Skip to content

Thunder Bay condemns American governors over water diversion decision

City council is supporting a legal challenge against the unanimous decision of eight US states to allow 31.8 million litres of water from the Great Lakes Basin per day to be pumped outside of that area for a Wisconsin municipality to use as its drinking water.
water tap

THUNDER BAY -- Thunder Bay isn't taking "yes" for an answer when it comes to communities outside the Great Lakes Basin drawing millions of litres of fresh water per day. 

City council voted unanimously on Monday to support a recent appeal that, if successful, would overturn a decision eight state governors made in June to allow Waukesha, WI to receive 31.8-million litres of water each day from Lake Michigan. 

The precedent the Great Lakes Compact made with their vote made Waukesha the first municipality beyond the natural boundry of the Great Lakes Basin to be eligible to receive its water. While the easter part of Waukesha County falls within the basin, the City of Waukesha does not.

It was the first time a muncipality outside of the designated boundaries had been approved since the eight states that border the Great Lakes, Ontario and Quebec signed on to the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement in 2005.

In August, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative issued a legal challenge to the Compact Council's approval of Waukesha's application.

Mayor Keith Hobbs said he will encourage that challenge to appeal as high as the United States Supreme Court. 

"They really missed the boat on this one and that’s why we’ve hired a legal firm to take it on, if necessary," Hobbs said. 

"We’re hoping they’ll reverse their decision before that happens."      

Council's resolution calls on the governoros of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to "reconsider" and "reverse" their decision.

Coun. Andrew Foulds is the chairman of EarthCare Thunder Bay. He publicly opposed the diversion before the decision was reached and he continued to dissent when the issue was raised on Monday. 

"Just to re-articulate the seriousness of this situation, the real question is precedent," Foulds said. 

"Some of that 40 million litres will go into rivers that have never had that volume... Not only are we hurting the Great Lakes Basin potentially, who knows what the impacts are to climate change? We’re fundamentally changing eecoystems. This really is a dangerous precedent."

 


Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.