Great Lakes water ruling sparks fear of thirsty cities

The recent decision by eight U.S. governors to grant a small Wisconsin town access to the Great Lakes water basin has sparkedconcern about the precedent this may set for other thirstytowns and cities.

It also prompted adire warning by at least one vocal Ontario mayor, who saidextending access tothe water basin threatens thefuture of this fresh water supply.

"If you open it up to one, how do you then deny it to, let's say, the State of California, which is in a drought condition," Leamington, Ont., Mayor John Paterson said toCBC News. "If this continues, the Great Lakes won't be very great anymore. They'll be gone."

• Waukeshaplan to tap into Lake Michigan called 'wrong'
• States approvecity's plan to draw water from Lake Michigan
• Tapping into Great Lakes may start 'water wars'

The agreement with Waukesha, Wis., a city of 72,000 people, isn't exactly going to dry up Lake Michigan.The amount of drinking water being allocated,about31million litres a day,may sound like a lot. Butroughly 40 billion litres of watera day comeout of thatlake, based on 2014 data compiled by the Great Lakes Commission.

This meansWaukesha's take will representroughly 0.07 per cent of the total. Meanwhile, the city has promised toreturn the same amount back to the lake as treated wastewater.

The world's largest freshwater lake system

TheGreat Lakes and St. Lawrence River, taken together, are consideredthe world's largestfreshwater lake system, and holdaround20 percent of the world's supply of surfacefreshwater. The water supplieseight statesIllinois,Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania andWisconsinand two provinces, Ontario and Quebec.

Thetotal amountwithdrawnfrom the whole basin is roughly 160billionlitresper day, based on 2014 figures. Public water suppliesmade up only 13 per cent of that amount, with the largest quantityalmost 70 per cent going toward cooling for thermoelectric power production.Ontario is the biggest water guzzler, accounting for 41percent of the total withdrawal.

Muchofthewithdrawn water eventually makes its way back into the basin. For example, despite the 160 billion litres used a day, the reported water loss to the basinwas roughly 1.4 billion litres annually in 2014, and markeda 56 per cent decrease from the 2013 net water loss of 3.2 billion litres.

Access to this abundant source of fresh water is limited tothose communities within the Great Lakes watershed; most diversionsacross the watershed boundary are prohibited.However,there arecitiesthat straddle the watershed line includingWaukesha, which is located only 27kilometresfrom Lake Michigan.

Water use is regulated by theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, a deal hammered outby theeight states and two provinces in 2005.

'Stringent regulatory regimes'

Back in1985, those same jurisdictions forged theGreat Lakes Charter, a good-faith dealrather than a legallybinding agreement.

Then, in1998, Ontario granted apermit that would have allowed watertankers to take drinking water toChina, sparking a massive outcry.

While those permits were eventuallydropped, the incident demonstrated that the charter had noteeth, and prompted negotiations fora binding agreement on large scale diversions and bulk water removal, explainsTheresa McClenaghan, executive director and counsel of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

That led to the 2005 agreement (which wasn't ratified until last year),whichincludedlimited exceptionsfor water diversion.

'We do now have a [relatively]stringentregulatoryregimes dealing with watertaking," McClenaghan says.

Who can use the Great Lakes?

8 years ago

Duration 2:18

The Great Lakes are surrounded by two provinces and eight states that have rights to the watershed, but a new decision may change access rights

Waukeshaisthe first community torequest water under that limited exception provision.While Ontarioand Quebec are part of that resources agreement, onlythestates who are signatories to the agreement were given legalauthority to consider the requestfor U.S. water diversions. (Ontarioand Quebecwere allowed to provide input.)

Waukeshais under court order to address theradiumcontamination of its groundwater wells.ButKeith Brooks, campaign director for Environmental Defense Canada, sayshis organizationdoesn't believe the city's application met the requirements to takewater from Lake Michigan.

An applicant mustdemonstrate that seeking water from the basinis a last resortthat there are no other options available.Environmental Defense CanadabelievesWaukeshafailed to demonstrate that need.

"Everybodywould probablylove totake that water, becausewater isprobablyin shortsupply inlotsof places," Brooks says. "Thebody wascreatedtomanagetheresource,toprotectandconserveit."

McClenaghan, of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, saysthey too wereverydisappointed that the firstapplicant for a water diversion was granted access.

Sheisn't particularly concerned that jurisdictions far from the Great Lakes, like California,willcome seeking water, saying that the energy costs involved in transporting waterover those distances make iteconomically unrealistic.

Shealso takescomfort that a return flow requirementwas part of the2005 agreement:"Not only that we would have an agreement and gettinga definition aboutwaterbulk removals and diversions, but then starting to set up some of the parameters so if you had [diversions] you'd have return flow."

But, McClenaghan says,"We certainly hope it will prove the true exception to the rule, not turn out to be a pattern in the future."