Here & Now

Attorney: "We Have to Look to Where the Water is Sent"

Frederica Freyberg:

A first look tonight at Foxconn and its thirst for water. And why environmentalists say Foxconn should not be able to take seven million gallons of Lake Michigan water per day to run its plant manufacturing liquid crystal display panels. Midwest Environmental Advocates filed legal action opposing the diversion of the water for use by Foxconn Technology Group. The state DNR approved the city of Racines request to divert the seven million gallons of water per day outside the Great Lakes Basin. Opponents say the Great Lakes Compact prohibits such a diversion. Jimmy Parra is the lead attorney on the case for Midwest Environmental Advocates and thanks very much for being here.

Jimmy Parra:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why, in your legal opinion, does this diversion for Foxconns use of Lake Michigan water violate the Great Lakes Compact?

Jimmy Parra:

Sure. So one of the key requirements and one of the only requirements for this type of diversion of Great Lakes water is that the diversion be for public water supply purposes. I think on a sort of common sense level, most people have a sense of what that means and it’s not to send water to one private industrial customer for their exclusive use. Further than that, we have language in the compact which says that public water supply purposes is distributing water through a system that serves primarily residential customers. And what’s being proposed by the city of Racine and was approved by the Wisconsin DNR is transferring water out of the basin for exclusively industrial/commercial customers. There’s no amount of water that is being sent to residential customers.

Frederica Freyberg:

We asked the DNR, as you say, which approved this, for a statement for this program today, and they declined to provide that. But the mayor of Racine, Cory Mason, did provide one and he says this. “The decision to apply for the diversion for Mount Pleasant was made before I came into office. The question raised by the lawsuit seems to question whether or not the area served is for public water supply or not. The Great Lakes Compact defines public water supply as ‘water distributed to the public through a physically-connected system of treatment, storage and distribution facilities serving a group of largely residential customers that may also serve industrial, commercial and other institutional operators.'” He goes on to say, “Racines water utility certainly meets that definition and would continue to meet that definition if the small part of Mount Pleasant outside the basin were served with Great Lakes water.” So what about all of that?

Jimmy Parra:

Yeah. So that’s kind of the heart of the debate here. But a couple important things to keep in mind. The city of Racine and all of the residential users it currently serves are in the Great Lakes Basin. And what we think the compact says is you have to look at the area outside of the basin. Look at the area where the water is being sent. There’s language in the compact that says all the water so transferred must be used for public water supply purposes. And when you look at the water that’s being transferred here, it’s clearly not serving public water supply purposes, as that term is defined in the compact.

Frederica Freyberg:

So those are your legal arguments, but what about your opinion as to the harm that this diversion of water from Lake Michigan would cause?

Jimmy Parra:

Sure. So — and the Wisconsin DNR has made this point, which is that the volume of water when you compare it to the total volume of water of the Great Lakes is not a particularly significant amount. But what it does is opens the door and undermines a really key component of the compact to future diversions in straddling communities, which are communities that are partly within the basin and partly outside the basin. So the compact itself is a forward-looking document. It’s looking how do we jointly manage and protect the compacts– I mean, excuse me, the Great Lakes for years to come. And this provision, the way the DNR has interpreted this provision, opens the door. There’s an example I think of sort of what type of impacts it could have across the basin that’s particularly salient. So in Minnesota there’s a number of mines or mineral deposits that are close to the basin line in the iron range. And under the Wisconsin DNRs interpretation it’s possible that Great Lakes water could now be used to supply that very water-intensive industry. So it’s not this project. It’s what comes next.

Frederica Freyberg:

Its the precedent, in your mind, that it sets.

Jimmy Parra:

Exactly.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about the argument that most of the water that is diverted and used for industrial purposes is returned to the lake?

Jimmy Parra:

Yeah. So a lot of the water is returned, but for the water that’s being supplied to Foxconn, the five million gallons per day, I think 38% of that water will be consumed and not returned. And, again, that’s not an issue that we’ve raised in our lawsuit, but it’s– again, what we’re looking at is the precedent this sets and opening the door too wide at this point.

Frederica Freyberg:

I read that Pennsylvania believes that the Wisconsin approval of the diversion complies with the compact. What have you heard from other Great Lakes state governors?

Jimmy Parra:

So a couple of states submitted comments on the application that Racine submitted. Illinois and Michigan and New York. And Michigan and New York raised questions about the DNRs interpretation. They didn’t go as far to say it was wrong, but they definitely raised some serious questions about how it was being applied, the public water supply purposes was being applied. We haven’t gotten follow-up correspondence from those states to see where they stand at this point, but there is obviously some concern around the region.

Frederica Freyberg:

Going back to the Waukesha water diversion from Lake Michigan, kind of set the stage, set a precedent for this?

Jimmy Parra:

Well, the city of Waukesha, that diversion was clearly for public water supply purposes. I mean that served a community that was outside of the basin that was largely residential. So this wasn’t an issue in the Waukesha diversion situation. It’s something that’s really unique to Foxconn and is sort of a precedent-setting situation that we don’t think should stand.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Well, we’ll be watching. Jimmy Parra, thanks very much.

Jimmy Parra:

Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.