The situation became even steamier this past week as attorneys for the Waukesha Water Utility asserted in a letter that the city really does not need to apply for approval for access to Lake Michigan water.
Citing a similar case in an Indiana town, the utility argues Waukesha does not need to qualify as a new diversion of water from the lake under a federal law passed in 1986 because the aquifer under the city serves as a ground water tributary to Lake Michigan.
The utility is seeking a long-term supply to replace its use of the deep, underground aquifer; that reservoir has been determined as having too much radium content, through recent tests by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waukesha is supposed to meet the federal radium standard by Dec. 8. But Waukesha officials have indicated the city won't make it on time. If the city fails to meet the compliance deadline, it could be fined $5,000 a day.
Some of that impending battle came to the surface Wednesday as the special legislative committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact met to review the compact.
The Waukesha Water Utility presented a letter on its contention. And a letter from the Waukesha County chamber of commerce was discussed. That letter includes a resolution asking the state Legislature "not to approve any Great Lakes Compact that places the authority for granting or denying water diversions for Waukesha County in the hands of another state or country."
Under the terms of the proposed compact, a leader from the two provinces in Canada or the eight U.S. states would be able to have a kind of veto power over proposed Great lakes water diversions as large as Waukesha's.
Waukesha is likely to seek between 10 million and 20 million gallons per day from Lake Michigan to provide it with an adequate water supply.
In the meantime, work continues on installation of two new shallow wells and other improvements to get the city in compliance. And Waukesha leaders have continued to mull options, including placing wide-ranging conservation measures in effect.
The city has also already received $2.25 million in federal funds to help it meet the EPA's requirements.
Citing a similar case in an Indiana town, the utility argues Waukesha does not need to qualify as a new diversion of water from the lake under a federal law passed in 1986 because the aquifer under the city serves as a ground water tributary to Lake Michigan.
The utility is seeking a long-term supply to replace its use of the deep, underground aquifer; that reservoir has been determined as having too much radium content, through recent tests by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waukesha is supposed to meet the federal radium standard by Dec. 8. But Waukesha officials have indicated the city won't make it on time. If the city fails to meet the compliance deadline, it could be fined $5,000 a day.
Some of that impending battle came to the surface Wednesday as the special legislative committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact met to review the compact.
The Waukesha Water Utility presented a letter on its contention. And a letter from the Waukesha County chamber of commerce was discussed. That letter includes a resolution asking the state Legislature "not to approve any Great Lakes Compact that places the authority for granting or denying water diversions for Waukesha County in the hands of another state or country."
Under the terms of the proposed compact, a leader from the two provinces in Canada or the eight U.S. states would be able to have a kind of veto power over proposed Great lakes water diversions as large as Waukesha's.
Waukesha is likely to seek between 10 million and 20 million gallons per day from Lake Michigan to provide it with an adequate water supply.
In the meantime, work continues on installation of two new shallow wells and other improvements to get the city in compliance. And Waukesha leaders have continued to mull options, including placing wide-ranging conservation measures in effect.
The city has also already received $2.25 million in federal funds to help it meet the EPA's requirements.
