laws that municipal ground water withdrawals are allowed only when their effects on surface waters and private wells are given serious consideration? Im happy to report that weve made process on this front in Wisconsin this year. There was a new law passed and signed by the Governor on Earth Day, April 22ndof this year and I think everybody acknowledged it was an important piece of legislation, but it was also just a first step, a significant first step on us getting a better handle on how to manage our ground water resources in Wisconsin. The new legislation does recognize that relationship, it extends the review on the large well withdrawals, high-capacity well withdrawals on certain types of locations. In a nut shell what it says is if youd like to get an approval for a new high-capacity well and youre within twelve hundred feet of outstanding resource water, exceptional resource water or a trout stream in Wisconsin that makes up about 13% of the water bodies of the state then there is a higher level of review which the department can undertake to make sure that well doesnt have an adverse impact on those water bodies. In addition, if its going to be near a large spring or if the water is withdrawn and virtually 95% of it is going to be removed from the basin we can look at that. In addition, it sets up a process for identifying some ground water management regimes in areas where we have big draw-downs of ground water and the Waukesha/Milwaukee areas identified as well as Brown County. Ill have to leave it there, but if folks want to hear more about what were doing with the law in Wisconsin Id be happy to talk to you more after the meetings over. CHUCK: The question was: Is it correct that laws governing commerce and fair competition in the market place would allow any business in or out of the Great Lakes Basin to take and not return water to the Basin? We dont know the answer to that because its never gone to a court decision, thats what we believe based on the legal analysis we have to date. The example of the NOVA group that brought the tanker into Lake Superior proved to us that what we thought was working on the US side in the Water Resources Development Act had no applicability to Canada at all and so it was a clear at least from an international standpoint there was no system in place to prevent that. The concerns have been that absent any kind of a process thats based on protecting the needs within the basin that were very vulnerable to any type of a project municipal, industrial, or any other kind that could come forward to take water out of the Great Lakes Basin. So, we believe that by putting a system together that is based on assessing ecological needs, alternatives, the reasonableness of the project and the requirement that there be a return flow of any diversion request that having these standards in place will be sufficient to protect the Great Lakes from those kind of long distance diversion requests where there would be an anticipation that they could not return, not have to return the flows to the lake. Again just the economics, the farther you get away from the lake if theres a return flow requirement its going to be double the cost of the project for the intake line and the return line. So, yeah we believe that because the standards would apply both within the areas and external that we have a common set of protocols that would be protective and would meet the case law decisions on this interstate commerce.

TODD: With Waukesha County diversion issues being discussed but of all the small communities, village, town and townships request individual diversion and under the cost and hardship clauses they would not be required to return treated waste water back to the Great Lakes Basin thus circumventing the intent of the drafts. Right now the only exception we have for not returning the flow, not having return flow is if its less then 250,000 gallons a day. Thats about 2,500 people, somewhere around there so, the idea was that for some small communities that are outside the basin where the basin is very close where the cost of the return flow just may not be reasonable, but the other parts of the process would still have to be in place. There would have to be a need, there would have to be no reasonable alternatives so, the exemption for this 250,000 within 12 miles of the basin divide is just right now in the proposal. It could work that that could happen, but its unlikely that there would be any kind of reasonable, its unlikely that would happen because on the waster water side

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 7 of 29

the other part is within Wisconsin rules is that when service evaluations are done for waster water it has to be a cost effective determination over the entire 20 year planning area. If it would mean that joint kind of service would be the most cost effective in which typically happens because the economys a scale the plans would have to come back together with a waste water treatment so its unlikely there could be a whole series of sequenced under the threshold projects that would escape the rule.

MODERATOR: This next portion of the meeting is public comment. Im going to call your name, youre going to go to the microphone there, youre going to state your name, address and if you represent anybody who that is. And again please keep your comments to four minutes or less we have a lot of people. Mayor Becker, Ted Wysocki will be the next person.

MAYOR BECKER: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and Im one of the few politicians I know that have no problem keeping gravity in their remarks. So, the four minutes you dont even have to look at your watch. As I said Im Gary Becker I live at 3020 Chatman Street in Racine, Mayor of Racine, Chairman of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Commission and on the steering committee for the Great Lakes Cities Initiative based out of Chicago. Today my comments represent my personal views in the position of the City of Racine. The Great Lakes as we all know represent a huge portion of the fresh water supply and its a resource that certainly deserves the most serious consideration. If I was confident that we could maintain the status quo with no diversion that would be my preference however, with the changing political dynamics and the potential for court cases this may be just wishful thinking. In this context a proactive approach is needed. An approach that will safe guard our most valuable resource any agreement should do all it can to encourage development and enhance water usage within the basin realizing that this is not 100% doable we need to have in place the sound system to manage the waters. Theres no doubt in my mind that no matter what decision is made there will be many that are unhappy and will feel that were putting our eco-system at risk. I feel it is our responsibility to come up with a management plan that protects the lakes and deals realistically with the issues in the compact. I will lift part of my comments here from the draft from GLCI one of the issues is a flaw in the compact is the 5 million gallons per day for consumptive uses for combined consumptive uses and diversions is just not justified. The level should be the same for any diversion as the impact on the water shed and lake levels is the same regardless of what the water was used for. Another concern is the basis for reviews may be too subjective. All efforts need to be made to tighten up the information on intent, applications and criteria. Also, a nation-wide recording of all decisions must be scrupulously maintained so that all decisions are known throughout the basin. It is important to have a review of compliance with the standards to monitor how the effects that the withdrawal is having on the resource. A form of monitoring needs to be part of the application and approval process on the front end not the backend. Having this in place will help to evaluate the cumulative impacts which are an important part of this agreement. Close scrutiny needs to be given to any withdrawal from one source in the basin with a return to another. In addition, it is a great concern to me that there is a system in place to monitor not only the amount of water being returned to the basin, but the quality of that water thats being returned to the basin. The requirement of a conservation plan basically falls into the no brainer category. Id also like to see the opportunity for a municipality inside the basin, like Racine, to be able to be part of a conservation plan of someone seeking a withdrawal. The reality is that those of us that sit on the shores of the Great Lakes have little incentive to conserve, we have plenty of water. If a plan can be developed that helps the basin city to conserve this may be a credit to those seeking the withdrawal. The agreement calls for the compliance of all state, provincial and federal laws again I can find no reason that local laws are not included in this section. I can assure you that I, the City of Racine, and the Great Lakes Cities Initiative look forward to working with the States and Provinces to make sure that theres a full, effective and efficient implementation of this historic agreement and compact thats so critical to our area. Thank you very much.

(End Side A  Tape 1)

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 8 of 29

(Beginning Side B  Tape 1) TED WYSOCKI: 2850 South Ackerdale Rd. and I am the Mayor of the City of New Berlin, Wisconsin. I am pleased to be here today to offer my support of the efforts to manage and protect the waters of the Great Lakes and the surrounding areas. Upon review of the proposed agreement and compact there are a number of items that I believe are of particular importance. These items are important not only to my community which is partially within the Great Lakes Basin, but also important to the fair and responsible allocation of the Great Lakes resources. First and foremost New Berlin strongly supports allowing communities that are split due to the location of a particular geological feature such as the sub-continental divide that theyre therefore partially in and partially out of the Great Lakes Basin to be considered entirely in the Great Lakes Basin. This would be true under the proposed rules if the community obtains its water supply from the Great Lakes Basin and in-turn returns the water to the basin. For these unique situations this clause in the rules will avoid unnecessary and time consuming review by proven authorities that we believe is not needed. It also recognizes that these types of communities are not a threat to the resources of the Great Lakes as the already have return flow. The proposed rule also recognizes ground water as waters of the basin for the first time. We also support this change. In our environment people speak of ground and surface water as two separate entities; in reality there is only water. Water flows between the surface and the ground fairly freely; the proposed rules recognize this connection and in cases where science is available allow for even further definition of the extent of this inner connection and potential adjustment to the basin boundary. Areas that have good science should be allowed to manage both ground and surface water resources as one and better protect both resources. We recommend that the approval process be based on a simple majority vote. This procedure places more emphasis on science than the politics of the issue. We do recommend further review and support changes as written in two specific areas. First, we believe there should be time limits on review and response from the viewing states and provinces. Without these proposals critical to municipalities can be unduly delayed and very costly. By placing limits on review times municipalities can perform proper planning of resources available and evaluate their need to look for alternatives. Second, the proposed rules appear to treat consumptive use in a more lenient way than a diversion that may be needed to provide safe drinking water to communities. We respectfully question is this in the best interest of communities partially in or even near the basin. We believe the health, welfare and livelihood of the residents in this area must be treated equally or better then the interests of industry or others seeking to consume water. We asked that this issue be reviewed more fully prior to proposing a final agreement and compact. In closing, I applaud the efforts of all involved in seeking to protect the waters of the Great Lakes by seeking to implement a fair and equitable program to review requests for use of this water. My comments were directed at this goal while remembering the needs of my community. We need to work together to ensure that the environment, the economies and quality of life in the Great Lakes area is preserved and protected for this and future generations and this proposal goes a long way to achieving that goal. Thank you very much. (Applause) JEFF SCHOEPKE: Thank you, my name is Jeff Schoepke, Im with Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce we are in Madison, Wisconsin. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments tonight and first I will say that the Great Lakes Governors are to be commended on the effort that they have put into this matter and that we share the interest of the Governors in protecting the water quality and quantity of the Great Lakes. We also agree with the Governors that control of this resource should be retained within the basin. That being said unfortunately we believe the draft charter annex implementing agreements are fraught with problems and need some significant revisions. The agreement in the compact we believe goes well beyond what is necessary to prevent the type of large scale diversion that we would all oppose. At the same time they create a bureaucratic morass and an unreasonable standard for review that will track not just large scale diversions, but also some

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 9 of 29

everyday uses. I will try to keep my comments brief and we will provide additional written comments at a later date. Our first concern is that the process for regional review within the implementing agreements is general and workable. It is simply not reasonable, in our opinion, to require approval of all states in the Great Lakes for new withdrawal projects. Such approvals in the past have proven incredibly burdensome and provided little in terms of environmental protection. The appropriate type of regional review, of course, depends greatly on what type of activity is under review. However, no project should be required to receive a unanimous vote of eight states and two Canadian provinces in order to move forward. One alternative to regional review that folks might consider would be review and approval of state water withdrawal programs instead of individual projects. That is states would submit their programs for review and approval of the compact commission, but then decisions on individual projects would still be made by the state. This idea of course would need additional thought and development, but we believe the concept merits consideration. Second major concern is we believe the decision standards are overly broad. Each new high capacity well within the basin must convince regulators that a project has no significant adverse environmental impact and no cumulative effects which unfortunately are not defined by the agreements. The standards also include avoidance and reasonable quantity provisions which are left at the whim of regulators. A particular concern is the now infamous improvement standard. I think its safe to say that theres no two people in this room that would have the same definition of improvement. The Governors had promised that they would define the term in the implementing agreements; unfortunately they have not done so. We believe that this provides opportunity for mischief by other states wishing to get involved in other states economic development projects not to mention third parties which are willing to litigate their definition of improvement. Finally, on the issue of the decision standard we believe the thresholds for review should be increased. The current threshold of minimums level of 5 million gallons per day has worked well and should not be lowered to a million gallons per day as under the proposed agreement. We have some significant concerns about jurisdictional review of smaller projects as well. A standard similar to that with one major exception that is to be applied to large scale diversions would be applied to smaller projects within the basin at a state level. Unfortunately we think this flies in the face of the ground water legislation we passed last year. A lot of the concepts that are in the standard as proposed by the Governors were discussed and debated and dismissed by the state legislature last year. So, in closing I would note the last major concern that Wisconsin Business Committee has is protection of existing uses. We believe it is the intent of the Governors to protect those existing uses to allow those folks that have access to water now to continue having access, but there are some areas that need clarification. So, with that Ill end my comments and I will provide additional detailed comments at a later date. Thanks.

WILLIE HINES: Good evening, Im Willie Hines, President of the City Council, City of Milwaukee. Let me thank you for coming and giving us the opportunity to address you. The City of Milwaukee Common Council has some concerns regarding conservation and diversion of Great Lake water. We would ask that you proceed with caution and please do be mindful of the many issues that must be considered, confronted and resolved before selling Great Lake water. We must work collectively to ensure that solutions are thoroughly exhausted and that the answer to one communities challenge does not create multiple rippling problems for us all. This item has been a passion of one of my colleagues Alderman Mike Murphy whos here tonight behind me and he will speak specifically to the resolution adopted by the City of Milwaukee Common Council. As you deliberate I ask that you take the City of Milwaukees Common Council concerns into consideration. Once again thank you for coming.

(Applause) MICHAEL MURPHY: Good evening and welcome to Milwaukee. My name is Michael Murphy Im Alderman of the City Council. My address is 463 North Story Parkway. Im representing the City Council and also the Mayor this evening concerning a resolution that was passed by the

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 10 of 29

Common Council in a September 23rdmeeting. I wont read it all, but Ill read the provisions that I think go directly to the issue this evening. Whereas, since the signing of the Annex the Governors premier staff have been developing agreements to create a management process for regulating water diversions and withdrawals from the Great Lakes Basin. Whereas, the City of Milwaukees encouraged that the Governors and Premiers have collaborated to produce this draft agreement, to guide the management of the worlds largest fresh water ecosystem. Its resolved that the Common Council of the City of Milwaukee that the City of Milwaukee express its support for the overall goals of the Annex to protect and improve the Great Lakes system. Further resolved that the City of Milwaukee urges the Great Lake states and province to consider the following: 1. Develop and commit to water conservation that would be met by the implementation of environmentally and economically sound water conservation measures. 2. Develop and commit to measures that encourage and facilitate environmental economic growth. 3. Minimize any auto(?) diversion or export of water from the Great Lakes Basin. 4. Minimize residential, industrial and commercial sprawl and the accompanying air and water pollution. 5. Require that any water diversion requests include an analysis on the impact of such diversion on land use, transportation and economic development now comprehensive planning including conservation programs can mitigate any negative effects. And finally; 6. Require that any community which seeks water from the Great Lakes adopt a water conservation plan; a smart growth comprehensive plan, but as well as a comprehensive housing strategy that provides affordable housing opportunities. This was passed unanimously by the full common council and the mayor is intending to sign this today. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

EDWARD MUELLER: To the Honorable Council of Great Lakes Governors first of all I must say your website is very well organized. I enjoyed reading the comments from the public. I was also surprised that this guy from Texas said, Why should we give you oil and gas if you dont give us water? Raw materials, raw materials, raw materials, the key to surviving in the 21stCentury is closely related to who controls these precious items. Todays conference is related to allocation of water or water uses it is a holder of our non-renewal resources who determines the worlds destiny. It is the oil, gas, iron, or aluminum, platinum or other precious minerals that will be sought after by every nation including those with huge populations like China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Europe and Russia. Now to the topic of the day; these Great Lakes belong to no one according to our Easter Riparian Doctrine. The water may be used, but such use must not be detrimental to others who may want to use the water. That makes our task easier than if we had the western doctrine of water law. It would also be nice if we were in the year of 1986 when the Great Lakes were at their highest level, but this condition unfortunately does not exist in the year of 2004. Before any more of the waters of the Great Lakes are allocated we should do some research to find out who the present water users are, what amounts they use, the sources of the Great Lakes water, priorities for water, what percentage is returned to the Great Lakes, changes in use, and a variety of issues related to evaporation, ground water recharge, precipitation and so on. It might also be nice if we had a one man water commissioner, like a good king, who could allocate future amounts of water without any dissent, but it wont be that easy. It will take research, cooperation, sharing, respect for other users, and maybe even some unselfish thinking; something we havent been too good at. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present these views on these magnificent Great Lakes. I really think theyre great.

(Applause)

BRUCE PEACOCK: Hello, my name is Bruce Peacock. I live in Burlington and Im going to speak primarily from perspective of some property that my wife grew up on, on the shoreline of Green Bay in Marinette about 33 years. Weve been up the 33 years and seen low levels, high levels and low levels again. I have eight concerns. 1. When we go in and try to change, I guess I want to say that even though the water levels are low now and I understand that were at a low level, if the water is

Milwaukee Public Comment Meeting September 28, 2004

Page 11 of 29

removed that were down a few inches or further over the next three decades; what you see now with water levels being down is a microcosm of the problems that well see in the future. 1. Up in Marinette where shipping tolerances are very low theyve had problems when they went to dredge out the harbor number one, dredge overturns, shipping canals blocked, all kinds of finances to pay for that, when the shipping canals run close together they run into the bridge, the bridge is closed down for repairs on that. When they dredge out harbors, even here in Milwaukee, theres been studies done that show that actually increases the toxins in the water column from stirring up the sediments. 2. Water in the shallow parts of the bay dropped up there, from our property you can walk literally a half of mile into Green Bay and not get your chin wet. A half a mile out and because that water is only 24, 36, 48 inches deep most of the time a further drop from which we see is exotic species especially purple blue stripe and fragmanties(?) and advancing 5 and 10 yards every year. So, what you have is a loss of biodiversity when the fragmanties(?) get so thick that the arrowhead and pickerel weed and all the native plants that normally would grow can no longer grow their because theyre choked out and then the wildlife leaves too. We used to have eagles sit in the trees outside of our house; they no longer sit there because they have to look through a long distance of fragmanties(?) out there. The Egrets no longer come into that thick brush. What we did this summer is I took a handsaw and cleared a little path out so we could get canoes and things out there and that same day Egrets are coming in and landing in that little spot that I cleared. #4 oh, Ill skip a couple here, 5. There are lots of ways to conserve water first, #1  retrofit. The City of Burlington where I live about 10 or 12 years ago the city undertook a program where they literally came to your house and if you wanted them to replace them showerheads, sink faucets, bathroom faucets and did it for free because they understood the value of ground water and did all that. I suppose a few bucks were tacked on to our water bill since then, but still is a program that saved our city lots of water. I went online, theres lots of other states that have these problems for a while, New Mexico, California, Texas, Florida all have water shortages. If you look at the conservation measures they have in place such as retrofitting schools, hospitals, study after study will tell you that they saved 25-30% water usage simply by retrofitting, going to non-water urinals, you can still use things like that or reducing the flow from 5 gallons per minute showerheads to 3 or 2 gallon per minute showerheads. Consider landscaping, how many water fountains do you see going all the time or where if it was landscaped correctly youd have a lot more perennial plants that do not require those amounts of water. And this should be in the school curriculums too, Ive been a teach for the last 15 years, actually 18 now, but for the last 15 Ive doing water studies and sending the kids home so, theyre learning about that. That should be a requirement in the schools to really learn about this, this is an important things, they need to be learning about this in all the school classrooms. Property values are going to drop for all those people that live up north and yet do you think their taxes are going to be released if those economically depressed areas up north along the shoreline can no longer, the tax is on boundary, yet the property is going to be worth a lot less. And finally, two things Id invite you to do is look at the amount of water thats already coming out of the Great Lakes. If you go down to, over in Michigan where theres new bottled water plants and if you go to take a drive down that divide and if youre in Waukesha and places this is a drop in a bucket, but when you start talking about going around parts of Chicago and looking to the west of how much water and how many tens of millions of gallons your talking about there. Thank you.

(Applause)

CAMERON DAVIS: Good evening, my name is Cameron Davis; Im the Executive Director of the Lake Michigan Federation. I had the honor of serving on the advisory committee in this process so; I have some history with this issue. Im even more honored though having grown up next to Lake Michigan, just a few blocks away from it and I remember as a boy when we used to take picnics down at the shoreline looking out over the lake and thinking how it just goes on forever and ever and ever. Today we know better, the Great Lakes dont go on forever. Theyre not infinite; they are exhaustible; in fact some of the research is showing that less than 1% are renewed every year through rain, through