THIS IS A TEST.
>>> WELCOME TO "NOON WEDNESDAY,"
I'M MARISA WOJCIK, MULTIMEDIA
JOURNALIST WITH "HERE & NOW" ON
PBS WISCONSIN.
TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 8.
A PROPOSAL TO BOTTLE AND SELL
WATER FROM LAKE SUPERIOR IS
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A LEGAL
LOOPHOLE AND TESTING THE METAL
OF THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT.
PROFESSOR DAVE DAVE STRIFELING,
DIRECTOR OF WATER POLICY
INITIATIVE AT THE MARCH YET LAW
SCHOOL IS HERE TO EXPLAIN MORE,
AND, PROFESSOR, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> PLEASURE, THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME.
>> AND SO THIS PROPOSAL STARTS
WITH A RESIDENT FROM DULUTH,
MINNESOTA TRYING TO GET APPROVAL
FROM BAYFIELD COUNTY IN
WISCONSIN FOR THEIR COMPANY
CALLED CRYSTAL CLEAR, TO BOTTLE
LAKE SUPERIOR WATER FROM THE
PROPERTY AND SELL IT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY THIS
GREAT LAKES WATER USE IS
GENERALLY PROHIBITED, AND WHAT
IS THE LEGAL LOOPHOLE USED TO
GET AROUND THAT?
>> SURE.
SO IT STARTS WITH SOMETHING
CALLED THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT,
WHICH IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE EIGHT GREAT LAKES STATES
THAT GENERALLY PROHIBITS
DIVERSIONS OF WATER, GREAT LAKES
WATER, THAT IS, OUTSIDE THE
GREAT LAKES BASIN.
THAT'S THE TOP LEVEL FEATURE
THAT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THE
GREAT LAKES COMPACT.
NOW, THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE ARE
SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS TO THAT
GENERAL PROHIBITION.
SOME ARE FOR CITIES, MUNICIPAL
WATER, AND OTHERS -- ANOTHER, I
SHOULD SAY, IS FOR PRODUCTS.
SO WHEN WE HEAR ABOUT CASES LIKE
WAUKESHA OR FOXCON, THOSE ARE
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE
MUNICIPAL DIVERSIONS EITHER TO
COMMUNITIES THAT STRADDLE THE
BASIN LINE OR TO COMMUNITIES
OUTSIDE THE BASIN, BUT ARE
WITHIN A STRADDLING COUNTY.
SO THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE, THOUGH.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE
IS A SEPARATE EXCEPTION.
THE LOOPHOLE THAT YOU MENTIONED,
AS SOME DESCRIBE IT, FOR BOTTLED
WATER OR WATER IN PRODUCTS THAT
ARE IN CONTAINERS SMALLER THAN
5.7-GALLONS.
SO THERE HAVE BEEN EXAMPLES OF
BOTTLED WATER OPERATIONS WITHIN
THE GREAT LAKES BASIN WHERE THE
PRODUCT, THE BOTTLED WATER
CONTAINERS, ARE THEN SHIPPED
OUTSIDE THE BASIN AND SOLD.
THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE GREAT
LAKES COMPACT.
IT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME THAT IT
WAS PASSED THIS, QUOTE-OWN-QUOTE
LOOPHOLE EXISTED, BUT IT WAS THE
JUDGMENT, I THINK, OF THE
DRAFTERS THAT THIS AMOUNT OF
DIVERSION JUST WOULDN'T DRAIN
THE GREAT LAKES, AND SO, YOU
KNOW, THEY LEFT IT UP TO LOCAL
COMMUNITIES TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO ALLOW
THESE TYPES OF LAND USES IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES ISSUE AND
THAT'S HOW WE GET TO THE DISPUTE
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
>> AND SO THIS 5.7 GALLONS, IF
IT IS BOTTLED, VERSUS JUST ALL
PUT IN A TRUCK AND TRANSPORT OUT
OF THE AREA, SHOULD IT MATTER IF
THE WATER IS BOTTLED FIRST AND
TRANSPORTED?
DO WE KNOW WHY THE 5.7 GALLON
MARK, AND DOES THIS SET OFF
ALARMS TO THE GREAT LAKES
COMPACT STATES THAT MAYBE
REGULATIONS NEED TO BE REVIEWED
AND REVISED?
>> THE LOOPHOLE DREW OPPOSITION
EVEN AT THE TIME THE COMPACT WAS
BEING NEGOTIATED, BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF
THE GREAT LAKES STATES FLATLY
SAID THEY WOULD NOT SIGN TON TO
THE COMPACT IF THIS PROVISION
WAS NOT INCLUDED.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE BUSINESSES
THAT DEPEND ON IT, NOT JUST
BOTTLED WATER, OF COURSE, BY
VARIOUS FOOD AND BEVERAGE
PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN SMALL
AMOUNTS OF GREAT LAKES WATER
THAT THEN IS SHIPPED OUTSIDE THE
BASIN AND SOLD.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D HAVE A
GREAT LAKES COMPACT IF THIS
PROVISION HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED.
IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT WE
GOT THE COMPACT AT ALL WHEN YOU
LOOK AT IT FROM THE LENS OF
TODAY'S POLITICAL CLIMATE, AND
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY IT IS
THERE.
WHETHER IT IS SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND REVISED,
YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO TRY
TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH WATER IS
LEAVING THE BASIN AS A RESULT OF
THIS PROVISION, AND I THINK,
AGAIN, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COMPACT DRAFTERS, IT WAS NOT
ENOUGH, OR IT WAS NOT PREDICTED
TO BE ENOUGH, TO JUSTIFY, YOU
KNOW, MAKING THIS A STICKING
POINT AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT WE GOT TO HAVE
IN THE COMPACT.
>> THE BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMITTEE DENIED THIS
PROPOSAL IN APRIL.
THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT IS A
MULTISTATE AGREEMENT AND
CANADIAN COUNTERPART CALLED THE
SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES
AGREEMENT, THOSE BOTH DECIDE HOW
TO REGULATE THE GREAT LAKES
WATER USAGE SO WHO HAS THE
ULTIMATE LEGAL AUTHORITY AND
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE ON THIS
CASE?
>> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE
OF PROPOSAL AT ISSUE.
SO JUST QUICKLY WALKING THROUGH
THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
DIVERSIONS UNDER THE GREAT LAKES
COMPACT, IF IT IS TO A COMMUNITY
IN A STRADDLING COUNTY LIKE
WAUKESHA, ALL THE GREAT LAKES
STATE HAVE A VETO VOTE OVER THAT
KIND OF APPLICATION.
IF IT IS TO A COMMUNITY, A
STRADDLING COMMUNITY STRADDLING
THE BASIN LINE, ITSELF, IT IS
SOLELY THE STATE THAT HAS THE
DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY.
THAT'S THE WISCONSIN DNR HERE IN
WISCONSIN, BUT AN APPLICATION
LIKE THIS, I THINK IS
QUESTIONABLE WHETHER IT IS
SUBJECT TO COMPACT DECISION
MAKING AT ALL BECAUSE IT IS
SUBJECT TO THAT EXCEPTION THAT
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THAT
5.7 GALLON CONTAINER EXCEPTION.
THERE'S SOME QUESTION HERE
WHETHER THE COMPACT REALLY HAS
ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS
WHATSOEVER.
SO THAT MEANS THAT THE DECISION
WOULD LIE WITH THE DNR TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT HAS THE AUTHORITY
TO REGULATE THIS WELL, AND WITH
BAYFIELD COUNTY TO THE EXTENT
THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WOULD BE REQUIRED FROM A ZONING
STANDPOINT, A LAND USE
STANDPOINT, TO HAVE THIS KIND OF
OPERATION ON THE PROPERTY.
>> NOW, WHAT I'VE HEARD MOST IS
THAT THIS COULD SET A NEW
PRECEDENT.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
COULD THIS ALLOW OTHER COMPANIES
TO COME IN AND FOLLOW SUIT TO
LARGE QUANTITY?
>> SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
COMPACT ALREADY SORT OF PERMITS
THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY, AND SO IF
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
COMPACT, I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS
IS ANYTHING NEW AS COMPARED TO
WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN OTHER
PLACES.
WHAT REALLY MAKES THIS
INTERESTING IS THE COLLISION
BETWEEN THE COUNTY'S LAND USE
AUTHORITY ON THE ONE HAND AND
THE DNR'S AUTHORITY OVER WATER
USE, GROUND WATER USE IN THE
STATE ON THE OTHER, AND THAT'S
HOW THE PARTIES ARE KIND OF
FRAMING UP THIS CASE.
CRYSTAL CLEAR SAYS THIS IS JUST
A QUESTION FOR THE DNR AND THE
COUNTY SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY ROLE
AT ALL HERE.
IF THE DNR SAYS THE WELL IS
OKAY, THEY SHOULD BE GOOD TO GO.
THE COUNTY ON THE OTHER HAND
SAYS, NO, WE HAVE AUTHORITY OVER
LAND USE REGULATION HERE, AND
YOU NEED A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE.
SO WHEN THIS -- SO WHEN OR IF
THIS CASE ENDS UP IN COURT, I
THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE
PRIMARY ISSUE, AND YOU TALKED
ABOUT PRECEDENT.
NOW, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THE
APPLICANT DOESN'T NEED ANY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM THE
COUNTY, THEN CONCEIVABLY, ALL
THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS COULD
ALSO DECIDE TO DO THE SAME
THING, AND THEY COULD OPERATE
THEIR OWN BOTTLED WATER
FACILITIES, AND THEN YOU MIGHT
SEE AN IMPACT, IF YOU DON'T
ALREADY, IN THE LOCAL GROUND
WATER TABLE, DRAWDOWNS OF NEARBY
SURFACE WATERS, THAT TYPE OF
THING, EFFECTS ON THE WATER SHED
IN WHICH THE BOTTLING IS TAKING
PLACE.
YOU KNOW, THE VOLUMES OF WATER
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AT
LEAST FOR NOW, ARE NOT GOING TO
DRAW DOWN LAKE SUPERIOR.
THEY ARE SMALL AMOUNTS OF WATER.
IF THAT INCREASES IN THE FUTURE
OR OTHER NEIGHBORS DECIDED TO DO
THE SAME THING, THEN YOU CAN
START TO SEE EFFECTS, AT LEAST
IN THE WATER SHED, IF NOT IN THE
LAKE.
>> AND TO THAT POINT, IF
MULTIPLE COMPANIES COME IN AND
BEGIN DIVERTING WATER FROM ANY
OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER SHED,
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM
DRAWING DOWN LAKE LEVELS TO
POLLUTION TO DISRUPTING LOCAL
ECOSYSTEMS?
>> YEAH.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT I THINK THE COUNTY BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT DEFINITELY WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT, STAINABILITY
BEING A WATCH WORD FOR A LOT OF
COMMUNITIES TODAY.
YEAH.
AGAIN, THE GREAT LAKES, THE
VOLUME OF THE GREAT LAKES IS
MEASURED IN QUADRILLION OF
GALLONS TO HARD TO SEE AN EFFECT
IN THE INDIVIDUAL DIVERSION
APPLICATIONS FOR BOTTLED WATER
ANYWAY.
CHICAGO HAS BY FAR THE LARGEST,
UPWARDS OF 2 BILLION-GALLONS A
DAY AS A RESULT OF THE REVERSAL
OF THE CHICAGO RIVER SO THOSE
ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I
THINK FOLKS ARE REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
IMPACTS TO THE LAKES,
THEMSELVES, RATHER THAN BOTTLE
WATER FACILITIES LIKE THIS, BUT,
AGAIN, IF YOU SEE A
PROLIFERATION OF THESE KINDS OF
THINGS, THEN YOU COULD BE
TALKING ABOUT LARGER EFFECTS,
AND, AGAIN, I THINK THE COUNTY
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS IN
TERMS OF THE IMPACT ON THE
VALUES THAT IT EXPRESSED IN ITS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM
STAINABILITY TO OVERCROWDING
WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESS TO THE
WATERS, WATER POLLUTION.
YOU COULD ENVISION, I THINK IN
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, IF YOU HAD
LARGER SCALE INDUSTRIAL
OPERATIONS GOING ON, AND SO,
AGAIN, I THINK THAT AT THIS
POINT ANYWAY, THE CONCERNS ARE
MORE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, THE
LOCAL SCALE FOR THE LAND USE AND
WATER SHED RATHER THAN THE
IMPACTS ON THE GREAT LAKES AS A
WHOLE.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT'S ALWAYS
THE CASE, BUT AT LEAST AT THIS
POINT, THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF
CONCERNS THAT THE COUNTY BOARD
IS EXPRESSING.
>> NOW, TO THAT END, SOME LOCAL
OPPONENTS TO THE PROPOSAL
INCLUDE THE RED CLIFF BAN OF
LAKE SUE PEORIA CHIPEWA WORKING
TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES AND
VIEW THIS LAKE AS A SACRED PART
OF THEIR CULTURE.
IS THE PRIVATIZATION AND
COMMODITY OF THIS NATURAL
RESOURCE FAIR TO PARTICULARLY
INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS THAT ARE
NEAR THESE WATERS?
WELL, I THINK THE RISE OF TRIBAL
INPUT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IS
CERTAINLY A TREND WE HAVE SEEN
LATELY.
THESE VOICES WERE EXCLUDED FOR
LONG PERIODS OF OUR HISTORY WHEN
IT CAME TO DECISION MAKING ABOUT
OUR RESOURCES, AND SO I THINK IT
IS GREAT THAT THE TRIBES MADE
THEIR VOICE HEARD, THEIR VOICES
HEARD ABOUT THIS APPLICATION,
AND AS I SAID, MORE BROADLY,
THIS IS A TREND THAT THEY DO AND
SHOULD HAVE INPUT OVER THE
MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
THAT GOES FOR CLEAN WATER, CLEAN
AIR, MINING PROJECTS, ALL SORTS
OF DIFFERENT THINGS, IT IS NOT
JUST WHEN IT COMES TO THIS
APPLICATION, BUT IT IS PART OF A
SUBJECT MATTER, I THINK, IT IS
FAIR TO SAY, THAT THE BOARD
CONSIDER IT IN MAKING ITS
JURISDICTION AS WELL AS ALL THE
OTHER LOCAL OPPOSITION TO THE
PROPOSAL.
YOU KNOW, THE -- THAT'S PART OF
WHAT DRIVES, I THINK, DECISION
MAKING AT THE LOW CALL LEVEL,
AND SO BROAD PUBLIC INPUT IS
ALWAYS IMPORTANT FROM ALL SORTS
OF VOICES AND COMMUNITIES AND
NEARBY TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF LIFE IN
NORTHERN WISCONSIN, AND
ABSOLUTELY THEIR VOICES SHOULD
BE HEARD WHEN IT COMES TO THIS
APPLICATION.
>> COULD THIS PROPOSAL OR
SUBSEQUENT SIMILAR PROPOSALS
VIOLATE ANY PART OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT?
>> SO THE CLEAN WATER ACT IS A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ADDITION
OF POLLUTANTS TO WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES, SO THE PROPOSAL
TO WITHDRAW GROUND WATER
WOULDN'T BE IMPACTED BY THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
WHERE THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY,
AGAIN, IS IF YOU HAD A BROADER
SCALE INDUSTRIAL OPERATION THAT
WAS DISCHARGING SOME CONTAMINANT
INTO SURFACE WATERS, THEN YOU
MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE WHERE YOU
REQUIRE A CLEAN WATER ACT
PERMIT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE AT
ISSUE IN THIS CASE AT LEAST
NOTTIEST.
>> AS WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED
ABOUT, THIS IS FAR FROM THE
FIRST TIME THE GREAT LAKES WATER
USAGE IS IN DEMAND FOR MULTIPLE
PURPOSES INCLUDING COMMERCIAL,
AND THIS FRESH WATER RESOURCE
WILL LIKELY CONTINUE TO BE
FOUGHT OVER.
WHAT DO YOU FORESEE AS THE BEST
AND FAIREST PATH FORWARD TO
REGULATE THE GREAT LAKES' WATERS
FAIRLY?
>> WELL, I THINK, OBVIOUSLY, THE
GREAT LAKES ARE A TREASURE, AND
WE GOT TO USE THEM SUSTAINABLY
AND WISELY IN A WAY THAT BEST
BENEFITS SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, AND
I SAID THE LAKES ARE A TREASURE,
AND I THINK THE GREAT LAKES
COMPACT IS ALSO A TREASURE, AND
IT IS GOING TO BE TESTED IN THE
YEARS TO COME AS BROADER
SEGMENTS OF THE COUNTRY AND,
INDEED, EVEN OF THESE STATES
BECOMES THIRSTIER AND EXPERIENCE
MORE AND MORE OF THE EFFECTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SO WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN, FOR EXAMPLE,
WHEN REGIONS OF WISCONSIN EVEN
THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE GREAT
LAKES BASIN, WHICH IS A
SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE STATE
THAT LIES OUTSIDE THE GREAT
LAKES BASIN STARTS MAKING
DEMANDS FOR A GREAT LAKES WATER?
WHAT WILL A FUTURE GOVERNOR DO?
IT IS HARD TO ANTICIPATE THAT AT
THIS POINT, BUT I THINK IT IS
SOMETHING THAT'S COMING.
THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK
WILL MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO
MANAGE OR MAYBE MORE INTERESTING
TO PUT IT IN ANOTHER WAY, IS I
EXPECT LARGE WAVES OF INCOMING
CLIMATE MIGRATION, INCOMING
MIGRATION TO THE GREAT LAKES
REGION AS A RESULT OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN RECOGNITION OF THE
LARGE FRESH WATER SUPPLY THAT WE
HAVE AND COMPARATIVELY COOLER
TEMPERATURES THAT ARE HERE, AND
SO WHAT DO WE DO IN THAT CASE
WHEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, LOTS AND
LOTS OF NEW RESIDENTS AND
COMPANIES WHO WANT TO USE THE
WATER?
THOSE ARE GOING TO BE DIFFICULT
DECISIONS FOR FUTURE
POLICYMAKERS, GOVERNORS,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS TO
WRESTLE WITH.
IT IS SOMETHING WE ABSOLUTELY
NEED TO WATCH AS WE MOVE INTO
THE FUTURE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE LEAVE IT THERE, PROFESSOR
DAVE STRIFLING OF MARQUETTE LAW
SCHOOL AND DIRECTOR OF WATER
POLICY INITIATIVE, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, HAPPY TO BE HERE.
IT'S BEEN MY PLEASURE.
>> FOR MORE FROM "HERE & NOW"
AND PBS WISCONSIN, YOU CAN VISIT
PBSWISCONSIN.ORG AND CLICK ON
"NEWS," AND THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR JOINING US ON "NOON
WEDNESDAY."