{image1}The city of Waukesha, closed off from tapping Lake Michigan water because it is outside the Great Lakes basin, saw some hope recently in its fight to access Lake Michigan.

That's because the Great Lakes governors, along with their counterparts in Ontario and Quebec, on July 19 announced long-awaited proposed rule changes that govern withdrawals from the Great Lakes.

The proposed changes suggest that thirsty cities just outside the Great Lakes basin, of which Waukesha is considered a prime example, could, under some circumstances, win the approvals of the 10 chief executives to pipe in water.

That's what Waukesha wanted to hear, because that fast-growing city's aquifer has dropped significantly the last few decades, and some remaining deep-well water is naturally contaminated with radium. Cleaning the water to federal standards or digging new wells are expensive alternatives to a Lake Michigan supply.

Being so close, but legally barred under current international rules by taking water across the sub-continental divide at Sunny Slope Road, has long frustrated Waukesha.

Waukesha has had to watch as Milwaukee and other lakefront cities have been able to open their spigots. And some suburbs within the Great Lakes basin, like Menomonee Falls, and even a portion of New Berlin, are allowed to contract with Milwaukee to provide their residents, businesses and developers with water from the big lake.

But a close reading of the fine print in the proposed rule changes -- and final adoption, including by each state, and province, and the U.S. Congress, is many problematic years away -- shows that a Waukesha pipeline has substantial hurdles before it opens.

But if Waukesha were to successfully meet these changed standards, the Great Lakes could be maintained and the Great Lakes basin could be improved. And that would be good for the lakes; after all, this was the goal of the 10 governors and premiers who took three years to hash out the changes. The lakes are basic to the states, their economies, and every single person's quality of life across the basin.

That's because the Great Lakes contain 20 percent of the world's supply of the planet's fresh water and only one percent of the Lakes' volume is replenished annually with rainfall.

That means that it is crucial -- the proposed rule changes say it is non-negotiable -- that water removed for diverted from the Great Lakes (minus what is consumed), be returned.

A warming climate is going to lower Great Lakes' levels. Most scientists are in agreement on that. And demands for Great Lakes water -- by homeowners, businesses, vacationers, utilities and the like -- are putting greater demands on the lakes, too. Most economists and demographers agree on that, too.

That is why the proposed rule changes, for the first time, say unequivocally that water conservation will be a pre-requisite to any new large withdrawal or diversion request from the Great Lakes. Waukesha's 20-million-per-day goal would be covered by this "conservation-first" principle.

The proposed changes require that an applicant like Waukesha also demonstrates: that it cannot meet its diversion or withdrawal needs through conservation and other efficiencies; that its current practices minimize the volume of its request; that it is committed to making improvements to the overall watershed; and that communities seeking water diversions or withdrawals guarantee replacement of the water removed. The latter requirement would mean Waukesha would have to send back to the lake its wastewater for treatment. That is another major expense and one which Waukesha has, in the past, said it might find too costly, but it underscores this fact:

Everywhere you look in these proposed changes, water conservation -- not new usage -- is the watchword, the intent and the goal.

If Waukesha were to meet these criteria it would become the most water conservation-minded municipality in the state. Such a commitment would logically lead to further conservation steps in land use. Development patterns would change. Waukesha would become Wisconsin's model Smart Growth city -- and again, that would be a good thing for Waukesha, the near-region, and the Great Lakes region, too.

Past sentiment has run contrary in Milwaukee to a water diversion for Waukesha because Milwaukee has believed that Lake Michigan water piped across the sub-continental divide would set off fresh sprawl and job growth away from the big city on the lake.

Mayor Tom Barrett has said he might be open to a diversion -- if it also included a commitment from Waukesha with zoning, housing and other economic improvements that Milwaukee would want as part of a package.

Certainly an enhanced city of Milwaukee would benefit the region and the watershed on a number of levels -- but the proposed changes to the Great Lakes agreements don't mandate that Waukesha agree to such a sidebar.

On the other hand, a Milwaukee-Waukesha hand-in-hand, cooperative approach would help Gov. Jim Doyle sell a Waukesha diversion proposal to his fellow governors.

At this point it is too early to predict the outcome. The public will have its say in a 90-day comment period, and groups as diverse as the ACLU in Milwaukee and conservation groups up north are pressing for hearings statewide this summer and fall.

Most of the media comment in the Milwaukee-Waukesha region to this point has focused on how the proposed changes affect Waukesha's search for Lake Michigan water. That's an understandable local angle. There will be a spirited debate over whether Waukesha's possible gain would hurt Milwaukee regardless if a side deal is struck.

Ultimately, Waukesha's fate will be in the hands of a larger region -- the eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces -- and how they view their stewardship of what is arguably one of the most valuable resources on Earth.

The 10 governors and premiers will have to consider whether any diversion -- no matter how much a single community wants it -- either brings harm to the Great Lakes as an entity, or worse, sets a legal precedent that leads, with domino-like logic, first a few miles west of Waukesha, then south to quickly-developing northern Illinois, and finally to the arid U.S. West and beyond.

The legal precedent hurdle is the big one, and the one hurdle that Waukesha, or Waukesha's equivalent in the other nine states and provinces, may not be able to clear.

James Rowen is a Milwaukee writer and consultant who used to work for ex-Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist.

Sign up now for a free e-mail election service from WisPolitics.com. Click here.