4 ms·

Regardless of whether or not they're going to discharge heavy metals, they're planning on drawing up to 7 million gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan ou

Regardless of whether or not they're going to discharge heavy metals, they're planning on drawing up to 7 million gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan outside of its basin on what amounts to a technicality in the Great Lakes Compact. Also the factory itself is going to be so large and built on a flood plain that it could cause flooding just over the border in Illinois because rainwater won't have anywhere to go.

danso 8y ago
FWIW, the allowance of 7 million gallons/day from Lake Michigan is apparently a "0.07 percent increase in the total surface water withdrawals from Lake Michigan", according to the state's Dept. of Natural Resources: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/25/dnr-approves-diverting-lake-michigan-water-wisconsins-foxconn-plant/551542002/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/25/dnr-...
- strange_quark 8y ago
  Sure, but it violates the compact. The compact only allows use of the water inside the basin. What's going on here is the factory is going to use water from Racine (which is on the lake) and therefore allowed to draw the water even though the factory itself is outside the basin.
tptacek 8y ago
Lake Michigan is vast on a scale that is hard to get your head around. 7 million gallons a day is not outside the scope of what other commercial entities draw from the lake; for instance, the NIPSCO plant near the IN/MI border draws 12 million gallons a day. If you're going to claim that drawing an amount of water from the lake is a problem, you're going to have to support the argument with evidence; people seem pretty innumerate about the water supply here (see also: the Nestle debate in Michigan).
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  Or cite the compact? Even though IL has gutted big sections of it in court, id imagine a blatant water pull deserves an assumption of being covered?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I went and read the complaint letters from the WI (and MN) environmental groups, and the complaints broke down into two areas: 1. The diversion violates the interstate compact, which says that significant diversions are supposed to have some public or residential benefit. Foxconn's doesn't. It's not inherently problematic for the environment, but it sets a precedent they don't like. 2. Foxconn might pollute Lake Michigan. That second concern is of course valid, but has nothing to do with the amount of water Foxconn consumes. I found one complaint that claimed consumptive use of water (that is, unlike NIPSCO, water that is diverted from the lake and not fed immediately back) could cause long-term problems because Michigan only replenishes 1% of its water annually. But Foxconn's draw is something like 0.0000002%. If the lake was ringed with Foxconns from Gary to Mackinaw City, I'd see the problem. And: totally legit to be vigilant about precedent! But I don't see the intrinsic practical impact from Foxconn today (in terms of water usage). Worth noting: Foxconn came back and cut their water demand in half with a recycling plant. Not that I want to sound like I'm defending Foxconn, because I think this is a really bad deal for Wisconsin.
    - kasey_junk 8y ago
      Put me firmly in camp 1. It’s a significant diversion & it seems sketchy as hell. If we had 100 of them how would we feel? I think the answer is awful. That’s enough to justify the scale part of the appeal.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        If we had a hundred of them I'm still not clear that there would be a significant environmental impact purely from the draw. (From the factory footprints on the lakeside, sure!) We're agreed about the Foxconn project in general. I'm just crusading against Michigan water supply alarmism.

danso 8y ago

FWIW, the allowance of 7 million gallons/day from Lake Michigan is apparently a "0.07 percent increase in the total surface water withdrawals from Lake Michigan", according to the state's Dept. of Natural Resources: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/25/dnr-approves-diverting-lake-michigan-water-wisconsins-foxconn-plant/551542002/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/25/dnr-...

strange_quark 8y ago
Sure, but it violates the compact. The compact only allows use of the water inside the basin. What's going on here is the factory is going to use water from Racine (which is on the lake) and therefore allowed to draw the water even though the factory itself is outside the basin.

tptacek 8y ago

Lake Michigan is vast on a scale that is hard to get your head around. 7 million gallons a day is not outside the scope of what other commercial entities draw from the lake; for instance, the NIPSCO plant near the IN/MI border draws 12 million gallons a day. If you're going to claim that drawing an amount of water from the lake is a problem, you're going to have to support the argument with evidence; people seem pretty innumerate about the water supply here (see also: the Nestle debate in Michigan).

kasey_junk 8y ago
Or cite the compact? Even though IL has gutted big sections of it in court, id imagine a blatant water pull deserves an assumption of being covered?
- tptacek 8y ago
  I went and read the complaint letters from the WI (and MN) environmental groups, and the complaints broke down into two areas: 1. The diversion violates the interstate compact, which says that significant diversions are supposed to have some public or residential benefit. Foxconn's doesn't. It's not inherently problematic for the environment, but it sets a precedent they don't like. 2. Foxconn might pollute Lake Michigan. That second concern is of course valid, but has nothing to do with the amount of water Foxconn consumes. I found one complaint that claimed consumptive use of water (that is, unlike NIPSCO, water that is diverted from the lake and not fed immediately back) could cause long-term problems because Michigan only replenishes 1% of its water annually. But Foxconn's draw is something like 0.0000002%. If the lake was ringed with Foxconns from Gary to Mackinaw City, I'd see the problem. And: totally legit to be vigilant about precedent! But I don't see the intrinsic practical impact from Foxconn today (in terms of water usage). Worth noting: Foxconn came back and cut their water demand in half with a recycling plant. Not that I want to sound like I'm defending Foxconn, because I think this is a really bad deal for Wisconsin.
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    Put me firmly in camp 1. It’s a significant diversion & it seems sketchy as hell. If we had 100 of them how would we feel? I think the answer is awful. That’s enough to justify the scale part of the appeal.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      If we had a hundred of them I'm still not clear that there would be a significant environmental impact purely from the draw. (From the factory footprints on the lakeside, sure!) We're agreed about the Foxconn project in general. I'm just crusading against Michigan water supply alarmism.