Wisconsin’s Groundwater:
Valuable…Vulnerable…Vanishing?
Issues surfacing in eight Wisconsin
hotspots and what we can do about them
Wisconsin’s Groundwater:
Introduction
Valuable…Vulnerable…Vanishing?
Groundwater is one of Wisconsin’s vital natural
resources. Seventy percent of Wisconsin residents and
more than 9 out of 10 Wisconsin communities depend
on it for drinking water. It is used in industrial
manufacturing and is used to grow crops such as
potatoes and corn. It helps sustain fishing and paddling
opportunities across the state and the much-visited
water parks in Wisconsin Dells. It feeds the beautiful
rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands across the state.
Despite its importance groundwater is, for many people,
“out of sight and out of mind.”
It has been said that if Wisconsin’s groundwater
flowed across the state—above ground—it would be 100
feet deep. While this may make it seem like groundwater
supplies are virtually inexhaustible, communities across
the state are finding out the hard way that groundwater
supplies can and do diminish without proper
management.
In 2004 Wisconsin’s Act 310—the Groundwater
Protection Act—was signed into law. This Act was a
good first step forward for the state and increased
protections for Exceptional and Outstanding Resource
Waters, coldwater trout streams, and springs. It
designated two regions of the state—southeast
Wisconsin and Brown County—as Groundwater
Management Areas. These two areas have been dealing
with significant groundwater drawdowns; the so called
‘cone of depression’ below Waukesha County is now
over 450 feet deep. Excessive water use and rapid
development continue to contribute to these chronic
problems. These water quantity problems can and
do lead to water quality problems. For example,
communities from Brown County south through the
Fox Valley and into southeastern Wisconsin are
experiencing arsenic and/or radium levels in their
water well above federal standards, largely due to
declining groundwater levels.
Issues surfacing in eight Wisconsin hotspots and what we can do about them
Table of Contents:
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Wisconsin’s Groundwater Hotspots:
Southeast Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Green Bay and Brown County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Madison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Little Plover River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fox Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Lake Beulah and East Troy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
Richfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Places to Watch…Pierce, Polk and St. Croix Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Clean Wisconsin Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author: Will Hoyer
Editors: Shauna Cook and Joyce Harms
This report has been graciously funded by The Joyce Foundation and Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
Published April 2007, Clean Wisconsin, Inc. (608) 251-7020; [email protected].
You can find a copy of this report in the Publications section at www.CleanWisconsin.org.
Other areas of the
state are also facing
groundwater shortages
and controversies. Dane
County, the Little Plover
River, the Fox River valley,
Richfield and Lake Beulah all
demonstrate that groundwater
issues extend well beyond Brown
and Waukesha Counties, even though they have not
generated the same public attention.
With the passage of Wisconsin’s Groundwater
Protection Act, the release of Governor Doyle’s
Conserve Wisconsin agenda, the continuing work of the
Groundwater Advisory Committee and the signing
of the Great Lakes Compact in 2005 and ongoing
efforts to ratify it, there is a confluence of events
making this an extraordinary opportunity to improve
the management of all of Wisconsin’s waters. A
“Groundwater Protection Act II” filling in the gaps left
in Act 310 is needed for Wisconsin.
What are Exceptional
and Outstanding Resource
Waters?
Exceptional Resource Waters (ERW) and
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are
the classifications given by the State of
Wisconsin to the healthiest rivers in the
state, adding an extra level of protection
for these special waters. It is required that
the quality of water discharged into these
streams be at least as good as the water in
the stream; and while modifications along
shorelines are still allowed,
general or individual
permits are required prior
to work being done. There
are currently almost 7,000 miles of streams
and rivers classified as Exceptional or
Outstanding in Wisconsin. These river
segments are among the state’s best—
drawing families to go fishing, paddling
and swimming—and support northern
Wisconsin’s economy by drawing visitors
and increasing property values.
122 State Street, Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 251-7020 • Fax: (608) 251-1655
www.CleanWisconsin.org
© Clean Wisconsin 2007
Clipart.com
Cover photo credit: © iStock / Nick Schlax
Printed with vegetable based inks on recycled paper.
1
Groundwater Management Areas as created
by Act 310 are areas of the state where
groundwater pumping has caused
groundwater levels to decrease more than
150 feet since predevelopment. The 150
foot criteria was an arbitrarily chosen value
and includes only the urban areas of
northeast Wisconsin, including all of
Brown and parts of Outagamie and
Calumet counties, and all or parts of seven
southeastern Wisconsin counties including
Waukesha, Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha,
Walworth, Washington and Ozaukee.
The purpose of GMAs is to encourage
the development and implementation of
a coordinated management strategy
among state and local government units,
regional planning commissions and other
groundwater users. These strategies are
intended to address current problems and
to look forward and proactively address
issues before they become significant
problems.
Oregon State University Extension,
Groundwater Stewardship Website
Groundwater Management
Area (GMA)
Southeast Wisconsin is the center of groundwater
from shallow wells can
management controversies in Wisconsin and was
and does impact surface
designated a Groundwater Management Area (GMA) in
waters—springs, wetlands,
the Groundwater Protection Act. With a groundwater
rivers and lakes. Numerous
drawdown of over 450 feet in Waukesha County and
communities and citizen
water levels that continue to fall approximately 5 feet per
organizations have expressed
year, continued population growth, ever-expanding
their concerns that new wells
development and contaminated water that exceeds the
drilled into shallow aquifers will
Environmental Protection Agency’s limits for radium,
have significant impacts. Among
communities in the region have been left to seek new
these are:
ways to satisfy their desire for more water.
■ The Village of Mukwonago drilled a new well right
The cone of depression in the region occurs below a
next to Vernon Marsh State Wildlife Area, home to a
confining rock layer that limits recharge of the deep
very rare type of wetland in Wisconsin. Mukwonago
aquifer. In other words, the way rock is layered prevents
is also looking at other sites for another well.
rainwater and snow
■ Waukesha has also
melt from seeping into
proposed annexing land
the ground and
around the Vernon
replenishing the
Marsh in order to drill
aquifer. This confining
new shallow wells.
rock layer extends
■
The
Village of Delafield
from Lake Michigan
has proposed a new
west toward Jefferson
high capacity well that
County. Recharge of
Chenequa residents fear
this deep aquifer must
will harm springs that
come from the west,
feed Pine Lake and may
beyond the extent of
impact other area lakes
the confining layer, but A cone of depression over 450 feet deep has developed in
as well.
water that infiltrates in
this area as a result of overuse and reduced infiltration.
Jefferson County must
first support the ecological needs in Jefferson County as
well as the human uses. Since water from Southeast
Wisconsin’s deep aquifer is now tainted with high levels
of radium that exceed federal standards, communities
The Problem:
are turning to another option—the shallow aquifer that is
Rapidly developing suburban communities
above the confining layer and that supplies water to the
in the region are facing water quality
many lakes, streams and wetlands in the area.
and water supply problems. Attempts to
The shallow aquifer is easily accessible, inexpensive to
meet federal water quality standards by
pump (because it does not have to be pumped from as
finding cleaner sources have the potential
deep in the ground) and free of radium, but comes with
to impact the quantity of water, especially
its own costs. As is the case across the state, water taken
surface waters like the region’s many lakes,
rivers and wetlands. Minimal water
conservation strategies and comprehensive
planning that in many cases has failed
to take future water concerns into
account are contributing to the region’s
groundwater drawdown and its subsequent
Groundwater Management Area
designation. (For Clean Wisconsin’s
recommendations to help correct these
problems turn to page 12 of this report.)
Clean Wisconsin
© iStock / Niels Laan
Populations around the state are growing but
water supplies are not. New threats, such as
water-intensive corn ethanol plants are emerging.
Communities must be proactive in protecting and
conserving their water supplies now and for the
future—or else rivers will dry up, lakes will shrink,
water quality concerns will increase and more
communities will face the costs associated with
obtaining water from elsewhere.
What follows are eight brief descriptions of
problem areas across the state highlighting the
connections between Wisconsin’s waters: quality
and quantity, surface and ground, urban and rural.
All of the descriptions pose slightly different sets of
issues. Some, like Brown County and Green Bay
require regional management solutions. Others,
like the example of the Little Plover River, show that
groundwater overuse can cause dramatic surface water
impacts. Another, the Town of Richfield, shows an
example of a forward thinking town in Wisconsin that
was told by the Department of Natural Resources that its
attempts to plan for the future and protect its
groundwater supplies for the long term were against the
law. Another, St. Croix County and its neighbors, may
be a problem waiting to happen given the rapid growth
of the region.
What unites
them is the
fact they are all
examples of water
mismanagement
that, unless
addressed soon,
will only continue
to grow in scope
and impact
on more and
more Wisconsin
communities and
special waters.
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Southeast Wisconsin
This image depicts the groundwater to surface water
connection along with ways the water is recharged.
2
3
4
standards. Their
response was to build
their own pipeline that
will supply the suburban
communities of Allouez,
Bellevue, DePere, Howard,
Lawrence and Ledgeview with
Lake Michigan water purchased
from Manitowoc, on the Lake
Michigan shore. This $140 million pipeline will
run roughly 65 miles from Manitowoc to
the suburban communities. This
option was chosen over
connecting into Green Bay’s
water supply, which has
sufficient capacity to
supply the city and
suburbs, because of the
suburbs’ contention
that it is the cheaper
option of the two.
Sixty-five miles of pipeline
and over $100 million of
expense were the costs for six
Brown County communities to
secure water from the City of
Manitowoc, 30 miles away.
© iStock / Alexander Nimmo
The Problem:
Declining groundwater levels led to
regional water quality problems as arsenic
and radium contaminated the aquifer.
These water problems are exacerbated
when cities and their surrounding
communities fail to cooperate or work
together to solve their water supply
problems. These failures cost everyone
time, money and resources. (For Clean
Wisconsin’s recommendations to help
correct these problems turn to page 12 of
this report.)
While Southeastern Wisconsin and Brown County are
the only two major metropolitan areas in the state that
have been designated Groundwater Management Areas
(GMA) by the Groundwater Protection Act, Madison is
facing declining groundwater levels, increasing water
consumption, and water quality problems as well.
The groundwater drawdown underneath Madison has
been measured at approximately 60 feet with maximum
drawdowns located around Lake Monona. Sixty feet
would appear to be a much
smaller drawdown than in
the two GMAs but, because
there is no confining layer of
rock separating shallow and
deep aquifers, it is virtually
impossible to achieve the 150
foot drawdown required for
GMA designation. This means
that Madison’s problem may be
much more significant than the
60 foot drawdown would
indicate and in fact, it may be
the perfect example of why
the arbitrarily chosen 150 foot
figure is inadequate.
Historically the Yahara chain
of lakes surrounding Madison
has been substantially fed by
groundwater. Based on models
of past conditions groundwater
baseflow to the lakes has
declined significantly.
Groundwater inputs to Lake
Mendota have declined over
80% from 24 cubic feet per
second (CFS) to 4 CFS. Lake Monona used to receive
9 CFS of groundwater but it now loses 1.5 CFS, a decline
of 115%. Lakes Waubesa and Wingra have seen declines
of 37 and 64% respectively. While lake levels have not
been impacted by the groundwater drawdowns, springs
in the area have been. Springs along the south shore of
Mendota, Wingra in the UW-Arboretum and at various
points around Monona have dried up leaving the names
of places like Spring Harbor and Springhaven Springs as
reminders of what used to be.
A further issue in
Madison is the diversion
of all of the city’s treated
wastewater to Badfish
Creek south of town. This
diversion means that millions
of gallons a day bypass the
Madison hydrologic system;
groundwater is pumped from the
aquifer, used, treated and then
discharged outside the Yahara
Lakes system. This unnatural
pathway combined with the flow
of water from lake to aquifer has
led to a drop in the baseflow of
the Yahara River.
As in the Green Bay and
Southeast Wisconsin GMAs,
groundwater quality is becoming
a concern for the Madison area.
Concerns over manganese,
carbon tetrachloride and salt
concentrations in well water have
come to the forefront in recent
years. Unlike the two GMA areas
and other parts of eastern
Wisconsin these water quality
concerns have not yet been linked
directly to falling groundwater
levels.
© iStock / Kaleb Timberlake
Brown County, the second area designated a
Groundwater Management Area by the 2004
Groundwater Protection Act, faces groundwater
shortages that have forced the communities to seek other
water sources. Beginning in about the 1950s the
drawdown centered under Green Bay exceeded 300 feet
compared to pre-development levels. This led to water
quality concerns as the declining water levels
exposed oxygen to arsenic-containing rock
layers creating the potential for unsafe
levels of arsenic in the municipal
drinking water supply. As in
southeastern Wisconsin,
radium also contaminates
the deep aquifer in Brown
County.
Due to water quality
concerns, in 1957 the
City of Green Bay
switched from using
the aquifer to using
Lake Michigan water.
Because Lake
Michigan’s Green Bay
was so contaminated
from sewage and
industrial pollutants like
PCBs and too warm during
the summer months to serve as
a source of drinking water, the
city decided to build a pipeline east
to the Lake Michigan shoreline, north of
Kewaunee. After the City of Green Bay was no
longer using water from the aquifer only the relatively
small surrounding suburbs continued to use
groundwater for their water supply, and, by 1961 the
aquifer had already made a substantial recovery. As the
suburbs grew, however, this recovery was halted and
eventually reversed as water levels began to decline
again.
Groundwater in Brown County still has levels of
radium and arsenic that exceed federal limits. The
suburbs that continued to use groundwater were left to
seek alternatives for reducing radium levels in drinking
water to comply with new stricter federal safety
Madison
Clipart.com
Green Bay and
Brown County
The Problem:
Growth, development and over-pumping
of groundwater resources have created a
60 foot cone of depression, led to springs
drying up across the city and changed the
direction of groundwater flow within the
city. Now in many places in the city, lake
water is being pulled into the groundwater
rather than groundwater feeding Madison’s
Yahara lakes. Because the geology of the
area is different from that of southeast
Wisconsin and the Green Bay area,
drawdowns will never reach the arbitrary
150 foot level necessary for GMA designation.
(For Clean Wisconsin’s recommendations
to help correct these problems turn to page
12 of this report.)
5
Fox Valley
In August 2005 just southeast of Stevens Point,
two years. The Little
the Little Plover River, one of Wisconsin’s finest trout
Plover is not the only
streams, dried up. It happened again in the summer of
affected water body in
2006. Over a one mile stretch of river all that remained
the central Wisconsin.
was a dry, sandy and cracked stream bed, some rotting
Long Lake, in Waushara
fish and animal tracks. It is natural for rivers and streams
County, has seen dramatically
to decrease their levels in late summer, but a river going
diminishing water levels as well.
dry is a rare occurrence in Wisconsin. Not even during
Given the geology of the area
the severe two year drought of 1987-1988 did the Little
and the growth and development
Plover River dry up. If everything else remained the
that is occurring in Stevens Point, these stream
same in this part of Wisconsin some water should have
de-watering events have been predicted, but that does not
remained in the stream during the dry 2005 and 2006
mean they should be happening. A group of stakeholders
summers, just as it did
including researchers,
in 1977, 1987 and 1988.
municipal officials, farmers,
Things have changed,
industry representatives,
however.
conservation groups, and
What has changed is
DNR employees have been
that there are now more
meeting to search for local
big water users.
solutions to the problem.
Municipalities and the
Many people are hopeful that
agricultural industry are
this group will find success.
using more water than
ever in the area. It is
common now to drive
Interstate 39 and see a
fine mist of irrigation
water being sprayed into
the air over the fields.
The Little Plover River used to be a Class 1 trout stream.
This water comes from
This photo sadly depicts a repeating trend of it drying up.
the shallow aquifer in the
area that also serves as the
source for surface waters in the region like the Little
Plover River. University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point
researchers using USGS groundwater flow models have
shown that using predicted 2005 pumping rates,
The Problem:
municipal pumping-primarily by the Village of PloverWithout irrigation the central part of the
was likely to reduce the baseflow to the Little Plover by
state would likely be a relatively
40% while agricultural uses would decrease baseflow
unproductive because of its sandy soils,
by 10%. Unfortunately, the combination of hot and dry
but now it is one of the Wisconsin’s most
summers and the reduction in baseflow from pumping
productive agricultural areas. However,
has been enough to de-water the river each of the last
when heavy irrigation demands are
combined with increasingly high rates of
municipal pumping from the shallow
aquifer, then added to the geological and
hydrological conditions that make the
Little Plover River susceptible to water
loss, the end result is the de-watering of
one of Wisconsin’s Class 1 trout streams.
(For Clean Wisconsin’s recommendations
to help correct these problems turn to page
12 of this report.)
Known by some as “Arsenic Alley,” the Fox Valley,
A grade school in the
including the cities of Appleton, Neenah, Menasha,
Village of Rosendale south
Little Chute and smaller communities like Rosendale,
of Oshkosh began giving
faces declining groundwater supplies and concerns about
bottled water to students
arsenic and radium contamination in the water. As water
several years ago after the
levels fall in the aquifer, a thin layer of arsenic-containing
school’s well was found to
rock that occurs throughout the region becomes exposed
contain high levels of arsenic.
to oxygen. This exposure allows the arsenic to become
Now, after a new replacement well
soluble and contaminate drinking water. Consumption of
has been found to have unsafe
water contaminated with arsenic has been linked to
levels of arsenic the town is once again looking for
higher rates of various cancers, cardiovascular and
solutions, including treatment or drilling yet another,
pulmonary diseases and
deeper well or pumping
neurological disorders.
water from the high
Needless to say, declining
school to blend with the
R d m
water levels and recent
grade school’s water.
i –
changes to the EPA
An elementary school
rs
health standards for
in Neenah was found to
arsenic in water have
have elevated arsenic
sent more communities
levels. In response the
looking for other sources
school district supplied
of water.
bottled water to students
Residents of Fond
while a new well was
du Lac have been
drilled. The district is
debating how to achieve
continuing to monitor
compliance with federal
water quality from the
radium standards. In
new well every two
May 2006 the Fond du
weeks.
Lac City Council
A grade school in the Village of Rosendale south of Oshkosh
overturned a plan to
began giving bottled water to students several years ago after
pump water from Lake
the school’s well was found to contain high levels of arsenic.
Winnebago and blend
that lake water with well
water to meet federal standards. Instead the city will
adopt an ion exchange technology that will bring radium
levels down to safe levels.
6
A
a iu
The Problem:
Declining water levels have created
health risks as water quality deteriorates.
Communities are forced to search for
costly solutions to meet health standards
such as new technology or digging new
wells. Failure to ensure sustainable water
supplies in communities throughout
the basin have led to the water quality
concerns. (For Clean Wisconsin’s
recommendations to help correct these
problems turn to page 12 of this report.)
Clean Wisconsin
One look at the pier and canoe on dry land
shows Long Lake is drying up.
c
en
Clean Wisconsin
George Kraft
River Alliance of Wisconsin
Little Plover River
7
The Problem:
8
WIDNR
Despite all these concerns the Village is moving ahead
with plans to drill the high capacity well. The East Troy
Village Board passed a resolution in late April 2006 to
move forward with the necessary steps to complete the
well. They also resolved to monitor the groundwater and
surface water levels for ‘adverse impacts’ for the first 72
months of operations while slowly increasing the average
amount of water pumped. There was no mention of the
citizen group’s other concerns.
In late 2006 the LBMD created an ordinance requiring
that water pumped out of the lake basin be returned to
the basin, taking a page from the debates over the Great
Lakes Compact and prompting further scrutiny from
state and village lawyers. The LBMD believes this is a
necessary step to protect the ecology of the lake.
© iStock / Ryan Howe
Lake Beulah in Walworth County is one of the
flashpoints in the debate over the impacts of new high
capacity wells in Wisconsin. The Village of East Troy
proposed to drill a new well near the southern shore of
the lake in 2003. This new 300 foot deep well, expected
to have a pumping capacity of 250,000 gallons per day,
has not yet been drilled due to court challenges by the
Lake Beulah Protective and Improvement Association
(LBPIA) and the Lake Beulah Management District
(LBMD).
At issue is the potential impact of the well on the lake
and surrounding wetlands and the Department of
Natural Resources’ inability to consider all the potential
impacts of the well in deciding whether to issue a well
permit. Under DNR rules
the only reason that agency
may deny a permit for a high
capacity well is based on
whether it would impact a
municipal well or whether it
would be located within 1,200
feet of designated ERWs,
ORWs, trout streams or near
springs. Impacts to other
surface waters can not be
considered. East Troy
feels that this well would not
impact the waters of Lake
Beulah or any of the
connected wetlands and that
no other site is satisfactory.
The LBPIA and LBMD feel
otherwise.
These two groups brought
their concerns before two
courts—an administrative law
judge and the Walworth
County Circuit Court-both of which ruled in favor of the
Village, saying that the DNR did not have authority to
consider other impacts and that there was not enough
evidence that there would be significant impacts on the
lake.
The concerns that
the citizen groups have
about the well and East
Troy’s water plans
include:
■ Lake Beulah would be
impacted, not just because
of declining water levels but
by long term ecological
changes resulting from the groundwater withdrawals
such as temperature changes and aquatic species
compositional changes.
■ The hydrology of the wetlands around the lake would
be altered leading to a reduction in the value of the
ecological services provided by the wetlands.
■ Even if the new pump
were not pumped at full
capacity an enormous
amount of water would be
lost from the hydrologic
system as the Village
pumps the water out of
the Lake Beulah/
Mukwonago River
watershed and into the
Fox River watershed,
where the Village’s
wastewater is discharged.
■ The Village’s plan would
contribute to
unsustainable water uses
when the cheapest, most
sustainable solutions—
water conservation and
water reuse—have not
been fully explored.
■ The Village is rushing to
build the well when unbiased independent studies on
the potential impacts have not been done. The small
amount of testing the Village has done has been
inadequate.
■ The impacts on the lake would not be dispersed
evenly around the entire lake since groundwater
enters the lake primarily from the south, nearer the
proposed well location. This means parts of the lake
could experience more impact than others.
■ The Village only performed well tests at one site
rather than investigating multiple sites. On the basis
of this one test site they claim this is the best site for
the well.
© iStock
Lake Beulah and
East Troy
Wisconsin’s Administrative Rule NR 812
requires the DNR to issue permits for high
capacity wells unless it is shown that there
will be an impact on municipal wells. The
Groundwater Protection Act extends
consideration only to certain designated
high quality water resources. The DNR is
not allowed to consider environmental
impacts to other special waters in the state,
like Lake Beulah, wetlands or groundwater.
(For Clean Wisconsin’s recommendations
to help correct these problems turn to page
12 of this report.)
9
Richfield
10
commercial
development had to
demonstrate that the
well used would not lower
the level of the shallow
aquifer by more than one
foot at the property’s edge or
more than half a foot beneath
any perennial surface water body.
Richfield does not have a municipal water system.
This means that all residential and commercial
developments are supplied by private wells. Under state
law there is no authority to enforce a limit on the amount
of aquifer drawdown that wells can create unless they are
within 1,200 feet of high quality water resources. The
DNR believes that
the town
overstepped its
authority by setting
absolute drawdown
limits after
developments were
approved and that
the ordinance “goes
beyond the Town’s
authority to restrict
supply wells” but
admits that it can
do nothing to
protect the water
supply of the town.
Pierce, Polk and St. Croix Counties
in Western Wisconsin
These three counties that are rapidly becoming a part
of the Twin Cities metropolitan area are not facing any
significant water quality problems or water supply
shortages-yet. However, population growth rates in this
area are among the highest in the state and projections
forecast accelerated growth and development as
improved transportation routes increasingly link the
region with the Twin Cities. With an exclusive reliance
on groundwater for public and private drinking water,
this area is viewed by many as potentially problematic
groundwater ‘hotspot’ in coming years.
This tri-county region boasts a high concentration of
high quality
water resources
including
10 Class 1
trout streams,
and over
125 mapped
springs. It also
relies heavily
on karst
aquifers as its
groundwater
source. These
karst aquifers
are very
susceptible to
contamination, especially
from nitrates commonly
used in agricultural
fertilizers, because water
can flow freely through
sinkholes and fractures in the
bedrock rather than filter slowly
through thick layers of soil.
As this region continues to
grow as a part of the Twin Cities expanding metropolitan
area water issues are bound to arise. Studies are currently
underway to better understand the hydrology of the area.
This knowledge will help proactively protect the area,
but knowledge will not be enough. It will be critical that
the region
grows wisely
and as it does,
take into
consideration
water sources,
availability and
vulnerability.
© iStock
Richfield, a rapidly growing town of over 11,000
residents located in Washington County, has been told
that it has gone too far in attempting to proactively
protect its groundwater for the future. Richfield used the
information from a two year study of its groundwater
resources to help guide its comprehensive plans and to
write a town ordinance to protect its drinking water
supply. The plans and ordinance were developed with a
goal of protecting groundwater levels by maintaining the
long-term recharge of the aquifer. In April 2006 the town
was told by DNR lawyers that the ordinance goes too far
and is too restrictive on development.
By late August 2006 then-Attorney General Peg
Lautenschlager had written an opinion that contradicted
the DNR, saying the Richfield ordinance was well within
its regulatory
powers and it does
not conflict with
the DNR’s
authority to
regulate drinking
water supplies.
According to the
Attorney General’s
opinion, local
communities can
enact ordinances
affecting matters
of statewide
concern, such as
protecting
drinking water.
The town’s
study, led by
University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee researcher Doug Cherkauer and
funded by a state Groundwater Coordinating Council
research grant, involved examining the hydrogeology of
the area, creating a groundwater flow model, quantifying
the groundwater budget of the area and then making
recommendations to Richfield.
The Richfield town board—in light of the fact that the
Town has only one viable water source and is
experiencing rapid growth—wanted to ensure
sustainability for its residents. Richfield used the
scientific information acquired through the study,
incorporating it into their comprehensive Smart Growth
plan and crafting a town groundwater ordinance. This
ordinance stated that its goal was to minimize the
impacts on groundwater so as to “diminish the threats to
public health, safety, welfare and the natural resources of
the town.” Under the ordinance any new residential or
Places to Watch…
The Problem:
A town that puts time, energy and
resources into studying its water supply to
better understand where and how to
permit development, and then decides it
wants to create an ordinance limiting
groundwater drawdown in order to protect
its water supply, is told it can not set those
limits nor can the DNR protect the town’s
supply of water. (For Clean Wisconsin’s
recommendations to help correct these
problems turn to page 12 of this report.)
The Problem:
While water quality and quantity may not
be much of an issue now, the area’s rapid
growth means that in the future—perhaps
very soon—the vulnerabilities of the
region’s waters will become an issue. Now
is the time for the region to act. (For Clean
Wisconsin’s recommendations to help
correct these problems turn to page 12 of
this report.)
11
Recommendations
These eight groundwater hotspots clearly illustrate
several things.
■ First, Wisconsin’s waters are connected: groundwater
supply affects surface water quality and quantity, and
what happens to our groundwater happens to our
surface water.
■ Second, groundwater problems are not isolated to
Green Bay and Waukesha, despite those areas being
designated as the only two problem areas in the state.
In fact, areas across Wisconsin are facing similar
problems, and these problems are likely to become
only more common as cities continue to grow and
expand outward.
■ Third, solutions do exist for the water issues facing
Wisconsin communities. These solutions require
common sense, cooperation, smart planning and
political will.
Given the vital importance of groundwater to
residents, business and industry, as well as our rivers,
lakes and wetlands, combined with the threats that are
facing our waters, it is clear that much more needs to be
done to protect this vital resource. We must take the
necessary next steps to build upon the
Groundwater Protection Act. The state
of Wisconsin should:
■ Make clear the connections
between groundwater and
surface water and build this
reality into both its statutes
and administrative rules.
■ Expand the list of issues to
consider when permitting high
capacity wells to include impacts on
all surface waters.
■ Ensure that Smart Growth funding and
planning incorporate water resources and
supply and addresses potential future impacts
that growth and development will have on our
waters.
References
■ Take advantage of the momentum created by the
Great Lakes Compact and other initiatives that can
help implement strong water management and
conservation programs throughout the state.
■ Push the idea that water conservation by businesses,
government, and homeowners is by far the cheapest
and best way to reduce the impacts that result from
overuse.
■ Change the criteria for designating GMAs to
recognize that a 150 foot drawdown is not the only
indicator of serious groundwater problems. In fact,
by the time drawdowns have reached 150 feet, it may
be too late for remediation efforts to be effective.
■ Allow communities to change their water rate
structures to a model that encourages conservation
rather than consumption.
It is critical that Wisconsin communities work
together, identify all water users and critical groundwater
recharge areas, calculate current and future demands,
project future population growth and make use of all this
information to address current—and avoid future—
groundwater management problems. More importantly,
Wisconsin must learn lessons from past
mistakes which have led to the problems
across the state. While Wisconsin is
certainly a water-rich state,
portions of the state have become
or are becoming water-poor or
just have poor water. Overconsumption, inadequate
planning and a lack of awareness
have threatened waters across
the state. Wisconsin’s wonderful
waters—the water above ground
and the water that lies below us—
are a state treasure. Now is the
time for areas across the state to
look to the future and realize how
important, and how vulnerable, our
waters are.
Fond du Lac Reporter articles:
■ Tainted wells force students to drink bottled water at Rosendale schools. April 7, 2006.
■ City moves quickly to lessen penalties on radium plan. May 26, 2006.
■ Wisdom of radium decision won’t be known for a while. May 26, 2006.
■ FdL misses radium deadline. December 8, 2006.
Gaumnitz, L., T. Asplund and M. Matthews. 2004. A growing thirst for groundwater. Wisconsin Natural Resources,
June. Available online at http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2004/jun04/ground.htm.
Grannemann, N.G., R.J. Hunt, J.R. Nicholas, T.E. Reilly, and T.C. Winter. 2000. The importance of water in the Great
Lakes basin. USGS report 00-4008. Available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/WRI004008/contents.htm.
Lake Beulah Protective and Improvement Association website.
Available online at http://www.lakebeulah.org/home.html.
Lathrop, R., K. Bradbury, B. Halverson, K. Potter and D. Taylor. 2005. Responses to urbanization:
groundwater, stream flow and lake level responses in the Yahara Lakes basin. LakeLine
(North American Lake Management Society), Winter 2005. Available online at
http://www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/pdfs/miscpdf/Lathrop%20et%20al%20LakeLine%202006%20article.pdf.
Mechenich, D.J. and G.W. Kraft. 2006. Groundwater management tools and an evaluation of
Best Management Practice effectiveness for the Stevens Point-Whiting-Plover Wisconsin
Groundwater Recharge Area. Available online at
http://www.uwsp.edu/CNR/gndwater/Stevens%20Point-Whiting-Plover%20Groundwater%20Management.htm.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel articles:
■ Behm, Don. Study to test waters in Richfield. September 16, 2003. Available online at
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=170033
■ Behm, Don. Area aquifer projected to drop 125 feet by 2020. May 21, 2004. Available online at
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/may04/231239.asp
■ Behm, Don. Water ordinance oversteps, DNR says. April 12, 2006. Available online at
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=415321
■ Behm, Don. Town can protect its groundwater. August 30, 2006. Available online at
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489601
■ Egan, Dan. Water fight anything but neighborly. February 11, 2006. Available online at
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=401000
■ Enriquez, Darryl. All eyes on ruling over water rights. June 20, 2005. Available online at
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=335020
■ Enriquez, Darryl. Lake Beulah groups appeal decision. September 14, 2005. Available online at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050914/ai_n15363632
■ Enriquez, Darryl. Arsenic contaminates 5% of area wells. June 4, 2006. Available online at
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=431638
■ Sink, Lisa. Judge OKs well near Lake Beulah. June 29, 2005. Available online at
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=337279
■ Sheeley, Dave. Crowd urged to talk over new well. July 1, 2005. Available online at
© iStock / Kevin Green
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=337848
12
Town of Kaukauna. 2006. Central Brown County Water Authority case study. Available online at
http://www.townwater.org/cases/cbcwa.htm
University of Wisconsin Water Resources Institute. Groundwater Drawdown factsheet. Available online at
http://wri.wisc.edu/GroundwaterDrawdown.pdf.
13
Clean Wisconsin
Clean Wisconsin
Clean Wisconsin, an environmental advocacy organization, protects Wisconsin’s clean water and air and
advocates for clean energy by being an effective voice in the state legislature and by holding elected officials and
polluters accountable. Founded in 1970 as Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Clean Wisconsin exposes
corporate polluters, makes sure existing environmental laws are enforced, and educates citizens and businesses.
On behalf of its 10,000 members and its coalition partners, Clean Wisconsin protects the special places that make
Wisconsin such a wonderful place to live, work and play.
To become a Clean Wisconsin member, join online through our secure pages at www.CleanWisconsin.org.
Or call (608) 251-7020 for more information.
122 State Street, Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 251-7020 • Fax: (608) 251-1655
www.CleanWisconsin.org