WAUKESHA, WI—With the timeline for the Waukesha, Wisconsin water diversion application (the city wants to draw water from Lake Michigan to meet its potable water needs) winding up, the comments appear to be overwhelmingly against the proposal, from both sides of the border, with the province of Ontario also expressing concerns through its technical review of the process, found online.
A number of Manitoulin residents, organizations as well as Algoma-Manitoulin MPP Michael Mantha and Chief Isadore Day of the Chiefs of Ontario submitted comments either through the province or to the Waukesha diversion website directly.
Therese Trainor of Kagawong urged the Regional Body to “just say no!” with some of her reasoning including: “the request has inflated future water demand estimates; water will be used for localized industrial purposes; reasonable alternatives to pumping water from Lake Michigan exist; and Waukesha has done little to conserve water and its conservation plan is inadequate.”
Diane Moggy stated her comments on the website as well. “I was born and raised on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron,” she writes. “I completely oppose the diversion of water to the state of Wisconsin from Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes system is a delicately balanced eco-system that should not be tampered with, particularly when there appears to be a cost-efficient plan on the table that would avoid diverting water from Lake Michigan.”
Melissa Ferguson of Little Current joined her voice to the ‘no’ side. “I have been a resident of Manitoulin Island for almost 40 years,” she begins. “We are surrounded by fresh water which the Island is well known for. I never thought I would ever see the day that I would have to worry about our water being sold to anyone. For numerous years, our water levels were declining due to a lack of rain and winter run off, etc. which threatened not only my community but also others. The local economy here also relies on the water levels being at certain levels so that boaters may visit in the summer season. If we begin to sell our water to other places, we risk eventually not having the access to a requirement of life that was given to us. Ontario has taken drastic measures to clean up our lakes and rivers so that people can continue to enjoy this necessity why should it be given away? I am totally against allowing anyone access to our Great Lakes the impact for any surrounding area would be devastating! I quite enjoy turning on my tap and enjoying a clean glass of water.”
Ms. Ferguson’s partner Craig Collins also weighed in, stating in part, “I have also had the opportunity of having a well known waterfall on my family property. This waterfall pours into a creek that flows into Honora Bay. During the time that water levels were low, the rainbow were unable to swim up the creek to the bottom of the falls for their annual spawn, in fact many well-known spawning areas were impacted due to a lack of water. I have to really wonder what the future holds for our fish population if they have to go through another threat of decreased water levels. Currently the fish and game clubs have been working really hard to increase our fish population, but what good will that be if fish cannot get to their spawning beds? I have also witnessed the loss of Honora Bay beach, a place where I used to swim as a child, due to decreased water levels. We are finally just beginning to see the beach return. With the loss of water comes weeds on our beaches and the threat of E. coli, which makes the water very unsafe to swim in or drink. I don’t believe anyone should have to be under a water boil advisory in this area nor should families not be able to enjoy quality time at the beach on a hot summer day. A very concerned citizen.”
Ingrid Blay, proprietor of On the Bay Bed and Breakfast in Providence Bay, also voiced concerns over the threat of low water levels should the diversion proceed. “The Island experienced a huge economic scare in the spring of 2013 when Lake Huron’s water levels were at their lowest in decades,” Ms. Blay wrote. “The levels were so low that the Chi-Cheemaun (largest passenger ferry on the Great Lakes) docks had to be retrofitted in order for the ferry to safely moor, pick-up and drop off vehicles traveling to and from the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island. This retrofit helped to ensure the economic viability of those whose livelihoods depend on a reliable ferry service.”
“The ferry is a main tourist attraction and mode of transportation for visitors and residents alike,” she continued. “The tourism revenue generated during the sailing season is the main source of income to many on both the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island.”
“If Lake Huron’s water levels drop below the 2013 levels, there are great concerns that the Chi-Cheemaun ferry will not be able to navigate the waterways, decimating its vital service for that part of our province that is critical to the continued economic viability of the region,” Ms. Blay writes. “Not to mention the shipping industry which loses millions a year in lost revenues by having to run 100s of tonnes lighter in order to navigate safely through the shipping channels. Thousands of ports and marinas will be affected commercially or privately.”
“We, the board of directors and members of the NEMI (Town of Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands) Taxpayers’ Association, are totally opposed to the Municipality of Waukesha’s application to divert a daily average of 38.2 million litres of water per day from Lake Michigan, for the City’s sole use and consumption, for the following reasons,” another comment states.
“No. 1: The Great Lakes Basin and the watershed supporting it is an international reservoir of fresh water which spans the border of the United States and Canada,” the Taxpayers’ state. “As such, it is monitored and controlled by international bodies and commissions mandated to protect the rights and privileges of both countries. Those rights must not be violated by the needs of one municipality (which is not on the shore of Lake Michigan).”
“No. 2,” they continue. “The Great Lakes comprise a very delicate ecosystem which supports many endangered species which could be adversely affected by this diversion.”
“No. 3: Any such additional diversion, other than the Chicago Diversion, will in future provide legal precedent for future requests, which could be numerous,” the letter continues.
“No. 4: We believe there must exist alternate ways of solving Waukesha’s potable water supply, without infringing upon the Great Lakes and the protective policies already in place. We respectfully urge that the request of the City of Waukesha be denied.”
Chief Isadore Day of the Chiefs of Ontario writes that they have “a physical, cultural and spiritual connection to the land and water; and maintain a responsibility to protect the water. The Lake Huron and Georgian Bay watersheds and the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario watershed are the birthplaces of ancient spiritual belief systems for the Anishinabek and the Haudenosaunee, respectively. As such, any and all decisions and activities by governments affecting the homelands of the many First Nations across the basin will be of priority interest and concern. Many First Nation communities are experiencing negative social, economic, and spiritual impacts from water degradation. Indigenous peoples on both sides of the Canada-United States border have worked together to address water issues and in 2004 an agreement titled the Tribal and First Nations Great Lakes Water Accord was signed. The Water Declaration of the Anishinaabek, Mushkegowuk and Onkwehonwe, issued in 2008, was the culmination of decades of work on water issues by First Nation communities in Ontario. The Water Declaration outlines the relationship of our First Nations to waters, conditions of waters, self-determination, and rights to waters and treaties.”
As for the province itself, Jason Travers, Ontario Regional Body Designee (for the premier), of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, submitted a nine-page document for its assessment of the technical review, noting that “the Government of Ontario has identified a number of concerns relating to Wisconsin DNR’s (Department of Natural Resources) explanation of how Waukesha satisfies the ‘straddling county’ exception, specifically their interpretation ‘equivalent thereof’ in meeting the state law to delineate a boundary based on the water supply service area.”
With regards to the water supply service area, Ontario states its concerns with the “potential precedent” that would be set if the proposal were to be approved without adequate demonstration that all communities in the defined service area have met each criterion of the standard. “The Government of Ontario is also concerned with the potential precedent that may be set with Wisconsin’s interpretation that a water supply service area meets the definition of a ‘community in a straddling county,’ Mr. Travers writes. “Such an interpretation could result in significant diversion proposals coming forward in the future. It could also set a precedent for how the ‘straddling communities’ exemption is applied…”
Mr. Travers concludes by saying, “In Ontario, stakeholders, First Nation communities, as well as members of the public have expressed a number of concerns with the proposal. The concerns range from insufficient engagement, lack of public hearings to concerns regarding reasonable water supply alternatives, return flow to the Root River, and the interpretation of ‘community within a straddling county’.”
The Regional Body will next hold a face-to-face meeting on April 21 and April 22 in Chicago to go over the ‘Originating Party’s Proposed Declaration of Finding’ as posted by the Secretariat staff. A date to announce the final decision will be made at least 30 days after the April meetings.
