Water Quantity Issues in the Great Lakes
Great Lakes Regional Water Program
Updated 08/20/10
Summary of Initial Findings
Public Policy
- States are still trying to figure out what the Great Lakes Compact means for them when it comes
to their water use laws and policies. Wisconsin seems to be farther along the policy
development tract than others, with the possible exception of Michigan.
-
State water policy experts and management agencies are a bit hesitant to discuss water policy
while their states are developing new laws and policies to guide implementation of the Great
Lakes Compact?
-
Despite the great attention the issue of water use has received over the last 5-10 years, it
appears only two states in EPA Region 5, Minnesota and Wisconsin, require permits for high
capacity wells. The other states just require high capacity well registration.
-
The database systems states use to register and track high capacity wells vary. Improving these
systems could be an area for University involvement. Potential improvements might include:
-
o
Making all systems web based.
o
Improving accessibility for well drillers, planners and researchers who want to search
state well logs to help identify suitable locations for new wells and document water use
and availability trends.
Most states use 100,000 gallons per day as the definition of a high capacity well. The exception
is Minnesota where the standard is 10,000 gallons per day or 1million gallons per year.
Table 1. Summary of State Groundwater Regulations (Not complete)
High Capacity
Withdrawal
Permit
Needed?
Illinois
100,000gpd
No
-Illinois Water Use Act (525 ILCS 45)
-1983
Indiana
100,000gpd
No
-Water Resource Management Act (IC 14-25-7)
-1982
Michigan
100,000gpd
over a 30 day
period
No
-2003
-2003 &
amended in
2008
Minnesota
10,000gpd or
1million gpy
Yes
Ohio
100,000
No
-Public Act 148 (Deals with annual reporting for high
capacity wells)
-Public Act 177 (Established procedure for resolving
water use conflicts)
-Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103G and
-Minnesota Rules 6115.0600-6115.0810.
-Groundwater Stress Legislation
-Water Withdrawals Facilities Legislation (HB662)
-1990
-1988
Division of Water
Wisconsin
70gpm
Yes
-Wisconsin Groundwater Protection Act 310 (NR 812)
-2004
DNR
State
-
Legislation
Year
Passed
Register
Agency
County Soil and Water
Conservation Districts
Natural Resource
Commission
Department of
Environmental Quality
DNR
At least Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin use interagency advisory bodies to help guide water
resource policy.
1
o MI: Water Resource Advisory Council - http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15339002_51494---,00.html
o WI: Groundwater Coordinating Council - http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/gcc/index.htm
o OH: Water Resources Council - http://ohiodnr.com/tabid/15378/Default.aspx
-
The Water Conservation Coordinator position at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission may
not have a counterpart in other EPA region five states.
-
Lack of policy for dealing with water use conflicts: This was pointed out as a problem in
Wisconsin and Michigan. In Indiana there is no conflict resolution policy either, but the potential
for conflict may be less because (my speculation) there are not as many high quality natural
areas to protect. The Indiana DNR does have the authority to regulate a high capacity well if
they suspect it is having a negative effect on a critical natural resource or neighboring wells.
-
Using the science we have: Our public policies (with the exception of the Great Lakes Compact)
do not consider “groundwater sheds” (or surface watersheds either) when it comes to making
land use decisions. This will need to change to truly develop sustainable water use practices so
more basic education on watershed based natural resource management is clearly needed.
-
Pricing is an area that future policies must address: Several interviewees suggested that we have
historically undercharged for the water we use. This has created at least two challenges: 1)
Water rates probably need to go up. . . even if/when people start using less. 2) Because water
rates are likely to go up it may be hard to build a public education and awareness campaign
around the message “save water to save money.” I think public educators are going to need to
get more specific.
-
Utility Specific Conservation Rules: Several folks mentioned that a blanket approach to
conservation is not the way to go because the need for conservation varies by region. Some
areas are water rich while others are already facing water shortage issues.
Data Collection/Management and Groundwater Modeling
- Good data available but regional gaps do exist: Everyone I have interviewed so far feels that the
groundwater models we have available are adequate for sound decision making when it comes
to locating new high capacity wells. Most everyone also seems to agree that we usually have
adequate data to put into the models as well, but not always. In Wisconsin, for example, we
have adequate data to characterize the aquifers under most of our major urban centers, but we
could use more data for the rest of the state.
-
Mapping recharge areas, more data needed: A hydro-geologist from Indiana feels we could use
more data to better identify the recharge areas that deserve special protection. This makes
sense to me and it’s an issue no one else has raised.
-
USGS is a major provider of well monitoring data but their resources are getting increasingly
pulled back, so they are monitoring fewer and fewer wells. Their data is fairly accessible:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw. Several folks mentioned the need for more extensive well
monitoring, but this was not necessarily viewed as a role for the Universities.
2
-
Water use: Wisconsin has been a leader in water metering (at the municipal level), but other
states are now doing a better job at tracking water use. If a gap exists in WI (and maybe other
states as well) it’s tracking withdrawals from private high capacity wells. States are getting
better about this but the policies that require private metering are not necessarily enforced and
the data collection process is not keeping up with advancing (increasingly web based)
technology. The problem with both of these challenges is lack of funding for adequate staff.
-
In addition to USGS, it appears most (all?) EPA Region 5 states have state agencies or
departments that are comparable to the WGNHS. The organizations also are a source of
groundwater information, well data and outreach programs.
-
Stream flow modeling data gap: There does not seem to be a good understanding of the
groundwater surface water interaction and one of the problems may be a lack of stream flow
data. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool appears to be one-of-a-kind and I would
like to learn more about the source of their stream data.
-
Data Sharing: Each state seems to use their one database and they don’t seem to share data as
well as they maybe could.
Research
- At this stage, not much is being mentioned about this topic.
-
More localized well use data: I think most folks would agree that our modeling could be better if
we had more data to characterize local aquifers at a finer level. . . but the data we have is
usually adequate for making single well siting decisions. The exception may be when it comes to
the “cumulative” impact of higher capacity groundwater withdrawals, which, at least in
Wisconsin, is not really taken into account when a new well is approved. Each well is decided on
an individual basis without regard for the existing impact other wells may be having on the same
local or regional aquifer.
-
More stream flow data needed.
-
More research on the interactions between surface and groundwater resources. . . although,
because so many variables are involved like topography, geology, soils, land use, etc, this may
be a research area that calls for site specific field work.
-
Groundwater flooding: Several folks mentioned this as an emerging issue, especially in WI where
climate models predict a wetter future. But other speakers said most of these problems are
rooted in older developments that did not have the mapping resources we now have, or the
policies in place to restrict development from areas that might be prone to rising groundwater
levels.
Outreach and Education
3
-
How can we better manage environmental stressors (like stormwater runoff and high capacity
wells) that don’t easily lend themselves to traditional, permit based, regulatory oversight? This
is a gap. This points to a research need into conflict avoidance and resolution.
-
Lack of a process for avoiding and resolving water use conflicts. In the western states water law,
as crude as it might appear, helps manage conflict. In the east we don’t have formal law to assist
us when it comes to settling water use disagreements.
-
Citizen volunteers could potentially help monitor wells and provide the extra data researchers
need to refine their models. I see the possibility for a new program very similar to Wisconsin’s
Water Action Volunteer initiative or Volunteer Lake Monitoring program.
-
Public education about the true costs faced by water and sewer utilities. We are fairly
comfortable telling citizens why they should switch to a low flow toilet, but we are much less
comfortable explaining why older sewer and water systems need costly maintenance and what
the options are for paying for future updates.
-
MI’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool: This type of online well citing tool was cited as a
potentially effective educational resource.
-
More localized groundwater education for decision makers and the public: We have good
materials available but when people have questions they don’t always know where to turn for
more information. I think it’s right to say that citizen frequently turn to Extension for help with
groundwater questions, but local extension agents don’t always have a solid understanding of
local groundwater issues. So more groundwater training for Extension personnel might be a
future programming focus.
-
Technical education at the utility level: It was suggested that the utilities may need professional
development when it comes to the steps they can take to improve water use efficiency and
conservation. The private sector, or nonprofit groups like Rural Water, may be better suited to
fill this gap.
-
Conservation education at the utility level: In northeast Illinois the regional planning commission
is suggesting that water conservation will play a critical role in meeting future demand. What’s
not so clear is who will provide this education. The utilities may be the most obvious entity to
fulfill this role but they currently don’t have the people or the knowledge to do it.
4