Frederica Freyberg:

A major decision from the state DNR is fast approaching. The agency is expected to rule as early as next week whether to allow Racine to divert seven million gallons a day of Lake Michigan water to the village of Mount Pleasant for the use by Foxconn. That decision could set a new precedent for the Great Lakes Compact, which bans diversions of water outside the lake basin. Areas of Mount Pleasant are in the Mississippi River basin but the city of Waukesha was allowed to divert Lake Michigan water in 2016 under the compact. Is the Foxconn request different? As Marisa Wojcik reports with our partners at WisContext, a UW-Parkside professor of geosciences says the two requests are different.

John Skalbeck:

This is the area where they’ll return the flow to the Root River.

Marisa Wojcik:

Dr. John Skalbeck is a professor of geosciences at UW-Parkside specializing in hydrogeology. He sees the 2008 Great Lakes Water Compact as an important measure in protecting this natural resource from those outside the basin.

John Skalbeck:

Had that compact not been in place at that time, there would be a lot more pressure on the Great Lakes as far as supplying water to other areas.

Marisa Wojcik:

When the city of Waukesha, located outside of the basin, applied to divert water from Lake Michigan, Skalbeck saw it as the first test of the compact’s mettle.

John Skalbeck:

There was a need for the water. They demonstrated that need and they met all the terms of the compact.

Marisa Wojcik:

Waukesha needed unanimous approval from the Great Lakes states, unlike a pending diversion application from Racine, which would only have to get approval from the state of Wisconsin.

John Skalbeck:

Racine is applying for the water on behalf of Foxconn.

Marisa Wojcik:

Skalbeck says there are two main differences between Waukesha's diversion application and Racine's. The first being who the water is intended for.

John Skalbeck:

The provision that I have a problem with with the Racine application is over the intent for it to be for public use.

Marisa Wojcik:

The other difference.

John Skalbeck:

There was no information in the application about what that waste stream would contain.

Marisa Wojcik:

Not knowing what will be in the water when it leaves Foxconn.

Frederica Freyberg:

Again, the DNR is expected to make the decision as soon as next week on whether or not to allow Foxconn to use Lake Michigan water. Professor Skalbeck joined us on the banks of the Root River. He joins us now in studio with answers to more of our questions. Thanks for being here.

John Skalbeck:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Picking up on something you talked with Marisa about, what is your issue with the application that says that the water diverted will be used for public water supply purposes?

John Skalbeck:

Well, the Great Lakes Compact has language regarding public water supply. And it says that it should be primarily for residential, with some commercial and industrial use.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, I guess Foxconn would be that commercial and industrial use, so it seems as though it fits within the language of the compact.

John Skalbeck:

Yes, but the diversion, this ask, is primarily for Foxconn, so a single commercial user.

Frederica Freyberg:

And is that something then that people like yourselves have made public comment about and that the DNR is now reviewing?

John Skalbeck:

Yes. So I attended the public meeting in Sturtevant and then following that public meeting, I presented a letter as a public comment.

Frederica Freyberg:

And so in your mind it’s not enough, this public use of this water that a portion of it is going to commercial use.

John Skalbeck:

Well, it seems like it might be straining the intent of the law, the compact.

Frederica Freyberg:

You also raised the issue of what will be in the wastewater, what that might contain. But the DNR says that the water will be treated to meet applicable permit requirements. So what about that?

John Skalbeck:

That’s fine, but the public should know what the waste stream contains and that I believe should have been part of the application, to know what kind of chemicals that Foxconn would be dealing with.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what are your concerns there?

John Skalbeck:

Just that it’s clear to the public, you know, what will be coming out of that waste stream and make sure that Racine knows that and can monitor for that if they’re going to need to accept that waste.

Frederica Freyberg:

How is this application for diversion different in terms of process than the Waukesha application, like time line, for example?

John Skalbeck:

Well, the Waukesha application fell into the provision of a community within a straddling county. And so that required approval from the eight Great Lakes states and the two Canadian provinces. And that time line was fairly lengthy. It was a very rigorous review. This one falls under the category of a straddling community, so it requires just approval from Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is it your sense or concern that the state didn’t take enough time?

John Skalbeck:

No. I don’t have any issue with the time line, you know, if it can get a careful and quick review. That’s fine. My main concern was that it seemed to be stretching the intent of the compact language.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what are close observers like yourself, of this Foxconn water diversion, expecting the DNR to do here?

John Skalbeck:

Well, I would guess they would make their decision based on the application and the public comments, and I guess we’ll wait and see what they decide.

Frederica Freyberg:

What's your best educated guess as to whether they will decide in favor of this diversion?

John Skalbeck:

Well, the state has initiated infrastructure already. There’s roads that are being modified. There’s pipelines that are being laid. So I would — I guess I would speculate that there would be some pressure to make sure that there’s a permit that’s issued.

Frederica Freyberg:

That's right. So in that event, in the event that the DNR in fact approves this diversion, is it your expectation that this would result in litigation on the part of people who oppose it?

John Skalbeck:

I would be surprised if there was not litigation around the approved permit. I think some folks have already made overtures during the public meeting and as well as during the public comment period.

Frederica Freyberg:

On the basis of what?

John Skalbeck:

On the basis of the public supply.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, even though, as we’ve discussed, the Racine water diversion only needs state approval, how have other Great Lakes states which are a part of the compact reacted to this particular proposed diversion?

John Skalbeck:

Well, I did see one letter from the state of New York that was also questioning the public supply. And then I believe there was a letter from Illinois about the issue of the contaminants in the waste stream. So they were just looking for more information about that.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Well, John Skalbeck, thanks for joining us twice. We appreciate it very much.

John Skalbeck:

All right. Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Go to WisContext.org for new reporting on this topic.